Not only was Citizens United reaffirmed, it was also incorporated into state elections. Be prepared to have both state and national elections bought and sold to the highest bidder.
This decision is far more important than the Arizona ruling, yet it was barely mentioned.  Bye Bye Miss American Pie. Bye Bye Miss America.

18 Thoughts to “Supreme Court ruling on Montana reaffirms Citizens United”

  1. Blue

    Or.. the level playing field has now been restablished. Elections have been bought and paid for by the unions and their monied supporters for years. Think Mikulski, Biden, Warner. The argument that corporations behave now as they did in the 1890s while ignoring the use of those same tactics by the much more refined or modern unions is silly. Now, those forces that represent investment, ownership and responsibility and yes pension accountability, dividend retirement and jobs have a chance to participate on an equal basis.

  2. Blue, do you really believe the BS you sling? I sure hope not. I actually got a good laugh out of that woe is me post.

    Montana had its own campaign rules for state elections. It didn’t cost a great deal to run for office there. They are known for their clean elections. Now they are forced by the federal government to accept all sorts of outside money and even money from foreign countries. It will pollute their election process in their own state.

    I would have never had you figured for a big government supporter. I pretty much feel that unions and corporate America need to stay out of elections. Silly me.

    As for Warner, he could get his money from Republicans if he needed to.

  3. marinm

    I think Moe actually had a good comment on this – on another thread.

    By striking down Montana’s law it WAS a victory for the 1A but it did put a dent into the States Rights doctrine that many conservatives have.

    I think the SCOTUS decided correctly because the 1A should trump everything but at the same time you don’t see me jumping for joy. 😉

    1. marin, that is only if you accept that money is a person. I don’t.

      Furthermore, this case targeted state elections. See, there really aren’t any states rights. Told ya so. And I am sorry to have to say that.

      I don’t want my elections bought and sold by corporations, unions or foreigners. It should not cost that much to get elected in this country.

      Money corrupts.

  4. You are absolutely right. There are only powers.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    So, the 1st Amendment does trump. Only citizens have rights.

  5. Morris Davis

    Marin – Odd that 1A protects $1B in out-of-state funds for attack ads to manipulate an election in violation of state law, but 1A does not protect me writing an op-ed for free in accordance with a written reg that said I was encouraged to write on my own time and based on my earlier military experience, which I did. Guess I should have formed a PAC.

    Different thread on AZ. Scalia got grief for citing old state laws intended to control movement of free African-Americans. I was interested to see him say the right of the sovereign to regulate immigration does not require a constitutional basis because it is customary international law. Think about that…Scalia is saying customary international law is so authoritative it doesn’t need to be included in the Constitution. Strong statement on international law by a man I thought loathed international anything.

    1. I am way too hung up on what you said about 1A and how it pertains to you personally.

      I cannot express how opposed I am to Citizens United. I am not a lawyer but something about it is just intuitively wrong.

      Can it be legislated away, despite supremes ruling on it?

      Which supremes voted in favor of the original Citizens United?

  6. Morris Davis

    Citizens United was a 5-4 decision split along party lines. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for the Repub appointees saying Congress can’t regulate free speech (thus the issues of money = speech and corporations = people). There were concurring opinions by his colleagues, including one by Roberts on stare decisis because he felt he needed to try and rationalize overturning the precedent established in the Court’s Austin v. Michigan decision 20 years earlier that states could have legitimate reasons to limit certain types of speech in the form of campaign cash and the state legislature was best able to decide. Often when a court disregards a legislative action and prior judicial precedence it’s called “judicial activism” by “activist judges” with a political agenda. The dissenting opinion was by Stevens and discussed the points I just mentioned.

    1. I think that Citizens United is probably the worst thing that has happened to the country in my lifetime. The justices should have listened to the old adages about money, especially about money being the root of all evil.

      I think CU will destroy the country.

      Thanks for your opinion. I like it a lot better than Scalia’s.

  7. marinm

    Mo, Sgt. Gary Stein ran into sort of the same situation – he was dismissed for voicing his 1A views. My understanding – and I do agree with this – is that there is a legitmate reason for the government to limit the 1A rights of its employees and the military.

    As a funny excercise type in “should arizona” into google and look at the first google suggestion. This country is awesome!

  8. marinm

    A long but interesting take on CU and the Democratic Party.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77878.html

    “*Most important of all, lots of Democrats simply do not support populism, on either ideological or stylistic grounds. Many upscale Democrats believe that Washington needs less combat, not more, and populist messages strike them as irrelevant at best, demagogic at worst. Even some working-class voters have their assets in the stock market, because of their 401(k)s and IRAs, making even the most traditional of Democrats believe their interests are more in line with Wall Street than opposed.”

  9. Censored bybvbl

    “As a friend of mine from texas says, he will believe corporations are people when Texas executes one,” Moyers said.

    You can count on Bill Moyers to add a bit of sanity and humor.

  10. Did you see him last Friday?
    Rachel was on there.

  11. Morris Davis

    @marinm

    I agree that if the government has some legitimate justification then reasonable restrictions (that are made known so people are on notice of what is prohibited) on speech by government personnel may be permissible. The military is an example and we had published rules (the Air Force, for instance, had Air Force Instr. 51-902) and UCMJ provisions that made contemptuous and disrespectful language punishable. So you can’t really say it was arbitrary to take action against a military member (who clearly identified himself and his military status) who published “screw” the Commander in Chief and put his face on a Jackass poster, among other things.

    The Library of Congress, on the other hand, has a regulation (LOC Reg. 2023-3, para. 3.A.) that states: “Staff members are encouraged to engage in teaching, lecturing, or writing that is not prohibited by law.” I didn’t disclose classified information, use government time or resources to do my op-eds, or publish anything indecent, so there is nothing I did that is prohibited by law. Some people may not have liked what I had to say, but personal disagreement with the content does not make it speech that is “prohibited by law.” If the government doesn’t want someone to do something they can’t have a rule that says they are encouraged to do it.

  12. @marinm

    On March 1, Stein wrote on a closed forum for active-duty meteorologists and oceanographers that he would say “Screw Obama” and not follow all orders from him.

    “Obama is the economic enemy,” he wrote in the post. “He is the religious enemy … He is the ‘fundamentally change’ America enemy … He IS the Domestic Enemy.”

    And then he double downed. That’s a bit more than exercising free speech when you’re a Marine.

    I, and some fellow sailors were properly reprimanded when we made jokes about Clinton when he was the CINC.

    Service members are, according to Directive 1344 of the Department of Defense, allowed to express personal opinions on political candidates, but not as representatives of the Armed Forces.

    He made the mistake of linking his identity as a Marine to his statements.

    If you don’t like the CINC, get out of the military. That’s what I did….then I changed my mind and went back into the reserves.

  13. Morris Davis

    @Cargosquid

    Cargo has got it right on this one.

    On a related note, the Supreme Court held the Stolen Valor Act violates the First Amendment right of free speech. Here’s the opinion:
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf

  14. Can those using “stolen valor” for personal gain be charged with fraud?

    I hope so.

    Or can we just beat the everlovin’ crap out of them, instead?

    1. Both. And throw in those who falsify resumes. I know some bastard who did that. MBA from Wharton School of Business. He had never attended college. that can catch up with you real fast. The boy set his goals a little too high.

Comments are closed.