START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
2,066,584 people care about Politics

SCOTUS Kills Citizens United Challenge

SCOTUS Kills Citizens United Challenge

In a one page, per curium decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Montana’s century-old limits on corporate political spending because it conflicts with the court’s earlier decision in Citizens United. From the order:

There can be no serious doubt that it does. Montana’s arguments in support of the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case.

Those may come to be two of the most significant sentences issued by the Court this term.

The possible challenge to Citizens United failed to garner much media attention, likely because it was a request to have the court hear a challenge that was done without briefing or argument, and that makes the fact that the court also summarily reversed the Montana Supreme Court here troubling. That’s the point made in the dissent.

Dissenting, Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan adopted the dissent of Justice Stevens in the Citizens United case and explained further the problematic divide on the court when it comes to the problem of money in politics. The dissent, in its entirety:

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court concluded that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”  I disagree with the Court’s holding for the reasons expressed in Justice Stevens’ dissent in that case. As Justice Stevens explained, “technically independent expenditures can be corrupting in much the same way as direct contributions.” Indeed, Justice Stevens recounted a “substantial body of evidence” suggesting that “[m]any corporate independent expenditures . . . had become essentially interchangeable with direct contributions in their capacity to generate quid pro quo arrangements.”

Moreover, even if I were to accept Citizens United, this Court’s legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Supreme Court’s finding, made on the record before it, that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana. Given the history and political landscape in Montana, that court concluded that the State had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations.

Thus, Montana’s experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court’s decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so.

Were the matter up to me, I would vote to grant the petition for certiorari in order to reconsider Citizens United or, at least, its application in this case. But given the Court’s per curiam disposition, I do not see a significant possibility of reconsideration. Consequently, I vote instead to deny the petition.

The immediate impact of this decision cannot be overstated. There was at least an arguable case to make that the holding of Citizens United did not extend to the state and local elections. It is nearly impossible to make that argument now. So that means we can expect a flood of corporate dollars into all state and local races and a similar flood of legal challenges to state laws banning or curbing such donations.

Big money in politics is here to stay.


Read more: , , , ,

Photo from 401K 2012 via flickr.

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it


+ add your own
7:58AM PST on Dec 6, 2013

Two secret new global pacts -- the TPP and TTIP -- could massively increase the power of corporations to sue our governments
Check this:

4:05PM PDT on Jun 27, 2012

This tea party Republican wing of the Supreme Court is wrong again. This shows their pure partisanship. Their best friends are the large corporations and other wealthy people. They don't know that the middle class and the poor exist.

4:13PM PDT on Jun 26, 2012

How does it feel to know the highest court in the land can commit treason and there is NO one we can turn to that will prosecute???

Treason: 1. Betrayal of country.. A violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy.

2. Treachery.. Betrayal or disloyalty

3:17PM PDT on Jun 26, 2012

I think it's time we "killed" the SCOTUS! They're not doing what they're supposed to be doing. They've become much too political. Is that what was meant when they were established? I think not.

1:14PM PDT on Jun 26, 2012

Any bet a forensic audit of each of the "justices" (and I use that term with much snark), have a vested interest & payoffs from corporations to keep this stupid crap in place?

11:38AM PDT on Jun 26, 2012

It is said that Pres Obama and the Democrats are dividing this country...come on !
From ordinary laws up to the Supreme Court the Republicans are making us the country of Rich and Poor.
Where has the ability to stop monopolies gone? More and more the very rich own this land.
The present Supreme Court could care less what the people of this country think or want.

10:45AM PDT on Jun 26, 2012

Oh dear - not good news for Obama....

I have already had an email from the spender-in-chief this morning, asking me for money, because he's worried that he's going to be outspent.

He says it will be the first time ever that an incumbent president will be outspent!

What's up chief - the private sector not doing so fine after all?

9:25AM PDT on Jun 26, 2012

There is nothing Supreme about this court it carries a name but does nothing to represent the American people through the guiding principles of the Constitution. They may understand law but they cannot understand the basic philosophy behind the Constitution and they lack an understanding of basic humanity. Those who voted for "Citizens United" (I believe they are united to destroy the US) have no understanding of the basic ideas of a corporation. A corporation is an artificial entity that is given certain rights. It may have an identity but it is not alive. It's life is wholly artificial.
They possibly struck down Montana because they did not like the state that killed off their operating precedent.

8:46AM PDT on Jun 26, 2012

Money is the appropriate picture for this article!

8:28AM PDT on Jun 26, 2012

Since money is free speech, make it speak on our behalf. The idea is not mine, but I am using it daily: take a pen, or permanent marker (sharpie?) and WRITE on every banknote you can get your hands on. I write: "this banknote is not to be used to bribe politicians", "supreme justice can be purchased for a price", and "buy democracy". Come up with different ones, and make your money shout.

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

Recent Comments from Causes

Thank you for adding the video for us to watch. I hope the baby elephants grow up safely. We can all…

The first amendment says that citizens are free to exercise their religion without the interference of…

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.

site feedback


Problem on this page? Briefly let us know what isn't working for you and we'll try to make it right!