Montana Supreme Court Slaps Down Citizens United

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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!

This is rather muddled and unclear.

But it has nothing to do with ‘the left’ and whether they ‘like’ a law or not.

Preemption doctrine maintains that Federal law trumps state law. See: Gibbons v. Ogden Also, decisions by the Supreme Court become the law of the land, all lower courts, including state supreme courts, must follow that law. The Montana law is consequently invalid.

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

Supreme Court rulings trump state court rulings, just as Federal laws trump state.

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.)

Okay…well…

The First Amendment is a fundamental right, applied to the states via the 14th Amendment. States have no authority to preempt a fundamental right without a compelling governmental reason. The Supreme Court has already determined in Citizens United that concern over elections corruption is not a compelling reason to preempt the free speech rights of corporations, unions, or other like collective entities.

 

[jillian]

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.

newt really is the first casualty of the decision. i'm thinking he isn't so happy with clarence thomas right now.

 

[Political Junky]

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.

newt really is the first casualty of the decision. i'm thinking he isn't so happy with clarence thomas right now.

How fitting that Newt would be the victim of Citizens United.

 

[snjmom]

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?

Similar. They are property.

 

[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.

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.

It doesn't matter what it "concerns." It was overturned on the basis of the First Amendment. Your so-called "concerns" where just bullshit rationalizations for violating the First Amendment.

 

[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?

Similar. They are property.

People are property? Really? Ever read the 13th Amendment?

 

[daveman]

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.

Obama still flush with cash from financial sector despite frosty relations - The Washington Post

 

[daveman]

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?

Similar. They are property.

You know what corporations are?

Groups of people working for a common purpose.

But the left says they can't have a voice in politics.


You know what unions are?

Groups of people working for a common purpose.

But the left says their voice in politics is necessary.

 

[Dragon]

"Groups of people working for a common purpose" should not be considered persons. Each individual member of the group, yes. The group itself, no.

 

[Liability]

"Groups of people working for a common purpose" should not be considered persons. Each individual member of the group, yes. The group itself, no.

Why not?

 

[WillowTree]

so let's get this straight.. if the Supreme court rules in favor of Obamacare libetards will have no problem with each state individually striking down the decision of the Supreme Court? got it.??

 

[ABikerSailor]

"Groups of people working for a common purpose" should not be considered persons. Each individual member of the group, yes. The group itself, no.

Yep, because corportations actually get 2 votes........1 as the corporation, and another in the form of the CEO's going to the voting booth.

 

[Liability]

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.

amusing

Of course, dipshits like Plasmaballless find shiny pieces of foil "amusing" too.

 

[boilermaker55]

It would be interesting to see how this would vote out in the State among its residence, provided it went to a ballot.

 

[Liability]

amusing

Of course, dipshits like Plasmaballless find shiny pieces of foil "amusing" too.

So Cain was a piece of tinfoil?

there is a very simple State law does not trump Federal Law. While i agree with Montana's ruling, they did indeed step out of bounds here. Scotus already ruled on this, and most likely will rule the same way on appeal.

The same goes for the healthcare laws, and Immigration. The same would happen if the Federal Government got into the license game.

Thats the difference between you and i. I'm consistent. Well no i am wrong you are also consistent, you have picked two loosers for Presidents. Three is you back McCaon and palin in 08, which i assume you did.

YOU are amused by tinfoil, moron. Not me. And Mr. Cain was a good candidate. HE got slimed. Ass-suckers like you lap that shit up.

As to State Law not trumping Federal law, good for you. You finally got one thing right. You miss all manner of nuances, of course, since you are a tool. But on the face of it, at least, you finally said something accurate. Here. Have a doggie treat, dipshit.

Montana's highest Court is allowed to rule on matters of purely STATE law, but in this instance, they went further. Accordingly, it is easy to predict (as I did earlier) that the SCOTUS will reverse the Montana Supreme Court on this one.

And you are not consistent, either. you are all over the map in your stupidity. That's largely because you have no principles whatsoever.

I have not backed losers. I backed Fred Thompson. The best candidate that year, but a poor campaigner. I also liked Mr. Cain. He got slimed. That's all. He still had far more intelligent positions than any of the other candidates. Certainly superior to the numbskull in chief presently infesting the Oval Office.

Morons like you think that one has backed a "loser" if the preferred candidate doesn't win. But you are wrong. YOU -- and idiots like you -- backed the moron currently infesting the White House. He won the race, but he IS a loser (as are you).

 

[boilermaker55]

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.

Well of course they do. While liberals and progressives work to elect the president, neo-con's went on a rampage to elect stat officals so they can then change laws and gerry-mandering to have a strong hold on all elections. Think of the consequences and what has been happening in the states with majority ruled conservative congresses.
They are rewriting how to register to vote and the requirements and who it affects.
It will no longer be a candidate to best represent the citizenry of a state or the nation but those with influence through money, and we all know where all the money lays now.

 

[Liability]

So Cain was a piece of tinfoil?

there is a very simple State law does not trump Federal Law. While i agree with Montana's ruling, they did indeed step out of bounds here. Scotus already ruled on this, and most likely will rule the same way on appeal.

The same goes for the healthcare laws, and Immigration. The same would happen if the Federal Government got into the license game.

Thats the difference between you and i. I'm consistent. Well no i am wrong you are also consistent, you have picked two loosers for Presidents. Three is you back McCaon and palin in 08, which i assume you did.

YOU are amused by tinfoil, moron. Not me. And Mr. Cain was a good candidate. HE got slimed. Ass-suckers like you lap that shit up.

As to State Law not trumping Federal law, good for you. You finally got one thing right. You miss all manner of nuances, of course, since you are a tool. But on the face of it, at least, you finally said something accurate. Here. Have a doggie treat, dipshit.

Montana's highest Court is allowed to rule on matters of purely STATE law, but in this instance, they went further. Accordingly, it is easy to predict (as I did earlier) that the SCOTUS will reverse the Montana Supreme Court on this one.

And you are not consistent, either. you are all over the map in your stupidity. That's largely because you have no principles whatsoever.

I have not backed losers. I backed Fred Thompson. The best candidate that year, but a poor campaigner. I also liked Mr. Cain. He got slimed. That's all. He still had far more intelligent positions than any of the other candidates. Certainly superior to the numbskull in chief presently infesting the Oval Office.

Morons like you think that one has backed a "loser" if the preferred candidate doesn't win. But you are wrong. YOU -- and idiots like you -- backed the moron currently infesting the White House. He won the race, but he IS a loser (as are you).

lol.....i bet you argue with your ego in front of the mirror like this all the time.

Thanks for saying a lot of nothing. Lia " the picker of loosers" bility.

It would have been more concise (and honest) if you'd just have admitted that you got bitch slapped and that you have nothing to offer, ball less.

 

[Political Junky]

"Groups of people working for a common purpose" should not be considered persons. Each individual member of the group, yes. The group itself, no.

Why not?

Ask Newt. He supported Citizens United and it bit him in the ass.

 

[Liability]

"Groups of people working for a common purpose" should not be considered persons. Each individual member of the group, yes. The group itself, no.

Why not?

Ask Newt. He supported Citizens United and it bit him in the ass.

The result is not the issue.

The QUESTION is why should a group of people (let's call it a "corporation") NOT be treated, for the purposes of certain legal rights, as a person?

 

[Liability]

lol.....i bet you argue with your ego in front of the mirror like this all the time.

Thanks for saying a lot of nothing. Lia " the picker of loosers" bility.

It would have been more concise (and honest) if you'd just have admitted that you got bitch slapped and that you have nothing to offer, ball less.

ok buttercup

closer.

I accept your concession, dweeb.