START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
1,312,636 people care about Politics

Finally! Supreme Court Will Reconsider Citizens United

Finally! Supreme Court Will Reconsider Citizens United

In what could be the beginnings of a huge victory for the 99%, the U.S. Supreme Court today announced it would take a case that will give it a chance to reconsider its disastrous Citizens United v. FEC decision.

The case involves two corporations that say a Montana Supreme Court decision denied them the right to use undisclosed amounts of money as an expression of free speech-a right given to them by the 2010 Citizens United ruling. Early this year, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a 100 year-old law that bans corporate money in state politics.

The corporations responded by suing the state of Montana to overturn the law. A lower court agreed with them, saying Citizens United trumped the state law. But, as Care2 reported in February, “American Tradition, a conservative interest group dedicated to fighting ‘the radical environmentalist agenda,’ originally petitioned the court to reverse the Montana Supreme Court ruling without additional briefing or argument. Thankfully, SCOTUS did not comply, but merely put a hold on the petition until American Tradition could present a more complete request for the court’s review.”

The incident raises an important question for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider: “Whether Montana is bound by the holding of Citizens United, that a ban on corporate independent political expenditures is a violation of the First Amendment, when the ban applies to state, rather than federal, elections.”

Getting the Supreme Court to take a second look at Citizens United is the first step toward getting this infamous ruling off the books once and for all. For members of the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has targeted the ruling since its inception, and advocates of political transparency everywhere, it’s an action that’s long overdue. And it seem that there are some on the bench who would agree.

Judges Ginsburg and Breyer earlier wrote that the case “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.”

Let’s keep the pressure on and let SCOTUS know that we want corporate money out of politics for good!

Related Reading:

Vermont Introduces Resolution To Ban Corporate Personhood

LA City Council Agrees With OWS: Corporations Are Not People

The Story of Stuff Creators Explain Citizens United [Video]

Read more: , , , , ,

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

102 comments

+ add your own
3:07PM PDT on Apr 10, 2014

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.” Franklin D. Roosevelt

9:13PM PST on Mar 4, 2013

Thanks.

8:45PM PDT on Aug 8, 2012

Thank you for article.

8:45PM PDT on Aug 8, 2012

Thank you for article.

8:45PM PDT on Aug 8, 2012

Thank you for article.

8:44PM PDT on Aug 8, 2012

Thank you for article.

9:14AM PDT on Jun 17, 2012

A potted plant is more human than any corporation !!

9:14AM PDT on Jun 17, 2012

A potted plant is more human than any corporation !!

11:41AM PDT on Jun 3, 2012

The fact is that the members of the SCOTUS who voted for this idiotic bill clearly don't have the intelligence to be on the court. They had to have seen what the results would be. And then we had Roberts little hissy fit when the president called them out on it! How childish.

I think we're in for a long haul with this Supreme Court! They seem to have forgotten that their job is to interpret the law and not issue judgments based on their personal opinions!

6:52AM PDT on May 22, 2012

I've seen mentions of Citizens United as being a "clerical error". I don't buy that. If it is one, it may have been helped along through "donations".

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free
CONTACT THE EDITORS

Recent Comments from Causes

Since there's no gay gene located, I don't think it's genetic. But I don't think it's choice either.

I had never heard of 'Chik-fil-A' until they made news for their stand against gays (marriage, i think)…

meet our writers

Beth Buczynski Beth is a freelance writer and editor living in the Rocky Mountain West. So far, Beth has lived in... more
ads keep care2 free



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.