Montana Supreme Court Slaps Down Citizens United

[Synthaholic]

This is going to get interesting . . .



Montana Supreme Court restores 100-year-old state ban on corporate political money

HELENA, Mont. — The Montana Supreme Court restored the state’s century-old ban on direct spending by corporations on political candidates or committees in a ruling Friday that interest groups say bucks a high profile U.S. Supreme Court decision granting political speech rights to corporations.

The decision grants a big win to Attorney General Steve Bullock, who personally represented the state in defending its ban that came under fire after the “Citizens United” decision last year from the U.S. Supreme court.

“The Citizen’s United decision dealt with federal laws and elections — like those contests for president and congress,” said Bullock, who is now running for governor. “But the vast majority of elections are held at the state or local level and this is the first case I am aware of that examines state laws and elections.”

 

[occupied]

If it has no effect inside the beltway it is pissing in the wind.

 

[The Rabbi]

People in Montana denied the right of free speech. Hooray.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

14th Amendment is what defines "Person." This would't even survive the 9th Circuit. It flies directly against the text of the first part of the 14th Amendment. (Bolded for emphasis.)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

In effect, the law can not differentiate between different kinds of person and have different sets of political rights.

Of course, this was ignored totally from 1896-1955, but I can't see any court allowing any state to make differences between persons and restricting the rights of free speech based on what type of person you are.

And the Supreme court will have no patience with a court that tries to argue that restricting civil rights within a state is a matter of interest only in that state. The supreme court has been blowing raspberries at this concept of states rights for 65 years.

 

[Sallow]

People in Montana denied the right of free speech. Hooray.

Which people?

 

[occupied]

People in Montana denied the right of free speech. Hooray.

Which people?

Their sizable K street lobbyist population.

 

[merrill]

This is going to get interesting . . .



Montana Supreme Court restores 100-year-old state ban on corporate political money

HELENA, Mont. — The Montana Supreme Court restored the state’s century-old ban on direct spending by corporations on political candidates or committees in a ruling Friday that interest groups say bucks a high profile U.S. Supreme Court decision granting political speech rights to corporations.

The decision grants a big win to Attorney General Steve Bullock, who personally represented the state in defending its ban that came under fire after the “Citizens United” decision last year from the U.S. Supreme court.

“The Citizen’s United decision dealt with federal laws and elections — like those contests for president and congress,” said Bullock, who is now running for governor. “But the vast majority of elections are held at the state or local level and this is the first case I am aware of that examines state laws and elections.”

I like it a great deal....

Elected officials could over ride the supreme court with new legislation as well

 

[Oddball]

People in Montana denied the right of free speech. Hooray.

Which people?

Their sizable K street lobbyist population.

K Street is in DC, not Helena, dipschitt.

 

[Avatar4321]

Celebrating speech supression. that's a great idea guys!

 

[JoeB131]

People in Montana denied the right of free speech. Hooray.

Which people?

"Corporations are people, too, my friend"- Mitt Romney.

 

[JoeB131]

Celebrating speech supression. that's a great idea guys!

Transfer of property is not speech.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah, but 'Conservatives' are in favor of Federal Law if the Federal Law aids corperations and the very wealthy. Of course, any state law that would give the average citizen anything near equality is an anathema to 'Conservatives. So they prefer Federal Law to state law. So much for their 'states rights' stance.

 

[ABikerSailor]

As a person born in Montana, as well as a legal resident during my entire career in the Navy, I'm very glad this is happening.

Corporations are NOT people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

wouldnt this be in direct conflict of federal law? Where federal trumps state....

Correct.

Two members of the Montana Supreme Court dissented. Both justices Beth Baker and James Nelson said that a state can’t impose an outright ban against political spending under the Citizens United decision — even if the U.S. Supreme Court may have got its decision on the matter wrong.

“Citizens United is the law of the land, and this court is duty-bound to follow it,” Nelson wrote. “When this case is appealed to the Supreme Court, as I expect it will be, a summary reversal on the merits would not surprise me in the least.”

 

[Wiseacre]

So the left is fine with overriding state laws they don't like but not when they favor the change. Immigration, voter id, mandated healthcare, etc., yeah the federal law trumps that! But not this, hell no!

 

[Katzndogz]

It's a state. If they don't want corporate donations involved in local elections they can do that.

Then the corporations will go back to doing what they did before Ciizen's United. Make the donations in the names of individuals.

 

[Synthaholic]

wouldnt this be in direct conflict of federal law? Where federal trumps state....

Well, that's what I was taught.

Congress needs to fix this, not the individual states. I don't want this being a precedent for regressive states like Kansas to start ignoring Roe v. Wade.

 

[Synthaholic]

So the left is fine with overriding state laws they don't like but not when they favor the change. Immigration, voter id, mandated healthcare, etc., yeah the federal law trumps that! But not this, hell no!

Who said the Left was fine with this, Skippy?

 

[Trajan]

As a person born in Montana, as well as a legal resident during my entire career in the Navy, I'm very glad this is happening.

Corporations are NOT people.

are Unions?

 

[Trajan]

so the left is fine with overriding state laws they don't like but not when they favor the change. Immigration, voter id, mandated healthcare, etc., yeah the federal law trumps that! But not this, hell no!

+1