Montana has it 100% correct

[funjumper101 15]

The RWCs supposedly believe in "States Rights" and local rule by local government. In this case the State of Montana has totally gotten the issue correct and voted to keep in place laws against corporate corruption of the political process. The SCOTUS will probably over rule this one, as the majority is corporate owned and led. Montana has it 100% correct and SCOTUS is totally worng.

Begin quoted text>>>

Montana Supreme Court Hands Down Western Tradition Partnership
Today, the Montana Supreme Court handed down Western Tradition Partnership v. Attorney General, 2011 MT 328. Get the 80-page opinion (including dissents) here.

Question Presented: Does the portion of Montana’s Corrupt Practices Act which prohibits a corporation from making “a contribution or an expenditure in connection with a candidate” survive the United States Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010)?

Answer: Yes. The Court upheld the State’s ban on corporate expenditures, reasoning that Montana had a compelling interest to have the law in force.

Chief Justice McGrath wrote the majority opinion which Justices Rice, Cotter, Wheat and Morris joined. Justices Nelson and Baker dissented.

Majority Opinion

The Court began with history and noted that Montana had a compelling interest in preventing corporate corruption in state politics when it passed the original act in 1912. ”Those tumultuous years were marked by rough contests for political and economic domination primarily in the mining center of Butte” Chief Justice Mike McGrath wrote about the famed Copper Kings, “between mining and industrial enterprises controlled by foreign trusts or corporation.” The Court then reasoned that Montana, with its history of small money campaigns, would be particularly affected by the entrance of corporate dollars which would overpower donations made by individual Montanans.

With these compelling interests in mind, the Court framed the dispositive questions as “when in the last 99 years did Montana lose the power or interest sufficient to support the statute, if it ever did.” The Court concluded that the State still retained its interest:

Issues of corporate influence, sparse population, dependence upon agriculture and extractive resource development, location as a transportation corridor, and low campaign costs make Montana especially vulnerable to continued efforts of corporate control to the detriment of democracy and the republican form of government.
The Court ruled that Montana had a compelling interest to prohibit corporate expenditures. Justices Rice, Morris, Cotter, and Wheat joined the majority.

Justices Baker and Nelson Dissented

Justice Baker began by stating that she believed that Citizen United foreclosed Montana’s law as unconstitutional. ”In my view,” she wrote, “the State of Montana made no more compelling a case than the painstakingly presented 90-page dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens and emphatically rejected by the majority in Citizens United.” Justice Baker went on to say that instead of a “vain attempt” to save Montana’s law, she would interpret the law to make corporate expenditures more transparent by allowing Montana to require heightened disclosure requirements.

Justice Nelson dissented, writing that the Citizens United was the “law of the land” which the Montana Supreme Court was bound to abide by. Justice Nelson made clear, however, that he did not personally agree with the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Citizens United. ”Admittedly,” Justice Nelson wrote, “I have never had to write a more frustrating dissent.” Justice Nelson wrote:

Has the State of Montana identified a compelling state interest, not already rejected by the Supreme Court, that would justify the outright ban on corporate expenditures for political speech effected by § 13-35-227(1), MCA? Having considered the matter, I believe the Montana Attorney General has identified some very compelling reasons for limiting corporate expenditures in Montana’s political process. The problem, however, is that regardless of how persuasive I may think the Attorney General’s justifications are, the Supreme Court has already rebuffed each and every one of them. Accordingly, as much as I would like to rule in favor of the State, I cannot in good faith do so.
Justice Nelson concluded by stating that he would not be surprised if the United States Supreme Court reversed the ruling summarily on appeal.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Montana has it 100% correct and SCOTUS is totally wrong.

Far out! I had no idea that you were the arbiter of right and correct, correct and incorrect, truth and falsity.

Quote

The RWCs supposedly believe in "States Rights" and local rule by local government.

In a sense, yes. But I had no idea that the Secular Left believes that rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution can be ignored by the states and that the 14th Amendment has no meaning. So I take it you’d have no problem with states saying, “Brown v. Board of Education was wrong. And since we believe in state’s rights then we’ll just segregate schools.” It is EXACTLY your argument.

Quote

The Court began with history and noted that Montana had a compelling interest in preventing corporate corruption in state politics when it passed the original act in 1912.

I never thought I’d see the day when a liberal goes back to the days of the Old West as justification for policies.

Quote

”Those tumultuous years were marked by rough contests for political and economic domination primarily in the mining center of Butte” Chief Justice Mike McGrath wrote about the famed Copper Kings, “between mining and industrial enterprises controlled by foreign trusts African Americans or corporations Chinese.” The Court then reasoned that Montana, with its history of small money campaigns, would be particularly affected by the entrance of corporate African American dollars which would overpower donations made by individual Montanans.

Change “corporation” to “African American” and there’s the impact. It’s the same exact idea only applied to a different subject. Hence, you don’t have a problem with bigotry, so long as prejudice is against what you believe is right. Which makes sense, as you are the arbiter of right and wrong…

Quote

The Court ruled that Montana had a compelling interest to prohibit corporate expenditures.

All states have compelling interests to shut people up, don’t they? Take a look at the Patriot Act, with it’s compelling interest of the lives of the citizens. How about the Sedition Act? The Alien & Sedition Act? Compelling interests, especially in time of war, to imprison all dissent. There’s a compelling interest for denying habeus corpus to “terrorists.”

Turns out that “compelling interest” is only one part of three that needs to be shown when dealing with a right like speech. Part 2 – is the law narrowly tailored to accomplish that compelling interest? Part 3 – is it the least restrictive means of achieving that interest?

Quote

Justice Nelson dissented, writing that the Citizens United was the “law of the land” which the Montana Supreme Court was bound to abide by. Justice Nelson made clear, however, that he did not personally agree with the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Citizens United. ”Admittedly,” Justice Nelson wrote, “I have never had to write a more frustrating dissent.”


“as much as I would like to rule in favor of the State, I cannot in good faith do so”

Now, if only funjumper had the moral courage of Justice Nelson, who disagreed profoundly with the Citizens United court but understood that being the supreme arbiter is not in the job description in this case – there’s a group of them that are in front of him. Then again, perhaps Justice Nelson will be criticized for bringing “faith” into it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

Putting it in the strictest of legally technical terms, Citizens United sucked ass. We're already seeing the sucky effects. So much so, that some on the SCOTUS are hinting that it deserves another look-see.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Putting it in the strictest of legally technical terms, Citizens United sucked ass. We're already seeing the sucky effects. So much so, that some on the SCOTUS are hinting that it deserves another look-see.

I, for one, would not mind this being changed IF, and only IF, the unions are restricted in the same manner

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

We're already seeing the sucky effects

Yep. Much like we see sucky effects of the Fourth Amendment. Much like we see the sucky effects of free speech in Oakland and Sacramento. We don't like riots so let's ban free speech.

I ask you, Andy, to replace "corporations" with "African Americans" in the thinking. Yes, corporations are unpopular. They aren't liked. And that's good enough reason to shut them down. They are unpopular and therefore they should not be allowed any voice.

They are taxed, too. Corporations pay a lot of money in taxes. They even collect taxes for the government. But they don't have a vote. They do have a voice.

When we're in the business of shutting down voices I find that to be deeply troubling. For Chrissake, they can't even VOTE! They can lobby, though. And the tens of millions of people who are the owners of corporations probably have something to say about it, eh?

But the corporations spend all this money. Yeah, and the politicians just keep taking it. Here's something - limit the money a politician can take. No, can't do that, can we? The politicians are honest people being corrupted by corporate money.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Putting it in the strictest of legally technical terms, Citizens United sucked ass. We're already seeing the sucky effects. So much so, that some on the SCOTUS are hinting that it deserves another look-see.

I, for one, would not mind this being changed IF, and only IF, the unions are restricted in the same manner

I agree with this. People are people. Grouping up with a union or corporation doesn't make someone into two people deserving of two voices. We should let our numbers be our volume control, and that's it. There's no justification for allowing an organization to artificially amplify the voices of its members.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

There's no justification for allowing an organization to artificially amplify the voices of its members

What are your thoughts on political parties?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

There's no justification for allowing an organization to artificially amplify the voices of its members

What are your thoughts on political parties?

this IS Speaker's Corner - so i'll answer for 90% of the crowd

1 - if a party agrees with me on any topic, it exemplifies goodness and light and can do no wrong and needs to upheld and given all the money everyone else holds

2 - if a party disagrees with me on any topic, then they are evil and have always been and always will be evil and not only should they be illegal, but mocked and destroyed and their followers should be made to lie naked on gravel roads for the goodness and light people to trod upon

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Putting it in the strictest of legally technical terms, Citizens United sucked ass. We're already seeing the sucky effects. So much so, that some on the SCOTUS are hinting that it deserves another look-see.

how exactly has it sucked ass? Nasty campaigns...what has actually changed from before? Seems like different shade of the same color. My only concern remains the delayed/poor disclosure and I don't believe there's any Constitutional barrier to fixing that.