Project Vote board member Frank Askin–Distinguished Professor of Law and Founding Director of the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers School of Law-Newark– blogged at the Star-Ledger on Montana’s challenging of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Prof. Askin writes:
“[Citizens United] was that ruling — with a little bit of help from some lower court follow-ups and a divided Federal Election Commission — that unleashed the orgy of ‘independent’ spending in this year’s presidential campaign, much of it from corporate sources.
…In addition to freeing corporations and unions to operate as flesh-and-blood people, [Justice Anthony] Kennedy’s opinion also narrowed the definition of ‘corruption’ to include only ‘quid pro quo’ expenditures — in other words, activities that would amount to actual bribery.
…Acknowledging that Kennedy’s opinion had narrowly defined ‘corruption’ as ‘dollars for political favors,’ the Montana court wrote: ‘Montana’s experience and experience elsewhere make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.'”
Prof. Askin adds, “one issue the opinion raises is whether the Citizens United ruling on the corrupt impact of independent expenditures was a ruling of law or a finding of fact based on the record immediately before the court. While most legal observers assume it was the former, the Montana opinion at least gives Kennedy, who everyone recognizes is the swing vote of the ideologically divided court, an opportunity to refine his position in light of post-Citizens United experience, without seeming to contradict himself.”
Read Prof. Askin’s entire editorial on the Montana Supreme Court’s opinion here.