posted on June 26, 2012 13:56 :: 632 Views
As expected, Attorney General Steve Bullock (D-MT) lost his third case before The Supreme Court of the United States during his first and only term as Attorney General. This, as the left just last week was criticizing Bullock for failing to do enough to win Montana's challenge to Citizens United.
As I noted on the talk show, and via Twitter, earlier this week- the US Supreme Court summarily reversed the Montana Supreme Court's challenge to Citizens United on Monday. And, as Travis Kavulla notes on The Electric City Weblog, they did so in under 190 words. (Fewer words than a letter to the editor)
Here's more reaction to the ruling.
The Wall Street Journal's editorial board had this response:
The rebuke was necessary because the Montana court had willfully ignored the legal precedent and had seemed to be baiting the High Court to formally accept the case and reconsider Citizens United.
Meantime, Citizens United hasn't led to the corruption that liberals predicted, but it has produced more competitive elections and a more robust political debate that isn't dominated by Big Media.
AP on Citizens United:
"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," the court said in an unsigned opinion.
The Citizens United decision paved the way for unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions in elections for Congress and the president, as long as the dollars are independent of the campaigns they are intended to help. The decision, grounded in the freedom of speech, appeared to apply equally to state contests.
Chuck Johnson wrote this for Lee Newspapers in Montana:
Both corporations and unions can make unlimited independent expenses from their treasuries for independent expenditures for or against candidates.
“Simply put, it imposes the federal rules on the states — so the implication is beyond merely Montana,” said David Parker, a political scientist at Montana State University. “That means that the type of activity we are seeing at the federal level now can, of course, happen at the state level.”