SCOTUS Blocks Montana’s Ban On Corporate Political Spending

Apparently, the Supreme Court is now in the business of forcing states to break their own laws as long as it benefits corporations and the politicians they control. On Wednesday, SCOTUS blocked a Montana court ruling that upheld the state’s century-old limit on corporate campaign spending. So much for state’s rights…

A little background: Eager to celebrate the Supreme Court’s baffling 2010 Citizens United ruling, Western Tradition Partnership, a clandestine corporation, a sportsman’s group, and a local businessman sued the state of Montana to overturn a law banning direct corporate spending on electoral campaigns. A lower court agreed with them, saying the Supreme Court’s ruling trumped the state law.

But the Montana Supreme Court said the state has a “compelling interest” to uphold its rationally tailored campaign-finance laws that include a combination of restrictions and disclosure requirements. Unfortunately, the Montana Supreme Court warned that SCOTUS was likely to disagree with them, and it appears they were right.

“The justices on Friday put the Montana ruling on hold while they consider an appeal from corporations seeking to be free of spending limits,” according to

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, and put a hold on the petition until American Tradition could present a more complete request for the court’s review.

In fact, this rejection could be one of the best development’s yet in the quest to abolish the disastrous Citizen’s United decision. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in a statement that accompanied the stay, ”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. 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.”

This means SCOTUS is eager for an excuse to re-examine and possibly reverse its mistake. Let’s keep the pressure on and let them 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]


Tracy S.
Tracy S.5 years ago

These big corporations already have WAY TOO MUCH hold over Washington, sending lobbyists with tons of money to spend on politicians, to get them to vote in a way that will benefit them and NOT US. Why else did they fight so hard to become "a person" and to be able to spend as much as they want without having to publicly reveal how much, or to whom the money went to??? They are sleazy, and they care nothing about us or this country. Only what they can get out of it for themselves. Washington AND the Supreme Court needs to remember WHO THEY ARE THERE FOR. IT IS NOT THE CORPORATIONS!!!!!!

New G.
W. C5 years ago

Thank you.

Bill Reese
Bill Reese5 years ago

I apologize for those two post being so long, but it is important that people realize just how crooked ACORN is and who is helping to fund them against the will of congress.

Thank God for men like Issa that are not afraid to take a little flack and stand up for you and I in making bring the illegal activities ALCORN to the surface.

For more on this read the rest at :

Bill Reese
Bill Reese5 years ago

that the ACORN network is restructuring and is re-emerging in an effort to help re-elect Barack Obama in 2012.

And as previously reported, Obama's new economic stimulus package, the so-called "jobs bill," contains as much as $15 billion for left-wing groups such as ACORN, Obama's former employer. Obama has been using his bully pulpit to demand that Republicans in Congress "pass this bill," even though there is no bill yet. Despite all the rhetoric, the proposed "American Jobs Act of 2011" apparently hasn't even been introduced in Congress.

But the plans call for a $15-billion stash to be earmarked for "Project Rebuild," which would subsidize states, local governments and what Obama’s proposal calls "qualified nonprofit organizations" to redevelop abandoned and foreclosed properties. ACORN has been in the real estate development business for decades and would apparently qualify for funding.

At Obama's Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD Secretary and longtime ACORN ally Shaun Donovan has been showering ACORN with federal tax dollars. The grants have gone to Affordable Housing Centers of America Inc. (AHCOA), which is the new name for ACORN Housing.

Rampaging ACORN activists routinely break in and illegally occupy property already owned by others -- and this activity is underwritten by taxpayers, according to Vadum's book.

Bill Reese
Bill Reese5 years ago

Steven you appear to be not well read on ACORN, I would suggest you read the following:

09/25/11 at 08:05 AM



The Obama administration has given ACORN spinoffs $729,849 so far this year and may hand out billions more in federal cash to these and other Saul Alinsky-inspired organizations, according to award-winning investigative journalist Matthew Vadum.

"Barack Obama is doing everything he can to enrich radical activist groups at the expense of the American people," said Vadum, author of the explosive new book Subversion, Inc.: How Obama's ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers.

Vadum is a senior editor at Capital Research Center, a think tank that studies left-wing advocacy groups and their funders. His book is the product of nearly three years of research and hundreds of interviews.

"These federal grant recipients are the same left-wing groups that will be going all-out next year in an effort to re-elect Obama," Vadum told WorldNetDaily. "They will be using American taxpayers' money to keep Obama in the White House."

Contrary to mainstream media reports, ACORN is very much alive, though it has changed its form. The shell corporation that ran the ACORN network filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy almost a year ago, but ACORN continues to operate.
As reported in Subversion Inc., ACORN officials openly acknowledge t

Edward Allan
Edward Allan5 years ago

Well, we can HOPE that the Supreme Court will reconsider Citizens United, but considering that in their dissent to Caperton v. Massey, the predecessor to Citizens United, the Corrupt Four wrote that there is no need for the chief justice of a state supreme court to recuse himself from hearing the appeal of a $50 million verdict because the $3 million payoff made by the defendant corporation was laundered through the judge's campaign committee.

Quanta Kiran
Quanta Kiran5 years ago


Chad A.
Chad Anderson5 years ago

Montana's court ruling was a long-shot, but the Montana experience is still important to overturning Citizens United... Prior to the law banning unlimited corporate spending in Montana elections, the state was notoriously corrupt and undemocratic until the ban was put in place. One of the premises of the Citizens United ruling was that it would not have a negative impact on the democractic process. The long-term example of Montana plus the quick distortion of our already weakened regular process by a contest among a few billionaire donors easily dispells the argument that Citizens United would not have a negative impact on democracy.

Lynn Squance
Lynn Squance5 years ago

Well, we can't say that this is unexpected given the SCOTUS bias for corporations with personhood. However the silver lining is that in countering the issue of states rights, SCOTUS has also opened up the issue of Citizens United to review. This may be the impetus needed to overturn Citizens United. I also think though that a constitutional amendment to remove personhood, or at least define personhood (excluding corporations), would be wise and should proceed, although at this point with so many Republican states, I don't see an amendment being approved yet.

I wonder if this is one of those "gotchas" that SCOTUS didn't know existed. Thank you Montana for your 100 year old law.

Lynn C.
Lynn C5 years ago

Why do we pretend to ourselves that we are a democracy and we have some say in our government?
It's not only in this particular instance - it's in every major decision about how this country is run. Pipeline? We'll have it, no matter what we do. No more war? The build-up to war in Iran is slowly being fed into the media. Stop rounding up and killing wild horses, and wolves? Hasn't happened yet. Don't cut our social services? We have to feed the oil companies subsidies, so the budget cuts gotta happen in education, health and - - - oh, never mind. You know the drill. We've heard it all. I begin to wonder why "they" even bother. It's going to happen the way they want anyway. BAH!