law

A Touch of Remorse About Citizens United?

Parsing a recent admission from the high court Jun 16 2012

Wishful thinking: June 25: The Supreme Court showed it has no intention of modifying its Citizens United decision, today rejecting Montana's law by the usual 5-4 vote with the usual partisan split.

Almost half the states had laws restricting corporations from campaign spending when the Supreme Court handed down its Citizens United decision. It may be one of the most reviled rulings in Supreme Court history, but those states went along, abandoning their laws.

All but one — Montana. It has had its Corrupt Practices Act for a hundred years and isn’t about to discard it. The law came into being because corporations with mining interests were literally buying votes in the state back then. Montana’s attorney general has fought to preserve the law and his state’s supreme court has backed him.

But American Tradition Partnership, a well to the right outfit in Virginia (“Crush Gang Green and their Anti-Business Allies!” reads a banner on its website) doesn’t think much of Montana’s tradition. It asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the state court’s decision without even a hearing as being in direct conflict with the Citizens United ruling.

Montana claims a state needs such laws, at least for state and local elections, which are highly vulnerable to outside influences. One need only look a couple of states away at the brutal battle to recall Governor Scott Walker in retaliation principally for his eliminating virtually all collective bargaining rights by the state’s public employee unions. Walker’s campaign attracted sizable financial support from out of state. Kansas’ David Koch gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association, much of which went for ads supporting Walker. His Democratic opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, raised under $1 million. Walker’s campaign raised $25 million — 60% of it flowing in from out of state.

And that’s the concern in states like Montana. Local elections are for the likes of judges and sheriffs with little money in play. With their much deeper pockets, corporations from out of state — even other countries — could readily buy candidates who pledge to facilitate a favorable ruling or rescind an irritating regulation. The average campaign outlay for a Montana state senator runs to a mere $17,000. Much as ALEC (see related article) has inserted itself into state lawmaking throughout the country, uncontrolled out of state money can now obliterate a senate candidate who takes a position not to a corporation’s liking.

That concern has caused 22 states to reverse their acquiescence to the Supreme Court. They have come to agree with Montana’s push back and have filed amicus briefs against calling for moderation of Citizens United.

so what about remorse?

The court has complied with American Tradition Partnership ‘s request, granting a stay of the Montana law until it can perhaps consider it further. That probably will not happen until after the coming election, so no holds are barred in Montana this year. But the Court also had this to say:

“Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this Court’s decision in Citizens…make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations ‘do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption’”.

The Court was quoting from its own Citizens United opinion. Disputing the government’s argument that unlimited campaign spending could lead to corruption, the Court had said

“We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

Lambasted on all sides for its flabbergasting lack of foresight, the Court may be getting the message and having second thoughts.

One can only hope — else rebel.

Please subscribe if you haven't, or post a comment below about this article, or click here to go to our front page.