State Supreme Court rules against Citizens United...
gimmesometruth27
St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,424
these people are heros to people in this country that want corporate influence out of politics....
this is BIG news. montana's superme court is now on a collision course with the us supreme court over the constitutionality of the citizens united decision that ruled that corporations are people and money is speech and that corporate donations can be given without limit to influence elections.
hopefully this will lead to more states ruling against the citizens united decision.
this should get good....
'Citizens United' Backlash: Montana Supreme Court Upholds State's Corporate Campaign Spending Ban
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/0 ... 82168.html
WASHINGTON -- The Montana Supreme Court has put itself on a collision course with the U.S. Supreme Court by upholding a century-old state law that bans corporate spending in state and local political campaigns.
The law, which was passed by Montana voters in 1912 to combat Gilded Age corporate control over much of Montana's government, states that a "corporation may not make ... an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political party that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party." In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, struck down a similar federal statute, holding that independent electoral spending by corporations "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption" that such laws were enacted to combat.
That reasoning -- described by the Citizens United dissenters as a "crabbed view of corruption" -- compelled 23 of the 24 states with independent spending bans to stop enforcing their restrictions, according to Edwin Bender, executive director of the Helena, Mont.-based National Institute on Money in State Politics. Montana, however, stood by its 1912 law, which led several corporations to challenge it as unconstitutional.
By a 5-2 vote this past Friday, the Montana Supreme Court declined to recognize the common understanding that Citizens United bars all laws limiting independent electoral spending. Instead, Chief Justice Mike McGrath, writing on behalf of the majority, called on the history surrounding the state law to show that corporate money, even if not directly contributed to a campaign, can give rise to corruption.
McGrath's opinion in Western Tradition Partnership v. Attorney General harkens back to the turn of the 20th century, when Montana's "Copper Kings" -- the natural resource-rich state's version of the robber barons -- competed "for political and economic domination" so effectively that by the time the Montana voters banned corporate spending in a voter initiative, "the State of Montana and its government were operating under a mere shell of legal authority." One such Copper King, wrote Mark Twain in a quotation cited by McGrath, was "said to have bought legislatures and judges as other men buy food and raiment."
Paul S. Ryan, associate legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, characterized the Montana Supreme Court's reliance on factual findings culled from a century of state history, plus the trial testimony from contemporary politicians of both parties, as "an antidote to the crabbed view of corruption" adopted in Citizens United. Nevertheless, most observers, including Ryan, do not anticipate the U.S. Supreme Court accepting that antidote. The ruling in Citizens United that independent spending does not give rise to corruption introduced a categorical rule that no factual reality can overcome as long as the decision's five-justice majority remains on the Court.
To make this point, dissenting state Justice Beth Baker wrote that Montana "made no more compelling a case than that painstakingly presented in the 90-page dissenting opinion of Justice [John Paul] Stevens and emphatically rejected by the majority in Citizens United."
And state Justice James Nelson, also dissenting, put the point more bluntly. Even while lambasting Citizens United's reasoning as "utter nonsense" and "smoke and mirrors," among other insults, he found himself duty-bound to defer to the decision of the highest court in the land. "The Supreme Court in Citizens United rejected several asserted governmental interests," wrote Nelson, "and this Court has now come along, retrieved those interests from the garbage can, dusted them off, slapped a 'Made in Montana' sticker on them, and held them up as grounds for sustaining a patently unconstitutional state statute."
Nelson wrote that it "would not surprise me in the least" if the U.S. Supreme Court reversed his court's decision without even asking for briefs or oral argument from the opposing parties.
To reverse the Montana Supreme Court, however, the justices would have to extract themselves from a quandary of their own making, noted professor Rick Hasen of the University of California-Irvine Law School on his popular Election Law Blog. "If the Court were being honest in Citizens United," Hasen wrote, "it would have said something like: We don't care whether or not independent spending can or cannot corrupt; the First Amendment trumps this risk of corruption."
But by "dress[ing] up its value judgment ... as a factual statement," continued Hasen, the U.S. Supreme Court must now explain why the Montana Supreme Court was not correct to consider the factual record when it came to justifying corporate spending limits in campaign finance laws.
How the Citizens United majority will deny the force of Montana's factual record or, for that matter, Mark Twain's observations -- and whether the Citizens United dissenters will express their schadenfreude at their colleagues' efforts -- remains hypothetical for now. Donald Ferguson, executive director of lead plaintiff American Tradition Partnership (formerly known as Western Tradition Partnership), wrote in an email to HuffPost that his organization has "not yet made a decision on future actions regarding the suit."
this is BIG news. montana's superme court is now on a collision course with the us supreme court over the constitutionality of the citizens united decision that ruled that corporations are people and money is speech and that corporate donations can be given without limit to influence elections.
hopefully this will lead to more states ruling against the citizens united decision.
this should get good....
'Citizens United' Backlash: Montana Supreme Court Upholds State's Corporate Campaign Spending Ban
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/0 ... 82168.html
WASHINGTON -- The Montana Supreme Court has put itself on a collision course with the U.S. Supreme Court by upholding a century-old state law that bans corporate spending in state and local political campaigns.
The law, which was passed by Montana voters in 1912 to combat Gilded Age corporate control over much of Montana's government, states that a "corporation may not make ... an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political party that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party." In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, struck down a similar federal statute, holding that independent electoral spending by corporations "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption" that such laws were enacted to combat.
That reasoning -- described by the Citizens United dissenters as a "crabbed view of corruption" -- compelled 23 of the 24 states with independent spending bans to stop enforcing their restrictions, according to Edwin Bender, executive director of the Helena, Mont.-based National Institute on Money in State Politics. Montana, however, stood by its 1912 law, which led several corporations to challenge it as unconstitutional.
By a 5-2 vote this past Friday, the Montana Supreme Court declined to recognize the common understanding that Citizens United bars all laws limiting independent electoral spending. Instead, Chief Justice Mike McGrath, writing on behalf of the majority, called on the history surrounding the state law to show that corporate money, even if not directly contributed to a campaign, can give rise to corruption.
McGrath's opinion in Western Tradition Partnership v. Attorney General harkens back to the turn of the 20th century, when Montana's "Copper Kings" -- the natural resource-rich state's version of the robber barons -- competed "for political and economic domination" so effectively that by the time the Montana voters banned corporate spending in a voter initiative, "the State of Montana and its government were operating under a mere shell of legal authority." One such Copper King, wrote Mark Twain in a quotation cited by McGrath, was "said to have bought legislatures and judges as other men buy food and raiment."
Paul S. Ryan, associate legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, characterized the Montana Supreme Court's reliance on factual findings culled from a century of state history, plus the trial testimony from contemporary politicians of both parties, as "an antidote to the crabbed view of corruption" adopted in Citizens United. Nevertheless, most observers, including Ryan, do not anticipate the U.S. Supreme Court accepting that antidote. The ruling in Citizens United that independent spending does not give rise to corruption introduced a categorical rule that no factual reality can overcome as long as the decision's five-justice majority remains on the Court.
To make this point, dissenting state Justice Beth Baker wrote that Montana "made no more compelling a case than that painstakingly presented in the 90-page dissenting opinion of Justice [John Paul] Stevens and emphatically rejected by the majority in Citizens United."
And state Justice James Nelson, also dissenting, put the point more bluntly. Even while lambasting Citizens United's reasoning as "utter nonsense" and "smoke and mirrors," among other insults, he found himself duty-bound to defer to the decision of the highest court in the land. "The Supreme Court in Citizens United rejected several asserted governmental interests," wrote Nelson, "and this Court has now come along, retrieved those interests from the garbage can, dusted them off, slapped a 'Made in Montana' sticker on them, and held them up as grounds for sustaining a patently unconstitutional state statute."
Nelson wrote that it "would not surprise me in the least" if the U.S. Supreme Court reversed his court's decision without even asking for briefs or oral argument from the opposing parties.
To reverse the Montana Supreme Court, however, the justices would have to extract themselves from a quandary of their own making, noted professor Rick Hasen of the University of California-Irvine Law School on his popular Election Law Blog. "If the Court were being honest in Citizens United," Hasen wrote, "it would have said something like: We don't care whether or not independent spending can or cannot corrupt; the First Amendment trumps this risk of corruption."
But by "dress[ing] up its value judgment ... as a factual statement," continued Hasen, the U.S. Supreme Court must now explain why the Montana Supreme Court was not correct to consider the factual record when it came to justifying corporate spending limits in campaign finance laws.
How the Citizens United majority will deny the force of Montana's factual record or, for that matter, Mark Twain's observations -- and whether the Citizens United dissenters will express their schadenfreude at their colleagues' efforts -- remains hypothetical for now. Donald Ferguson, executive director of lead plaintiff American Tradition Partnership (formerly known as Western Tradition Partnership), wrote in an email to HuffPost that his organization has "not yet made a decision on future actions regarding the suit."
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-
-
that is all you need to post to show who romney really cares about.CH156378 wrote:"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
gimmesometruth27 wrote:
that is all you need to post to show who romney really cares about.CH156378 wrote:
I'll never understand why people think this (the Mitt comment) is a big deal. Of course corporations are people, they are made up of people, lots of them.
Now, as for donating $ to campaigns...I think corporations should not be permitted to do so. The people that make up the corporation can do so on their own if they choose.hippiemom = goodness0 -
Is A moving Train a person? It's made up of people, lots of them.
I guess when your trying to be president and you say "corpartions are people" it just seems a little out of touch.0 -
CH156378 wrote:Is A moving Train a person? It's made up of people, lots of them.
I guess when your trying to be president and you say "corpartions are people" it just seems a little out of touch.
Only if people don't actually use common sense to understand what someone means.
It's soundbite gold, and that is all people seem to care about anymore. But if people actually used some common sense, it's no big deal.hippiemom = goodness0 -
CH156378 wrote:Is A moving Train a person? It's made up of people, lots of them.
I guess when your trying to be president and you say "corpartions are people" it just seems a little out of touch.
Ok, let's say you raise taxes on A moving train...you don't think your membership fee goes up? So, who ends up paying? Are you people?
hippiemom = goodness0 -
If we lower taxes on the corparations or "people" as you and Willard call them, does everyones pay go up? Or just those on top get extra bonus money?0
-
cincybearcat wrote:gimmesometruth27 wrote:
that is all you need to post to show who romney really cares about.CH156378 wrote:
Now, as for donating $ to campaigns...I think corporations should not be permitted to do so. The people that make up the corporation can do so on their own if they choose.
I beleive this!0 -
at least montana has enough sense to stand up to this farce of a supreme court and tell them that the five that voted for citizens united are dead wrong. for the us supreme court to deny the existance of the possibility of corruption via corporate cash, which is unlimited, they must have their heads up their asses or their hands in the corporate cookie jar....unlike the other 23 states who rolled over without a fight, montana stood up to defend the integrity of their electoral process.. kudos to the montana state supreme court..
:thumbup: "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
Hopefully this Montana judgement has some weight at the federal level. The idea that corporate spending amounts to a form of individual expression is absurd. How Citizen's United ever managed to pass through the US Supreme Court with a 5 to 4 decision still shocks me. Hopefully this will give the Court the opportunity to reverse its earlier ruling.0
-
well scalia and clarence thomas (especially his wife) are corporate whores all the way, so it is not surprising that those 2 gave the conservatives a 5-4 majority in that case...blueandwhite wrote:Hopefully this Montana judgement has some weight at the federal level. The idea that corporate spending amounts to a form of individual expression is absurd. How Citizen's United ever managed to pass through the US Supreme Court with a 5 to 4 decision still shocks me. Hopefully this will give the Court the opportunity to reverse its earlier ruling.
remember, these are the same clowns that gave bush 2 the white house in 2000...."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
I love that they are a farce...because you disagree with them. I disagree with the supreme court on one v wade, but they werent a farce. Pretty childish really.hippiemom = goodness0
-
childish?cincybearcat wrote:I love that they are a farce...because you disagree with them. I disagree with the supreme court on one v wade, but they werent a farce. Pretty childish really.
have you paid attention to how they have ruled on cases the last 15 years?
have you paid attention to how these rulings have adversely affected this country?
i am fucking angry about it!
if you are not outraged then you are not paying attention."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
gimmesometruth27 wrote:
childish?cincybearcat wrote:I love that they are a farce...because you disagree with them. I disagree with the supreme court on one v wade, but they werent a farce. Pretty childish really.
have you paid attention to how they have ruled on cases the last 15 years?
have you paid attention to how these rulings have adversely affected this country?
i am fucking angry about it!
if you are not outraged then you are not paying attention.
again, another childish statement made by people who don't understand that it is ok for others to have a difference of opinion. If I don't thi like you, I'm not paying attention? C'mon, you are better than that.hippiemom = goodness0 -
whatever. discuss the topic and not me. thanks.cincybearcat wrote:gimmesometruth27 wrote:
childish?cincybearcat wrote:I love that they are a farce...because you disagree with them. I disagree with the supreme court on one v wade, but they werent a farce. Pretty childish really.
have you paid attention to how they have ruled on cases the last 15 years?
have you paid attention to how these rulings have adversely affected this country?
i am fucking angry about it!
if you are not outraged then you are not paying attention.
again, another childish statement made by people who don't understand that it is ok for others to have a difference of opinion. If I don't thi like you, I'm not paying attention? C'mon, you are better than that."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
gimmesometruth27 wrote:
whatever. discuss the topic and not me. thanks.cincybearcat wrote:gimmesometruth27 wrote:childish?
have you paid attention to how they have ruled on cases the last 15 years?
have you paid attention to how these rulings have adversely affected this country?
i am fucking angry about it!
if you are not outraged then you are not paying attention.
again, another childish statement made by people who don't understand that it is ok for others to have a difference of opinion. If I don't thi like you, I'm not paying attention? C'mon, you are better than that.
I'm discussing you calling the supreme court a farce. Don't post it if you don't want people to comment on it. I think it was ridiculous.hippiemom = goodness0 -
cincybearcat wrote:I love that they are a farce...because you disagree with them. I disagree with the supreme court on one v wade, but they werent a farce. Pretty childish really.
No, they're not a farce because he disagrees with them. They're a farce for all of the reasons he pointed out above and which you chose to ignore in your efforts to drag this discussion down to the level of personal attacks.
If you don't think the Supreme Court and/or it's decisions are a farce then go ahead and explain why.0 -
gimmesometruth27 wrote:clarence thomas (especially his wife) are corporate whores all the way..
what a shame, some beliefs on this forum. So filled with hate. This prominent black individual can tell an extremely convincing story about how rewarding it was to pull himslef up by his own bootstraps out of poverty to a position of eminence and recognition. My countries youth deserve better than what is doled out to them by the likes of Van Jones, Eric Holder, Jesse Jackson and AMT blinders....
that is why I am here....to help
i am part of many corporations. We are all people. Not faceless trolls.
WOOT0 -
The logomachy over the term "corporation" as being the same or not as "person" could (and probably will) go on forever. The heart of the matter is really what counts here. The problem, as I see it, is that most corporations lack heart and therefore because all people have hearts it is my opinion that most corporations are not people."It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0
-
p.s. I'm ba-ack!
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help