Supreme Court overrules Montana Law

[NorthSideSox72]

This was a fairly stunning event in terms of the godawful Citizens United decision.

 

Basically... not only did the MT Supreme Court in no uncertain terms say that the Citizens United decision was a horrible miscarriage of justice - and that corporations did not deserve even equal duty to voting rights let alone special ones... but also decided it was only very narrowly tailored to fit the specific instance in that case. As such, a Montana state law banning anonymously funded poltiical speech was upheld.

 

This makes me happy, and I thought deserved its own thread.

 

Just curious... did anyone here, no matter what party they associate with, think that SCOTUS decision was a good one in any way, shape or form?

 

[Y2HH]

This was a fairly stunning event in terms of the godawful Citizens United decision.

 

Basically... not only did the MT Supreme Court in no uncertain terms say that the Citizens United decision was a horrible miscarriage of justice - and that corporations did not deserve even equal duty to voting rights let alone special ones... but also decided it was only very narrowly tailored to fit the specific instance in that case. As such, a Montana state law banning anonymously funded poltiical speech was upheld.

 

This makes me happy, and I thought deserved its own thread.

 

Just curious... did anyone here, no matter what party they associate with, think that SCOTUS decision was a good one in any way, shape or form?

 

No. But then again, I don't know much about the law other than the broad strokes which everyone understands...the underlying details -- if any -- I have absolutely no knowledge of.

[Balta1701]

This was a fairly stunning event in terms of the godawful Citizens United decision.

 

Basically... not only did the MT Supreme Court in no uncertain terms say that the Citizens United decision was a horrible miscarriage of justice - and that corporations did not deserve even equal duty to voting rights let alone special ones... but also decided it was only very narrowly tailored to fit the specific instance in that case. As such, a Montana state law banning anonymously funded poltiical speech was upheld.

 

This makes me happy, and I thought deserved its own thread.

 

Just curious... did anyone here, no matter what party they associate with, think that SCOTUS decision was a good one in any way, shape or form?

With the law on the books the way it currently sits, it was the correct decision. It's also still hard to justify the underlying basis of where the case came from...that a privately funded group shouldn't be allowed to put out an Anti-Hillary movie just before the election, solely because it happens to be close to an election date. That was difficult to square constitutionally anyway...that some types of private spending are more limited clsoe to an election date but not at other dates.

 

BTW, as the article you posted notes, it won't take long for a Federal Court to overturn this ruling on appeal.

[NorthSideSox72]

With the law on the books the way it currently sits, it was the correct decision. It's also still hard to justify the underlying basis of where the case came from...that a privately funded group shouldn't be allowed to put out an Anti-Hillary movie just before the election, solely because it happens to be close to an election date. That was difficult to square constitutionally anyway...that some types of private spending are more limited clsoe to an election date but not at other dates.

 

BTW, as the article you posted notes, it won't take long for a Federal Court to overturn this ruling on appeal.

Maybe. The narrow interperetation may stand, and may force this whole thing back to SCOTUS to clarify.

 

[Balta1701]

Maybe. The narrow interperetation may stand, and may force this whole thing back to SCOTUS to clarify.

You do realize that with this court, that is the last possible thing you'd want, right?

[NorthSideSox72]

You do realize that with this court, that is the last possible thing you'd want, right?

Well, for one thing, I am not so sure. When you have widn socks like Alito on there, if they feel enough heat, they may come back and agree with the narrowness to cover themselves. And for another thing, it will take a couple years or more for this to wind back to SCOTUS most likely, and who knows what the makeup will be at that time.

 

[Balta1701]

Well, for one thing, I am not so sure. When you have widn socks like Alito on there, if they feel enough heat, they may come back and agree with the narrowness to cover themselves. And for another thing, it will take a couple years or more for this to wind back to SCOTUS most likely, and who knows what the makeup will be at that time.

Alito is not a "Windsock" by any reasonable definition I've seen. He's an ardent Conservative Republican and will vote that way. His vote is as predictable as anyone's.

 

And outside of Justice Kennedy, I find it to be unreasonable to think that any of the 5-4 majority that produced Citizens United will have any reason to depart in the next 5+ years unless there happens to be another Republican in office. Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts will be regulars there for the next several decades, more than likely. None of them will be departing if Obama remains in office barring catastrophic and sudden health issues.

 

It's perhaps more likely that the makeup of the court will become even more anti-good-government in the next decade, should a Republican win the White House and be given the opportunity to replace Justice Kennedy.

[Balta1701]

I should also add...there are still some substantial parts of campaign finance law that this court has yet to have the opportunity to strike down. Personal campaign contribution limits, by their standard, are an obvious infringement on unfettered rights to free speech, but there was no good reason to strike that down in the Citizens United case. Similarly, disclosure requirements can be further removed as impediments to speech.

[farmteam]

BTW, as the article you posted notes, it won't take long for a Federal Court to overturn this ruling on appeal.

 

Wait, I thought this case was about a state law? On appeal they'd have to prove Citizens United applies (though, as you said, with this court that won't be too difficult).

[NorthSideSox72]

Wait, I thought this case was about a state law? On appeal they'd have to prove Citizens United applies (though, as you said, with this court that won't be too difficult).

That was his point. If the plaintiffs who were trying to overturn the state law appeal to a federal court, on grounds the state court attempted to supercede federal law, then the federal court will review and could potentially overturn the state court's decision. Or, the federal district court could agree with Montana, and then the plaintiffs could go to Federal Appelate court, and do the dance again. If the state decision is reviewed and still upheld there, they could appeal the final step, to SCOTUS.

 

[Soxbadger]

If you read the ruling Montana went pretty far out of its way to determine that the ruling was based on their interpretation of the Montana law. The reason this is important is that Corporations are only given power by the state they are registered in, not by the Federal Govt. Therefore in order to overturn this, the Supreme Court would have to basically rule that states cant create certain rules on Corporations, even though the Corporation only has rights granted to it by the state.

 

The difference is important, because Citizens United was a federal law attacked in federal court. The ultimate argument Montana will make is that a corporation does not have any rights that are not granted to it by the state and Montana does not grant corporations the right to anonymously run ads.

 

Also more complicated arguments will include that Montana when applying Montana law is interpreting its own constitution and therefore Federal review is inappropriate.

 

This is going to much harder for the Roberts court because it pits 2 big money corporations versus states rights. Not a good place for a "conservative" court to be. Because if they rule in favor of MT, any state can make a similar law and it basically would make Citizens United irrelevant.

[NorthSideSox72]

If you read the ruling Montana went pretty far out of its way to determine that the ruling was based on their interpretation of the Montana law. The reason this is important is that Corporations are only given power by the state they are registered in, not by the Federal Govt. Therefore in order to overturn this, the Supreme Court would have to basically rule that states cant create certain rules on Corporations, even though the Corporation only has rights granted to it by the state.

 

The difference is important, because Citizens United was a federal law attacked in federal court. The ultimate argument Montana will make is that a corporation does not have any rights that are not granted to it by the state and Montana does not grant corporations the right to anonymously run ads.

 

Also more complicated arguments will include that Montana when applying Montana law is interpreting its own constitution and therefore Federal review is inappropriate.

 

This is going to much harder for the Roberts court because it pits 2 big money corporations versus states rights. Not a good place for a "conservative" court to be. Because if they rule in favor of MT, any state can make a similar law and it basically would make Citizens United irrelevant.

 

That is what I am hoping for.

 

Interesting note though, the corporation in this case that was funding the ads was registered in Colorado I believe, not Montana. That may add a federal entree via interstate commerce.

 

[Soxbadger]

It really doesnt matter if its a CO corp DE corp or otherwise (or at least it shouldnt, Im not a MT lawyer so I dont know MT law but this is how it would work in IL) because in order for the Corp to do business in the state it would have to register as a foreign corp (or LLC) and at that point it is only granted the powers the state confers upon it. So in Colorado they may be allowed to do X, but in MT X may be against the law.

[Balta1701]

Plaintiffs appeal to US Supreme Court (already), request a stay of the Montana ruling in anticipation of it being overturned.

[Soxbadger]

Juicy, turn a supposedly states right majority Supreme Court against a Republican state.

[Balta1701]

The US Supreme Court has issued a stay of Montana's law. Based on the current court calendar, it is unlikely that the Supremes will hear the case before this year's election, and then they can rule it unconstitutional next year.

[Soxbadger]

That reads really odd:

 

make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Id., at ___(slip op., at 42). A petition for certiorari will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.

 

 

That would seem to suggest the Court is actually going to consider whether Citizens United was a good ruling. A stay is probably necessary all things considered.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Soxbadger

[G&T]

That reads really odd:

 

make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Id., at ___(slip op., at 42). A petition for certiorari will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.

 

 

That would seem to suggest the Court is actually going to consider whether Citizens United was a good ruling. A stay is probably necessary all things considered.

 

Yeah that's a weird thing and I'm not familiar with "statements" from the SC in such cases. Notice though that the statement appears to be made by Ginsburg and Breyer, both of whom dissented in Citizens United. So expect a fight.

[Soxbadger]

Yeah its odd, basically 2 of the Justices that you would assume would uphold MT's ruling are the ones saying that the Fed Supreme should look at it.

 

My guess is they think this time theyll win.

[farmteam]

Yeah its odd, basically 2 of the Justices that you would assume would uphold MT's ruling are the ones saying that the Fed Supreme should look at it.

 

My guess is they think this time theyll win.

 

Your second line is why I think it's NOT odd they'd want to look at it -- they think they'll be able to affirm this decision, and open the door for a straight up challenge to Citizens United.

 

That would all be really quick, though. I mean, Citizens United is from what, 2010? Say my guess above is correct -- that would put a challenge to Citizens United in front of SCOUTS in about 2016, less than a decade after that case. That would be an unheard of about-face for the Court to take, wouldn't it? I can't think of anything else that's been reversed so quickly. The closest I can think of is between Bowers and Lawrence, and even that waited another decade (17 years).

Edited February 22, 2012 by farmteam

[Soxbadger]

There are 2 options.

 

1) For whatever reason the SC wants to reaffirm Citizens United, but it was the dissenting Judges who wrote the statement

 

or

 

2) One of the Judges who ruled in Citizens has changed their mind and basically let it be known that they will flip.

 

I think most would say Citizens United is a universally panned decision and Roberts may not want this decision on his record or maybe Kennedy thinks he went a little to far in the idea that the laws could restrict the press (I really dont think Alito, Scalia, Thomas give a damn what anyone else thinks), Stevens basically went insane on the ruling (He read part of his dissent and it was 90 pages) and maybe Roberts is starting to realize that as a Supreme Court Justice he can do whatever he wants and he doesnt need to placate the powers that got him there. I dont know, he seems overall reasonable.

 

I just dont know a lot of reasonable people who think corporations deserve the same rights as people. When you type the words you just cant believe its real.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Soxbadger

[farmteam]

I just dont know a lot of reasonable people who think corporations deserve the same rights as people. When you type the words you just cant believe its real.

 

In a lot of instances it makes plenty of sense to make a legal fiction treating corporations as people. That doesn't mean it has to be extended to ALL instances though. Not saying you disagreed with that Soxbadger, just my succinct thoughts on the subject.

[Soxbadger]

Treating corporations as people is not equal to corporations deserving the same rights.

 

For example, as a person you are entitled to represent yourself Pro Se. As a Corporation (besides for limited circumstances) you must hire an attorney. Corporations do not have any inherent rights/privileges. Furthermore Corporations only derive their power from the State as they only are in existence where the State recognizes them. Thus Corporations deserve no special protection. Corporations are a benefit, by incorporating the State protects personal assets from business debts.

 

If you want the full protection of the First Amendment, put your name on it. If you want to run ads, dont hide behind a corporate shell.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

If you want the full protection of the First Amendment, put your name on it. If you want to run ads, dont hide behind a corporate shell.

Technically, Congress through its authority to regulate interstate commerce could actually ban this part of the practice if they wanted to. They can't prevent large private and corporate donations to PAC's, but they can still set the disclosure rules. The DISCLOSE act was proposed to do something similar, requiring statements of corporate political spending and with whom, but it died on the Senate by a vote of 59 in favor and 39 against (which tells you something else about how stupid this system is).

[Balta1701]

A worthy read is this New Yorker level description of how the Citizens United decision went down. Pay particular attention to the fact that it was the supposed centrist, Justice Kennedy, who really helped Roberts push things as far as they got, and in fact wanted to overturn even more campaign finance law than w