Buy Movies & Books |Subscribe|Bookmark|Follow Us

My Account|About Us|Contact Us|Staff|Place an Ad
Home > Columnists >
June 26, 2012

Court slaps down Mont. campaign fund law

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested having another look at Citizens United case. (UPI/Roger L. Wollenberg)

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme court, by a vote of 5-4 Monday, summarily reversed a Montana ruling that upheld that state's restrictions on corporate political donations.

The vote was along the court's ideological fault line, the same breakdown that decided Citizens United vs. FCC in January 2010. Citizens United opened the floodgates to corporate and union political donations.

When the U.S. Supreme Court stayed, or temporarily blocked, the state court decision in February, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer suggested the high court should take the opportunity to take another look at Citizens United.

The challengers to the Montana law, a small group of non-profits and corporations, told the U.S. Supreme Court in their petition that the riot of independent spending following Citizens United is irrelevant.

The Supreme Court majority said there was little difference between the struck-down federal law and the Montana law.

"In Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, this court struck down a similar federal law, holding that 'political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation ...,'" the Supreme Court majority said in a per curiam, or unsigned, opinion, Monday. "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."

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by the court's three other liberals, dissented.

Comments :


Listening to NPR with my carpool buddy today, Georgia rplebuican senator Johnny Issacson was the cool head of reason. He is of the opinion that a better idea to tearing the law down is to begin to amend it to weed out the bad, but keep the good. Another person interviewed (sorry, I don't remember his name) added that to make the law feasible that more was needed to be done to tame the high cost of a medical education and with tort laws to draw new doctors, especially primary care doctors into the profession. He also gave a lot of other opinions that I wasn't so thrilled with. I think that these two men together lit a path that we need to follow. There are advantages for me personally with the law. I will now be insurable again. I can't outspend my insurance cap. I can keep my daughter om my insurance until she is 26. There are other parts of the law that leave me shuddering in fear. The next few years are going to be a painful learning curb, but we have what we have. I think we'd all do better to move away from polarization and remember how to work with one another again.


Way to go on this esyas, helped a ton.


males online car insurance information

Your Name:
A value is required.

Comment: A value is required.

Please Enter Security Code:
security code

Top Movies & Books
Local & State:

HIFF Celebrates Third and Possibly Final Year in Middletown

Boys and Girls Club of Wayne

New Scandals Show Obama’s Contempt for the Constitution

The Wayne Public Library

Vila Verde