Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
(Image Source: Wikimedia Commons)
BY MATTHEW PICHT
ANCHOR NEVILLE MILLER
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the Arizona immigration law has been garnering
the lion’s share of media attention, but it’s not the only ruling the Court is handing
down. C-SPAN explains.
“The nation’s highest court today also struck down a Montana law limiting corporate
campaign spending. By a 5 to 4 vote, the Justices said the Citizens United case in 2010 applies
to state campaign finance laws.”
Citizens United refers to the controversial 2010 Supreme Court ruling which protected
campaign contributions as a form of free speech. CNN reports, the decision provoked a lot of
strong criticism, particularly from Democrats.
“The Obama administration has complained repeatedly about the Citizens United decisions,
saying it allows huge contributions, it allows secret contributions. But the court is signaling
here that its precedent will hold.”
Campaign finance reformers looking to overturn the ruling turned to state and local laws.
Talking Points Memo says the reformers found a weapon in an old Montana law.
“Montana’s attorney general claimed that the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act should stand
as proof that the court’s argument had already been proven wrong over 100 years earlier,
when the state’s mining billionaires blatantly bought off state legislators to further their
interests.”
In a partisan split, the Court threw out the case and struck down the Montana law without
review. A blogger for The Nation notes, this decision effectively cuts off similar legal
challenges to the Citizens United ruling.
“There may still be a few legislative avenues left for countering the ‘money power’
of the new ‘copper kings’ and ‘robber barons.’ But they are rapidly being closed
off by a partisan high court majority.”
But a writer for Election Law Blog argues, the Court’s rejection wasn’t a surprise
– and might actually have been the better outcome for campaign reformers.
“Taking the case would have been an opportunity for the majority of Supreme Court justices
to make things worse, such as by suggesting that limits on direct contributions to candidates
are unconstitutional. The best way to win before the Roberts Court if you are a campaign
reformer ... is not to play.”