Montana Goes Its Own Way on Citizens United

Friday, January 20, 2012

Transcript

There’s been lots of critique of the Citizens United decision, but a few weeks ago came a surprising rebuke.  The Montana Supreme Court decided that because of the state’s unique history of money influencing politics, Citizens United shouldn’t apply in Montana.  Even the dissenting judges didn’t spare the U.S. Supreme Court their scorn.  New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak tells Brooke the case is very likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Oddisee - Closed After Dark

Comments [3]

Mark Richard from WOSU

What a silly story. OTM is hypocrisy on stilts on 'Citizens United', since its own product is the product of a corporation, and its system runs on money. Neither Brooke Gladstone nor anyone else can explain exactly why The New York Times Corporation should have free speech rights during a political campaign, but the World Wide Widget Corporation should not - which is the real framing device here. The anti-corporate rhetoric encouraged by OTM and other mainstream media sources will come around to bite it, since the Obama Administration explicitly stated that by its position in the 'Citizens United' case, the government should have the right to suppress any book, pamphlet, documentary, or whatever during a political campaign if it deemed those products to have been the result of corporate expenditures. Almost all media is, you know, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Free speech for us, but not for our political opponents - that's what is really going on here.

A couple of weeks ago, the night before the South Carolina primary, ABC television, which is owned by a corporation, ran a highly unflattering interview with Newt Gingrich's wife on one of its 'news' programs. Can anyone tell me what the difference would have been if a Romney 'SuperPac' had broadcast the interview as an attack ad? ABC News expended money to produce the segment, I'll wager.

OTM's characterization of the Montana Supreme Court action as a 'rebuke' is unintentionally funny. In our court system, the US Supreme Court has the power to 'rebuke' lesser courts, not the other way around. Catch OTM referring to the state courts 'rebuking' the Obama administration over health care. Really, it would be nice of OTM were not 100% predictable on every political issue it discusses.

Jan. 30 2012 11:51 AM
TammyB

I recently read that the Koch brothers alone have spent over $200M in Wisconsin in support of Governor Scott Walker's union busting...which explains why I receive a slick, oversized mailing from the "Americans for Prosperity" touting Walker's record on a near daily basis.

Which got me wondering: unlike Wall Street activities, all the SuperPac spending is creating something concrete: advertising agencies are being paid to produce mailers and TV spots, the PO is being paid to deliver the mail and TV stations are being paid to air the ads, etc. In other words, they're creating employment.

Might one result of the SuperPacs end up being a shift of wealth?

Jan. 26 2012 03:26 PM
The PPL from Helena, MT

Montana is ready to lead the charge.
The State does not plan to be run by corporations again.

The People's Power League
The authors of the Corrupt Practices Act 1912.

Jan. 26 2012 11:19 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.