Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Maybe the beginning of the end of Citizens United!!! Supreme Court Blocks Montana Campaign Finance Ban

Posted 6 years ago on Feb. 18, 2012, 7:55 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked the Montana Supreme Court's decision in December upholding the state's century-old ban on corporate political spending.

The ruling Friday evening sets up a possible full-blown U.S. Supreme Court rematch over the 2010 Citizens United decision

that allowed unlimited corporate campaign spending & superPACS. It came in response to an application submitted last week by American Tradition Partnership, a conservative interest group that says it fights "the radical environmentalist agenda," and two companies, seeking to have Montana's ban struck down. A five-member majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United declared that corporations' independent spending in elections does not corrupt -- or even appear to corrupt -- the political process. The Montana Supreme Court held that the state's history of corrupting corporate influence in politics, as well as the relative ease with which corporations may currently make expenditures through political action committees, distinguish the state's Corrupt Practices Act from the provisions of the federal McCain-Feingold Act that the U.S. high court struck down in Citizens United. American Tradition Partnership asked the court to treat its application the same as a petition asking to reverse the Montana Supreme Court without additional briefing or argument. The justices, however, stayed the case "pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition" for a merits determination. That means American Tradition now has to return to the court with a more complete request for the justices' review.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, welcomed the opportunity for the court to revisit, and potentially reverse, Citizens United.

"Montana's experience, and experience elsewhere since this court's decision" in Citizens United "make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations 'do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,'" Ginsburg wrote in a statement accompanying the stay order. "A petition for certiorari will give the court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates' allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway."
Justices Ginsburg and Breyer joined Justice John Paul Stevens's 90-page dissent in Citizens United. Justice Sonia Sotomayor did as well, but she and Justice Elena Kagan -- Stevens's successor -- did not join Ginsburg's statement.
American Tradition Partnership now has until the end of March to formally ask for the court's review. If it fails to do so, the Montana Supreme Court decision stands.
....................................................................................---from Huffington Post



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

We just keep on pushing. You know if it gets overturned why. The reason is us!

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

But the URGENT question is what can we do to get SCOTUS to take it on again?
and then get it reversed.

very ot - say a prayer for stephen colbert's mom

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

IMHO- I disagree

Is our goal to have marches?
Is our goal to stir the hearts of America?
Is our goal to have speeches?
Is our goal to "grow" OWS?
Our goal is to get money out of politics
and with polls showing over 80% of Americans already supporting it,
and 12 Constitutional Amendments already in congress,


we do not need to build the train - it is already steaming down the tracks!

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 6 years ago

I hear what you're saying and I sympathize with your point. And I wish that were true that the train was already steaming down the tracks. It may be a train but as far as I can tell it's not steaming. Believe me. I wish it were. But unfortunately to get the steam we need to a constitutional amendment, we're also going to need the good kind of tension Martin Luther King, Jr. discussed in his "Letter from the Birmingham Jail." King and his supporters got their legislation passed because they used strategic tension to pressure congress to act. How? By making a case to the good people of the world by provoking a reaction by the misguided ones while skillfully and cleverly making sure the press was right there to see it. We're going to need to do some of that :)

The speeches, marches, sit ins, blockades, civil disobedience, nonviolent resistance are, of course, not ends in themselves but tactics to bring the opposition to the table.

Again, I'm with you and would love to get to the point you suggest where everything is rolling and it just takes a vote. In order to get there, though, we need about 100 times more PR sending the message out and a hundred times as many supporters. The way we get the supporters, I think, is the one two punch of getting the info out there and then engaging in nonviolent direct action to provoke a reaction from the 1% that are trying to control the 99% in this republic. Sooner or later the 1% will be exposed for what they are and they'll hang their heads in shame. At the same time the 99% will realize they ARE the 99%. We'll begin to focus on what we have in common rather than playing into the hands of the 1% by paying attention to our relatively small difference.

Then we, the 99%, will be a position to make decisions from a position of unified strength rather than demands from a position of divided weakness.

I'm all for the political solution and saving this republic from the hijackers that are the corporatists who have inserted themselves between us and our government in this great nation. I just think we're going to have to raise a little nonviolent hell first --- in the form of massive peaceful protest with a targeted message and well planned action.

Relentlessly, we'll push against the shores of the institutions of power like waves from the ocean. Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come. We need more people, though, before we vote in my humble opinion.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 6 years ago

I'm so proud of my home state!

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

Good deal!!!

[-] 1 points by scipio (9) 6 years ago

Dems and liberals keep needing to bring up the Citizen's United issue and money in politics. Get the GOP to say on camera that unlimited money is free political speech and that corporations are people. I assure you that's gonna haunt Mitt through out the election.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

Good idea - but remember willard's "corporations are people"
the lemmings who like him or rick are too stupid to understand
the kochs own the tp

Because of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision,
we cannot accomplish anything significant,
without FIRST ending corporate personhood.
Because 83% of Americans already agree on it - we don’t have to explain or persuade people to accept our position – we only have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position. Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals.
Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal –
jobs, taxes, infrastructure, Medicare – much easier to achieve –
by disarming our greatest enemy – GREED.
I feel that using the tactics of the NRA, the AARP an the TP – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power to achieve their minority goals - plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - is a straight path for us to success

Join the our NYC
Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech Working Group
………….( even if you are not near NYC )

Plan details http://bit.ly/vK2pGI

regular meetings Wednesdays 6-8PM @ 60 Wall St – The Attrium

..███░░ ░███░..░███.░.█░░░█░░░░.████░.░███░░░

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 6 years ago

Does anyone really think that the Supreme Court will reverse course? LOL.

Just like the rest of government, they don't work for us.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 6 years ago

You're livin in the past man. Things like this http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/how-the-occupy-movement-can-grow-to-100-times-its-/ will totally change the dynamic.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 6 years ago

The power of accurate observation is referred to as cynicism by those who do not possess it.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

You can ban it, doesnt matter. As long as people are still voting for D and R (the states two choices) then it doesnt matter.

[-] 2 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 6 years ago

yep,why on earth people continue to support bad behavior is beyond me.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

D and R are the same?

These four men REQUIRE that you vote for Obama

John Roberts +
Antonin Scalia +
Clarence Thomas +
Samuel Alito

If you don’t believe them,
…….ask Newt Gingrich or John McCain about Citizens United
…….ask the family of any soldier killed in Iraq about bush v Gore


Are you afraid to
……tell me why supreme court appointments make no difference ?

If you cannot see the difference between the democrats and the Rs –
.……and believe that President Gore would invade Iraq, or NOT read his PDBs –
…………..………………………………………………..you are blind

If you want to do what Davis & Lee failed to do
……………..……………………………………….…….you are crazy

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

Clinton attacked plenty of people


Party makes no difference. Obama is just contunuing the war mongers agenda. And it should be no suprise at this point either.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

I did not mention war or Clinton
and Obama got out of Iraq
are you glad osama is dead along with so many other terrorists?
do I like Obama's position on Afganistan - NO!
do you have the courage to answer my question?
……tell me why supreme court appointments make no difference ?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

Because they are all bought out too. If you think they are immune, you need to go look at their decisions.

Everyone, regaredless of which side, helps big business.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

so you say scalia and thomas are no different from Kagan & Sotomayor?
and your evidence that Kagen & Sotomayor are bought out?