Montana Supreme Court Slaps Down Citizens United

[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!

Who said the Left was fine with this, Skippy?

Oh, I don't know, maybe it's because Eric Holder is filing lawsuits against several states over their laws on these issues. And you can stuff the Skippy crap.

 

[jillian]

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.”

great decision... but it may well be overturned... a state can't infringe on first amendment rights protected by the federal constitution. and since the idiot rightwingnuts on the court decided that corporations are people, i doubt the montana ban will stand.

 

[jillian]

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

i love high-fiving righrtwingnuts.

 

[Liability]

Since it was a State Law determination, it could not possibly be a slap down of The United States Supreme Court.

And, since the First Amendment is a Federal matter, it would seem pretty likely that the SCOTUS MIGHT yet slap down the Montana Supreme Court. (If money can equal speech under a Federal Constitutional First amendment Analysis, then it could be easily argued that the SCOTUS ruling IS the law of the land and Montana has no authority to "limit" free speech.)

But morons like SimplyAssholic don't get such things.

 

[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?

Oh, I don't know, maybe it's because Eric Holder is filing lawsuits against several states over their laws on these issues.

Links?

And you can stuff the Skippy crap.

Sure, when you stop generalizing like you are some wet behind the ears political hack.

 

[Wiseacre]

I'd have to agree with Liability, a state shouldn't be able to limit rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights as defined by the SCOTUS.

 

[bripat9643]

How idiotic.

The Supreme Court will overrule this decision. A state government has no more authority to restrict freedom of speech than the federal government does. If the Sc rules that corporate spending on political speech is protected, then the state government cannot ban it.

End of story.

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.”

 

[jillian]

I'd have to agree with Liability, a state shouldn't be able to limit rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights as defined by the SCOTUS.

it doesn't really matter if you agree or not... the law is states can't give lesser protections than the feds... even if the holding of the fed decision is imbecilic.

and i said the same thing.

 

[Synthaholic]

Since it was a State Law determination, it could not possibly be a slap down of The United States Supreme Court.

And, since the First Amendment is a Federal matter, it would seem pretty likely that the SCOTUS MIGHT yet slap down the Montana Supreme Court. (If money can equal speech under a Federal Constitutional First amendment Analysis, then it could be easily argued that the SCOTUS ruling IS the law of the land and Montana has no authority to "limit" free speech.)

But morons like SimplyAssholic don't get such things.

Lighten up, Francis. It was the headline of one of the articles I considered posting.

 

[Synthaholic]

Since it was a State Law determination, it could not possibly be a slap down of The United States Supreme Court.

Not what I said, Waddles - read the thread title again.

And, since the First Amendment is a Federal matter, it would seem pretty likely that the SCOTUS MIGHT yet slap down the Montana Supreme Court. (If money can equal speech under a Federal Constitutional First amendment Analysis, then it could be easily argued that the SCOTUS ruling IS the law of the land and Montana has no authority to "limit" free speech.)

But morons like SimplyAssholic don't get such things.

Lighten up, Francis - it was the title of one of the articles I considered posting.

 

[Wiseacre]

Who said the Left was fine with this, Skippy?

Oh, I don't know, maybe it's because Eric Holder is filing lawsuits against several states over their laws on these issues.

Links?

And you can stuff the Skippy crap.

Sure, when you stop generalizing like you are some wet behind the ears political hack.

Seriously? You don't know about pending lawsuits over the immigration laws in Arizona, Georgia, and other states? Or the big flp over Obamacare and the HC mandate? Or the AG challenges to the voter id laws in SC?

You wanna claim you don't generalize sometimes, SKIPPY? We can degenerate this discussion into some real namecalling if you want to. I was sorta hoping we could avoid that, but I don't appreciate your attempts to marginalize my posts.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

What are they? Typewriters? Pogo sticks?

 

[Synthaholic]

Oh, I don't know, maybe it's because Eric Holder is filing lawsuits against several states over their laws on these issues.

Links?

And you can stuff the Skippy crap.

Sure, when you stop generalizing like you are some wet behind the ears political hack.

Seriously? You don't know about pending lawsuits over the immigration laws in Arizona, Georgia, and other states? Or the big flp over Obamacare and the HC mandate? Or the AG challenges to the voter id laws in SC?

Those lawsuits are trying to keep states from going off in their own direction, saying that Fed trumps State.

Isn't that what you are arguing is correct? I am.

Or do you think Montana should be able to ignore SCOTUS decisions?

You wanna claim you don't generalize sometimes, SKIPPY? We can degenerate this discussion into some real namecalling if you want to. I was sorta hoping we could avoid that, but I don't appreciate your attempts to marginalize my posts.

Stop whining.

 

[DaGoose]

How idiotic.

The Supreme Court will overrule this decision. A state government has no more authority to restrict freedom of speech than the federal government does. If the Sc rules that corporate spending on political speech is protected, then the state government cannot ban it.

End of story.

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.”

You're probably right about that.

Then buying elections will continue. It will never go back to the most qualified candidate, only the one with the most money.

But that's what the neo-cons really want.

 

[The Rabbi]

How idiotic.

The Supreme Court will overrule this decision. A state government has no more authority to restrict freedom of speech than the federal government does. If the Sc rules that corporate spending on political speech is protected, then the state government cannot ban it.

End of story.

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.”

You're probably right about that.

Then buying elections will continue. It will never go back to the most qualified candidate, only the one with the most money.

But that's what the neo-cons really want.

Meg Whitman spent far more than Jerry Brown to get elected. And Brown is governor.
So I guess another cliche of the Left goes to its grave.

 

[DaGoose]

How idiotic.

The Supreme Court will overrule this decision. A state government has no more authority to restrict freedom of speech than the federal government does. If the Sc rules that corporate spending on political speech is protected, then the state government cannot ban it.

End of story.

You're probably right about that.

Then buying elections will continue. It will never go back to the most qualified candidate, only the one with the most money.

But that's what the neo-cons really want.

Meg Whitman spent far more than Jerry Brown to get elected. And Brown is governor.
So I guess another cliche of the Left goes to its grave.

Nope. Nice try though.

In 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day Nov. 5, the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning, according to a post-election analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The findings are based on candidates' spending through Oct. 15, as reported to the Federal Election Commission.

Continuing a trend seen election cycle after election cycle, the biggest spender was victorious in 397 of 426 decided House races and 30 of 32 settled Senate races. On Election Day 2006, top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. In 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to the biggest spender, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.

Money Wins Presidency and 9 of 10 Congressional Races in Priciest U.S. Election Ever - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets

 

[The Rabbi]

You're probably right about that.

Then buying elections will continue. It will never go back to the most qualified candidate, only the one with the most money.

But that's what the neo-cons really want.

Meg Whitman spent far more than Jerry Brown to get elected. And Brown is governor.
So I guess another cliche of the Left goes to its grave.

Nope. Nice try though.

In 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day Nov. 5, the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning, according to a post-election analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The findings are based on candidates' spending through Oct. 15, as reported to the Federal Election Commission.

Continuing a trend seen election cycle after election cycle, the biggest spender was victorious in 397 of 426 decided House races and 30 of 32 settled Senate races. On Election Day 2006, top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. In 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to the biggest spender, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.

Money Wins Presidency and 9 of 10 Congressional Races in Priciest U.S. Election Ever - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets

You would have to control for every other variable, like being the incumbent.
But that is beyond a simpleton like you.

 

[Synthaholic]

How idiotic.

The Supreme Court will overrule this decision. A state government has no more authority to restrict freedom of speech than the federal government does. If the Sc rules that corporate spending on political speech is protected, then the state government cannot ban it.

End of story.

Any controversy over this Montana decision has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with a State SC trying to usurp the power of the Federal SC (SCOTUS).

The SCOTUS decision does concern, but is not strictly limited to, free speech. It also concerns campaign finance, the 14th Amendment, questions of bought elections, corruption, and a general un-American unfairness, disenfranchising non-monied interests - like the majority of the American public.

 

[Synthaholic]

How idiotic.

The Supreme Court will overrule this decision. A state government has no more authority to restrict freedom of speech than the federal government does. If the Sc rules that corporate spending on political speech is protected, then the state government cannot ban it.

End of story.

You're probably right about that.

Then buying elections will continue. It will never go back to the most qualified candidate, only the one with the most money.

But that's what the neo-cons really want.

Meg Whitman spent far more than Jerry Brown to get elected. And Brown is governor.
So I guess another cliche of the Left goes to its grave.

That was pre-Citizens.

Ask Newtie what he thinks about the Citizen's United decision.

 

[Amelia]

You're probably right about that.

Then buying elections will continue. It will never go back to the most qualified candidate, only the one with the most money.

But that's what the neo-cons really want.

Meg Whitman spent far more than Jerry Brown to get elected. And Brown is governor.
So I guess another cliche of the Left goes to its grave.

That was pre-Citizens.

Ask Newtie what he thinks about the Citizen's United decision.

?????