By Pam Martens: June 25, 2012 

"Equal Justice Under Law," A Sad Joke At This Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court has today shot down a ruling in Montana that overturned the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, giving corporations unlimited spending in political campaigns.  The high court ruled that Montana must follow the edict of the Citizens United decision.  Twenty-two states had joined Montana in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling given all the newly acquired evidence of rampant corruption.  

The case was American Tradition Partnership, Inc., fka Western Tradition Partnership, Inc., et al v. Steve Bullock, Attorney General of Montana, et al.  A dissent was written by Justice Breyer, with whom Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan joined.

Excerpts from the dissent:

“In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court concluded that ‘independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption’… I disagree with the Court’s holding for the reasons expressed in Justice Stevens’ dissent in that case. As Justice Stevens explained, ‘technically independent expenditures can be corrupting in much the same way as direct contributions’… Moreover, even if I were to accept Citizens United, this Court’s legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Supreme Court’s finding, made on the record before it, that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana. Given the history and political landscape in Montana, that court concluded that the State had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations… Thus, 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…Were the matter up to me, I would vote to grant the petition for certiorari in order to reconsider Citizens United or, at least, its application in this case. But given the Court’s per curiam disposition, I do not see a significant possibility of reconsideration. Consequently, I vote instead to deny the petition.”

For an in-depth look at the crony capitalism running amok inside the U.S. Supreme Court, read this report on  Justice Clarence Thomas’ and his wife’s well rewarded alignment with the corporatist state.

Below is a sampling of the Amicus briefs that were filed in support of Montana’s position. It is impossible that the five right leaning judges on the Supreme Court could have read these well reasoned  legal arguments and voted as they did if they cared about upholding the law on behalf of the real citizens of the United States. 

Amicus by Public Citizen, et al

Amicus by Four Members of the U.S. House of Representatives

Amicus by Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law And Constitutional Law Professors

Amicus by Fourteen Nonprofits Including League of Women Voters and AARP

Amicus by Twenty-Two States and the District of Columbia: New York, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware,  Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.