REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Go Montana!

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Thursday, June 7, 2012 12:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 682
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, June 7, 2012 6:02 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Rejecting a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision giving corporations the right to make independent campaign expenditures, the Montana Supreme Court has ruled that banning such spending is justified given Montana's long history of businesses corrupting the state's political process.

The state high court ruled on Dec. 30 that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission did not apply to Montana's Corrupt Practices Law, which prohibits corporations from using general funds to make political contributions.

In Citizens United, the Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibited government from limiting the independent spending of corporations and unions on "electioneering," or communicating about a particular candidate.

"While, as a member of this Court, I am bound to follow Citizens United, I do not have to agree with the [U.S.] Supreme Court's decision," Judge James Nelson wrote. "And, to be absolutely clear, I do not agree with it. For starters, the notion that corporations are disadvantaged in the political realm is unbelievable. Indeed, it has astounded most Americans. The truth is that corporations wield enormous power in Congress and in state legislatures. It is hard to tell where government ends and corporate America begins: the transition is seamless and overlapping."

Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock, who defended the statute along with state Political Practices Commissioner David Gallik, praised the ruling.

"We're really pleased with the decision and think it's based on solid constitutional analysis, common sense and a clear understanding of our history and our current system of electing our state's leaders," Bullock said in a prepared statement.

The Montana law, which was enacted through a voter initiative in 1912, prohibits corporations from directly contributing to or making expenditures for a candidate or political committee but permits them to establish separate funds for such purposes as long as the contributions come from individual shareholders, employees or members of the corporation.

McGrath wrote that a "material factual distinction" existed regarding the regulatory effects of the Montana law versus the McCain-Feingold Act. He added that Montana passed its law after voters became concerned that mining interests disproportionately influenced political campaigns at the turn of the last century.More at http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202537311056&thepag
e=2

I hope something can be done. Montana should be held up as an example of WHY corporate influence on American elections isn't a good thing and why Citizens United should be overturned...or at the very least, further clarified to change what has become an election-for-sale situation in this country.

Citizens United has changed our country--not for the better--and the rationale that it would AVOID corruption is a joke, to say the least. It has RESULTED in more corruption, in that moneyed interests now buy our elections, than it was (supposedly) intended to prohibit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 7, 2012 6:53 AM

STORYMARK


Good for them. Though Im sure all those states-rights conservative types will be the first to bitch about them actually excersizing those rights.

As much as Id like to think this will be the first of many states to make an effort to prevent elections from being bought - I doubt much will come of it.


Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 7, 2012 11:45 AM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Good for Montana, makes sense.

I assume you're my pal until you let me know otherwise.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 7, 2012 12:16 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!





If you say so.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, July 11, 2025 18:24 - 5645 posts
Do you feel like the winds of change are blowing today too?
Fri, July 11, 2025 18:17 - 2485 posts
Tragedy in Texas - Flash Flood
Fri, July 11, 2025 18:06 - 2 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, July 11, 2025 16:58 - 8603 posts
'Border Czar' Tom Homan: Gavin Newsom And Karen Bass Could Be Arrested If They Get In ICE's Way
Fri, July 11, 2025 16:19 - 10 posts
Direction of the Country
Fri, July 11, 2025 16:14 - 14 posts
The Texas Disaster
Fri, July 11, 2025 15:57 - 160 posts
Trump Is Destroying Everything He Touches
Fri, July 11, 2025 15:41 - 468 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Fri, July 11, 2025 08:34 - 1024 posts
Trunp loses again in Court
Thu, July 10, 2025 21:11 - 739 posts
MAGA losers
Thu, July 10, 2025 21:10 - 124 posts
Those who fail to learn from history are idiots.
Thu, July 10, 2025 09:49 - 34 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL