Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2 Justices suggest "Citizens United" ruling should be reconsidered in Montana Case
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/two-justices-suggest-citizens-united-ruling-should-be-reconsidered-in-montana-case/2012/02/17/gIQAJ07kKR_story.html?hpid=z2*snip*
The Montana ruling seems squarely at odds with the court’s 5 to 4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed unlimited corporate spending. The U.S. Supreme Court majority had said such independent spending did not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.
*snip*
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
multiple times to get the gist...
I *think* it was saying that Montana has a century's old law essentially banning corporate funding in elections and the Montana Supreme Court upheld it... and then in swoops the U .S. Supreme Court to block the state Supreme Court? 
But then Ginsberg and Breyer are suggesting that the U.S. Supreme Court further delve into the issue and use this case to review and hopefully revise the outcome of Citizen's United.
It almost seemed like the article was saying that the U.S. Supreme Court's "block" action was counter to Citizen's United - at least the way it was phrased.