So organizations like the Chamber of Commerce don’t believe that large amounts of money can be used to gain undue influence on legislators, yet they spend millions of dollars on elections. Apparently they like throwing money away.
Please see my citation above and then we will see if you can post a retraction in a short timeframe… 
Not going to happen. Your citation was about a case involving patriotism during WWII which was reversed after 2 new justices were seated. Not seeing any relevant parallel here.
Having grown up in that area…many ‘city folks’ do not understand the vastness of the land and the sparseness of the people. This makes it easier to bribe and you get much more for your mony (if you want material things the land can provide…like copper).
In addition, the culture is naturally anti-tax and government so a message from corporations will resonate more…plus the people are naturally more naive so they might be surprised that the corporations would ACTUALLY take as much as they can and not give anything back.
Then, one must throw in, that government and government workers are thought of as parasites, usually paid poorly so this wears on them and when offered a bribe they are more likely to take it (people of this state spit on and treat me like shit…so why not take the money? SOMEONE has to look after me me and my family since no-one else will and they seem to actively want to shove me down.)
Thanks for asking.
No, I don’t.
I was born in Montana, and I spent a good portion of my life there. I don’t have much to contribute to this discussion except to say what you’ve posted here couldn’t be further from the truth.
Montana is a rural western state, and so people naturally assume that it leans Republican, and that’s not the truth. The governor is a Democrat, as are the state’s two U.S. senators. The state legislature has been divided equally between the two parties for the better part of the last century, and if you look at city and local governments, you’ll find that most of them lean Democratic (with a few exceptions).
Montana is (or was, depending on how you wish to look at it) a huuuuuuuge union state. Montanans don’t trust corporations, for reasons already listed in this thread. In fact, if you look at the political campaigns on the state and local level, you’ll see a lot of the candidates framing their opponents corporate backing in an extraordinarily jaundiced light. They don’t like corporations, and they don’t invest any confidence in them. Politicians there could build an entire platform around the dangers of outside monied interests invading the state, and people would listen, completely and totally absorbed in what was being said.
To say the culture is “anti-tax” (not true) and “anti-government” (partially true) is misleading. They’re anti-meddling. That’s it. And that’s why they’re showing such ferocious opposition against the Citizens United ruling.
I am raising a metaphorical eyebrow at the idea that a state may have a unique compelling interest for the purpose of equal protection analysis. I can’t think of any case in which a state successfully argued along those lines; interests are either compelling, and thus within the purview of all states, or they aren’t.
With that being said, I still think CU was a silly decision premised on sillier underlying assumption*, and that all states have a compelling interest in protecting the legitimacy of their political processes which necessarily extends to regulating campaign spending.
*money = speech, corporations enjoy First Amendment protections.
In the interests of public policy we put all sorts of limitations on free speech.
If money is speech, then in what way are limits on campaign contributions permissible but unlimited independent spending on behalf of a campaign sacred? It wasn’t a 7 to 1 decision like Plessy v Ferguson that took 50 years to overturn. It was a 5-4 decision that was extremely controversial to begin with, not because it gave corporations the same free speech rights as natural persons but because it was another step down the road towards letting monied interests own our politcal system.
I don’t think it will happen either but it should because the integrity and faith in the electoral process is undermined when we see three different billionaires bankrolling their own personal Republican nominee for President. When the effect of money on politics is so transparent, it undermines our faith in our democracy.
Wait, so you are concerned enough about the chllenge to the integrity of our democratic process presented by voter fraud which doesn’t really exist that you would be willing to suppress voter participation but you are pretty comfortable with whatever challenges to the integrity of the democratic process rpesented by billionaires being able to swing elections almost single handedly?
Oh, sure, I’d be concerned about THAT.
Thing is, that’s not happening. Ask Meg Whitman, or Carly Fiorina.
The problem with subversion of the political process is that by the time you can prove it has happened, it may be too late to do anything about it.
Three justices also changed their mind. It only takes one justice to change their mind in this case. You said “SCOTUS decisions don’t get reversed in this time frame” and that’s clearly wrong.
As for your assertion that WWII is responsible, I agree: Something happened in a relatively short timeframe that caused the court to reconsider the ruling. In that case, it was the war; in this case, it’s the “corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
It’s a good thing that actual corruption was also shown to happen, huh…
No, it wasn’t shown.
sigh
OK, you’re right. Sit back and relax: Citizen’s United will be overturned any day now. Good job!
It is because money is NOT speech. Donating money to a candidate, whether by individual or corporation, is not “speech”. Pooling together money, whether by individuals or corporations, for the purposes of political expression IS speech. How is this not clear?
Neither is the voter fraud. But that’s different. Huh, Bricker.
I know I’m right. I cited it.
While that would be nice, it’s certainly not a given. But it won’t be because “SCOTUS decisions don’t get reversed in this time frame.”
Is your browser broken? In this thread we have the stories of the Copper Kings of Montana (I can see how you missed it since it’s in the OP), which was what the Montana Supreme Court used as a determination that corruption happens without limitations. And there’s the case of the West Virginia judges being bought by the same corporation responsible for the [Upper Big Branch Mine disaster](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/Upper Big Branch Mine disaster).
I guess that judges vacationing in the French Riviera with their benefactors doesn’t give the “appearance” of corruption to people who think that Voter ID laws give the “appearance” of non-corruption though. :rolleyes:
Big difference. The use of money in the William Andrews Clark election was simple bribery. It wasn’t plastering the town with “Vote for William Andrews Clark” posters and printing up wagon bumper stickers. At a time when US Senator were selected by the state legislature, he literally bribed members of the state legislature to elect him.
That has nothing to do with unlimited advertising. Actual corruption has never been shown there.
So bribary is not a form of corruption? Fascinating.
Even assuming you concede that bribary is corruption (and you will do that, right?) is your contention that the millions of dollars that they did spend on elections was a completely independent event from the bribary? A coincidence? Really? That is your contention?
If that’s the case then whyfore this:
Seems that folks in the state feel that the money was a pretty important issue, not just the bribary. I wonder why that is? Oh yeah… “there’s a perception that money buys access.”
And you failed to comment on the Copper Kings at all. I guess that wasn’t corruption either?