Supreme Court reaffirms Citizens United, overturns Montana’s corporate political spending ban
The Supreme Court on Monday issued a summary judgment that Montana’s law prohibiting corporate political donations should be struck down. In a 5-4 unsigned judgment, the Court held that Montana’s arguments for banning political donations by corporate entities were already dealt with, and rejected, in the Court’s Citizens United decision.
From the Court’s decision (read in full here, PDF): “The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. 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.”
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent: “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.”
Here are some of the comments from groups around the reform community on the Court’s decision—
Bert Brandenburg of Network partner Justice at Stake:
“Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s decision ignores the damage that special interest money is inflicting on America’s state courts. The threat to fair and impartial elected courts in America is even clearer now than when Citizens United was issued. Deep-pocketed special interest groups are pouring money into judicial elections to push courts to decide cases in their favor. Common-sense election reforms are more necessary than ever, to protect our courts and other democratic institutions.”
Adam Skaggs of Network partner Brennan Center for Justice:
“The 2012 elections make one thing clear: unlimited spending by super PACs and secretive nonprofits is corrupting our political process and threatens to swamp our democracy. Increasing numbers of Americans believe our government is bought and paid for by special interests and that their votes don’t matter. By not taking this case, the Court missed a critical opportunity to rein in some of the worst excesses of Citizens United, and other rulings, that created this super PAC mess.”
Brian Imus of Network partner Illinois PIRG:
“We believe that in a democracy the size of your wallet should not determine the volume of your voice. Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock gave the Court an opportunity to affirm that vision, but today the Supreme Court, once again, rejected it.”
Bob Edgar of Common Cause:
“The Court’s arrogant move – refusing to even grant a hearing on a Montana law that has served the state well for a century – underscores the need for quick action on a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and allow sensible restrictions on political spending. The Court’s majority has once again chosen ideology over common sense and left American voters defenseless against the forced sale of our elections to big corporations and billionaires.”
From Sunlight Foundation:
The Supreme Court could have used the Montana case to clarify that current laws do not provide the “transparency [that] enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.” It could have revisited independent spending and recognized that that the $120 million in outside money that was spent in the 2010 elections, and the $140 million spent so far on the 2012 elections does in fact undermine our elections by giving rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption…It chose not to. Instead it used its decision in ATP v. Montana to perpetuate a system in which unlimited dark money will continue to shape our political process.
Read more:
SCOTUSblog: Opinion recap: Citizens United solidified
New York Times: Supreme Court Declines to Revisit Citizens United
Huffington Post: Supreme Court Reversed Anti-Citizens United Ruling from Montana
