# Could Montana get the court to reconsider Citizens United? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 10, 2012, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699 "2012-06-10T08:43:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/241 "2012-06-25T00:09:10Z")
> [@lance armstrong](#): > > This isn’t about campaign funding. It’s about SPENDING money on speech - and there are no limits on that, as you know from Buckley. Except when someone is bribing another in order to give a particular speech. As it stands, campaign funding is mostly about electioneering communications. If electioneering communications cannot be used to bribe, campaign funds cannot be put to personal use and electioneering communications cannot influence the public, why limit campaign contributions? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/242 "2012-06-25T00:13:23Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Except when someone is bribing another in order to give a particular speech. Huh? > [@](#): > > As it stands, campaign funding is mostly about electioneering communications. If electioneering communications cannot be used to bribe, campaign funds cannot be put to personal use and electioneering communications cannot influence the public, why limit campaign contributions? As I’ve already reminded you, this isn’t about campaign contributions, it’s about spending, and there is no limit on spending. I know this ruins your perfect little regulatory scheme, but that’s life. There are better, constitutional ways to deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/243 "2012-06-25T14:20:47Z")
To answer the OP: [http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/25/will-supreme-court-rule-on-major-health-care-and-immigration-cases/?hpt=hp\_t1](http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/25/will-supreme-court-rule-on-major-health-care-and-immigration-cases/?hpt=hp_t1) [Updated at 10:08 a.m. ET] The court has thrown out a Montana state ruling on limiting spending in state elections, by saying it believes the historic Citizens United case applies to state elections as well. The court will not hear oral arguments on the case. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/244 "2012-06-25T14:20:48Z")
[The US Supreme Court granted certiorari, and reversed the judgment of the Montana Supreme Court.](http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062512d4f1zor.pdf) > [@](#): > > Orginally posted by **US Supreme Court** > > Cite as: 567 U. S. \_\_\_\_ (2012) > Per Curiam > SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES > AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., FKA > WESTERN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., > ET AL. v. STEVE BULLOCK, ATTORNEY > GENERAL OF MONTANA, ET AL. > ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME > COURT OF MONTANA > No. 11–1179. Decided June 25, 2012 > PER CURIAM. > A Montana state law provides that a “corporation may not make . . . an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.” Mont. Code Ann. §13–35–227(1) (2011). **The Montana Supreme Court rejected petitioners’ claim that this statute violates the First Amendment.** 2011 MT 328, 363 Mont. 220, 271 P. 3d 1. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, this Court struck down a similar federal law, holding that “political speech does not lose First Amendment protectionsimply because its source is a corporation.” 558 U. S. \_\_\_, \_\_\_ (2010) (slip op., at 26) (internal quotation marks omitted). **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.** See U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. Montana’s arguments in support of the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case. > The petition for certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana is reversed. > It is so ordered. Looks like _Citizens United_ is here to stay. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/245 "2012-06-25T14:34:11Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > [The US Supreme Court granted certiorari, and reversed the judgment of the Montana Supreme Court.](http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062512d4f1zor.pdf) > > Looks like _Citizens United_ is here to stay. Thanks, Iggy. Good news. People, you can’t just go violating the First Amendment because you think it’s a good idea. Preventing this is the whole point of having a First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/246 "2012-06-25T14:40:42Z")
P.S. Looking over the PDF you posted, there’s a case where one party is “Public Citizen” the do-gooder group that, among other things, opposes the Citizens United decision. Only Public Citizen is listed as “Public Citizen, INC.” - reminding us that they, just like Citizens United, is incorporated! And therefore they believe the government could shut down their speech too, including speech where they speak out against the decision! LOL hypocritical idiots. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/247 "2012-06-25T15:03:33Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > There are better, constitutional ways to deal with it. Campaign funds mostly go towards electioneering communications. Limiting the amount of money one person may donate to one individual limits the amount of speech the individual is capable of expending money on. Why is it permissible to limit campaign funding being spent on electioneering communications? You can’t answer that question without referring to a belief that the people are gullible fools who can’t think for themselves, or that they don’t go find out, through easily-available and free means like the Internet, campaign events, and the media, all the information from all sources to make an informed voting choice. No matter how often I beg the question, you can’t answer it. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > LOL hypocritical idiots. Their position wasn’t that corporations shouldn’t be able to be sued, it was that it was constitutional to limit disbursements on electioneering constitutions for a certain period of time. You’ve dogmatically insisted that this isn’t about the 14th amendment or campaign funding. Yet it assumes the form of an ink blot which you can assign any meaning if you so desire. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/248 "2012-06-25T15:07:32Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Campaign funds mostly go towards electioneering communications. Limiting the amount of money one person may donate to one individual limits the amount of speech the individual is capable of expending money on. No. It limits the amount of speech the _other_ individual, not the one that wants to spend the money, is capable of. Which is fine. It is Congress that is not allowed to abridge the speech. I can do the abridging of someone’s speech any time, either by not donating to them, or even by something as simple as turning off the TV when they’re on. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/249 "2012-06-25T15:20:01Z")
(Somehow I double-posted a response. Can’t I delete messages here?) ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/250 "2012-06-25T15:21:47Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Campaign funds mostly go towards electioneering communications. Limiting the amount of money one person may donate to one individual limits the amount of speech the individual is capable of expending money on. No it doesn’t. > [@](#): > > Why is it permissible to limit campaign funding being spent on electioneering communications? Here’s what Buckley had to say about your exact claim: “Given the important role of contributions in financing political campaigns, contribution restrictions could have a severe impact on political dialogue if the limitations prevented candidates and political committees from amassing the resources necessary for effective advocacy. There is no indication, however, that the contribution limitations imposed by the Act would have any dramatic adverse effect on the funding of campaigns and political associations. [n23] The over-all effect of the Act’s contribution [p22] ceilings is merely to require candidates and political committees to raise funds from a greater number of persons and to compel people who would otherwise contribute amounts greater than the statutory limits to expend such funds on direct political expression, rather than to reduce the total amount of money potentially available to promote political expression.” However, the answer to your question is that if we must choose between having both a limit on spending and donations, or no limits on either, we must choose no limits on either. So be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. > [@](#): > > Their position wasn’t that corporations shouldn’t be able to be sued, it was that it was constitutional to limit disbursements on electioneering constitutions for a certain period of time. No, their position is that corporations, even non-profit ones, have NO speech rights. NONE. If you believe Congress can limit speech for certain periods, you believe it can limit it at any time - forever if necessary. You cannot construct a reason that the First Amendment allows Congress to deny speech rights 60 days from an election, but has no power to do it 61 days out, or all year. Congress either has the power to limit speech however it wants, or it has none at all. I believe it’s accurate to say that YOU believe corporations have no speech rights, at any time, not just 60 days before an election. Is that not true? Do you now think corporations do have speech rights? Yes or no? > [@](#): > > You’ve dogmatically insisted that this isn’t about the 14th amendment or campaign funding. Yet it assumes the form of an ink blot which you can assign any meaning if you so desire. Nope. If you don’t understand my point, I’ll gladly clarify. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/251 "2012-06-25T15:48:09Z")
[The answer to the OP is “No, Montana can’t”.](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_CAMPAIGN_FINANCE_MONTANA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-25-10-07-37) ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/252 "2012-06-25T16:12:53Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > [The US Supreme Court granted certiorari, and reversed the judgment of the Montana Supreme Court.](http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062512d4f1zor.pdf) > > Looks like _Citizens United_ is here to stay. I’m glad. It will be good to have Westerners united with Easterners now in their hatred of Citizens United. Something we can ALL get behind, except for a few ideologues and plutocrats. This may be the best thing to happen to progressives in a long, long time. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/253 "2012-06-25T16:15:42Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Thanks, Iggy. > > Good news. > > People, you can’t just go violating the First Amendment because you think it’s a good idea. Preventing this is the whole point of having a First Amendment. It’s good news for plutocrats, maybe. Bad for fans of democracy. Perhaps good news for progressives: perhaps this decision will do for us what Roe V. Wade did for conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/254 "2012-06-25T16:22:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why is burning a flag speech, but using money to buy a TV ad not speech? Because burning a flag doesn’t try to force speech on people who don’t want to hear it. The entire purpose of advertising is to try and make people watch your message. If it weren’t, there’d be an all advertisement channel you could turn to to watch it at your leisure. Also, burning the flag does not in any way affect elections. It’s just a statement of protest that has no real message besides “I hate America.” Finally, what makes you think I’d really care if burning the flag were made illegal? I’d gladly give that up if it meant that elections couldn’t be bought. BTW, that’s the difference between normal speech and advertising. I put up something on the web, I can’t coerce people into listening to my speech. But, as long as advertising still works, it means that at least some people can be coerced into watching ads. Ads that, BTW, use images to try and manipulate people. It wouldn’t be so bad if they could just give facts. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/255 "2012-06-25T17:08:05Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I’m glad. It will be good to have Westerners united with Easterners now in their hatred of Citizens United. Something we can ALL get behind, except for a few ideologues and plutocrats. This may be the best thing to happen to progressives in a long, long time. Yeah, keep making stuff up. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/256 "2012-06-25T17:10:37Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > It’s good news for plutocrats, maybe. Bad for fans of democracy. Perhaps good news for progressives: perhaps this decision will do for us what Roe V. Wade did for conservatives. Speech is never bad for democracy. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/257 "2012-06-25T17:11:16Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Speech is never bad for democracy. But money sometimes is. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/258 "2012-06-25T17:12:30Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Yeah, keep making stuff up. I’m speculating, to be sure. Something wrong with that? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/259 "2012-06-25T17:14:54Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Because burning a flag doesn’t try to force speech on people who don’t want to hear it. The entire purpose of advertising is to try and make people watch your message. If it weren’t, there’d be an all advertisement channel you could turn to to watch it at your leisure. There is no right not to be exposed to speech. > [@](#): > > Also, burning the flag does not in any way affect elections. It’s just a statement of protest that has no real message besides “I hate America.” They’re both protected speech though. > [@](#): > > Finally, what makes you think I’d really care if burning the flag were made illegal? I’d gladly give that up if it meant that elections couldn’t be bought. So? You’d give it up. Others wouldn’t. Your desires are irrelevant to the rights of others. > [@](#): > > BTW, that’s the difference between normal speech and advertising. I put up something on the web, I can’t coerce people into listening to my speech. But, as long as advertising still works, it means that at least some people can be coerced into watching ads. How are people “coerced” into watching ads? How much contempt for the intelligence of the voter can you manage to show? If the voters are so dumb that they can’t possibly ignore, or critically think about, ads, that can only mean they aren’t qualified to vote anyway. Stop the arrogance. > [@](#): > > Ads that, BTW, use images to try and manipulate people. Are you manipulated by ads? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699/260 "2012-06-25T17:15:58Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I’m speculating, to be sure. Something wrong with that? Depends - is it a valid reason for me to ban your speech? Since there seem to be so many, I’m not sure any more. Let me know. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-montana-get-the-court-to-reconsider-citizens-united/624699.md?page=14)