More on Montana

There is now no question that the conservative majority really knew what it was doing in Citizens United, because it has now doubled down on the decision and extended it to apply to state and local elections as well as federal ones.

In the 2010 majority opinion that established Citizens as law, Justice Kennedy wrote that

". . .  independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption . . . [therefore] no sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations."

This justification was what opponents of the law were hoping could be revisited in the light of what has happened to campaign finance experience since then.

Those hopes are now dashed.    The same majority summarily (meaning without holding hearings on the case) overturned the Montana Supreme Court's decision and declared that "there can be no serious doubt" that Citizens United does apply to Montana state elections.

Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayer, and Kagan joined Justice Bryer's dissent, in which he wrote:

"Montana's experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court's decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court's supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so."

There seem to be only two ways to change this:   pass a constitutional amendment on campaign finance law or wait for the balance on the court to shift by replacing one of the conservatives with a liberal and hope that a suitable test case arrives at the court while that balance holds.   That could be a very long time and require that a Democrat is in the White House when it does happen.

There may be dark times ahead.   This court is a disaster for democracy.  It is more and more defining itself as unquestionably pro-business.  Far worse than I ever anticipated when Roberts and Alito were confirmed.

Ralph