Two justices suggest Citizens United ruling should be reconsidered in Montana case

[SeattleGirl]

Two Supreme Court justices suggested Friday that the court reconsider its controversial 2010 decision that allowed unlimited corporate and union spending in elections.

The suggestion came as the court blocked a Montana Supreme Court decision upholding a century-old ban on corporate campaign spending in the state.

<snip>

In Friday’s order, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer said the upheaval in the world of campaign finance since the Citizens United decision does not bear out the majority opinion.

“Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations ‘do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,’ ” Ginsburg wrote.

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/t...story.html

It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS does end up taking the Montana case, and if so, what they will do with it. Of course, Roberts et al will probably want to uphold Citizen's United -- the do love helping their corporate buddies out, and the hell with the rest of us.

[jaxx]

Good for Ginsburg and Breyer. I'd love to see a big fight about Citizens United. The proof it's bad is on the campaign trail right now....there is no avoiding the damage it is doing.

[SeattleGirl]

(02-18-2012 10:04 PM)jaxx Wrote:  Good for Ginsburg and Breyer. I'd love to see a big fight about Citizens United. The proof it's bad is on the campaign trail right now....there is no avoiding the damage it is doing.

Exactly. It's become absolutely obscene. I don't like it that PBO is jumping on the Super-PAC bandwagon, but I don't blame him either. Gotta fight fire with fire, but this is one fire that I think will consume all of us if it's not put out.

[pappy]

I am ambivalent about the court revisiting Citizens United.

While it is certainly a good thing to have the court, at the very least, temper its decision it should not be considered the final word on the matter.

As long as we have Justices that are not willing and able to respect precedent we cannot trust that any rollback or tempering corporate privilege will last.

The only lasting change can come from the amendment process. We need to both amend the Constitution with regards to corporate personhood as well as to campaign finance.

[Andy823]

(02-19-2012 07:52 AM)pappy Wrote:  I am ambivalent about the court revisiting Citizens United.

While it is certainly a good thing to have the court, at the very least, temper its decision it should not be considered the final word on the matter.

As long as we have Justices that are not willing and able to respect precedent we cannot trust that any rollback or tempering corporate privilege will last.

The only lasting change can come from the amendment process. We need to both amend the Constitution with regards to corporate personhood as well as to campaign finance.

I totally agree that the only way to make sure it ends, is an amendment to the Constitution. Of course the only way we an get that is for congress to vote for such and amendment, and right now republicans are NOT going to vote for it. Of course if enough states try and stop it, and enough citizens demand it stop, then maybe if we get rid of a whole lot of the tea party morons, along with the republicans who love all that new money, maybe it can pass in congress. Only time will tell.