SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., fka
WESTERN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., et al. v. STEVE
BULLOCK, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MONTANA, et al.
on petition for writ of certiorari to the
supreme court of montana
No. 11–1179. Decided June 25,
2012
Per Curiam.
A Montana state law provides that a
“corporation may not make . . . an expenditure in connection
with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes
a candidate or a political party.” Mont. Code Ann.
§13– 35–227(1) (2011). The Montana Supreme Court
rejected petitioners’ claim that this statute violates the
First Amendment. 2011 MT 328, 363 Mont. 220, 271 P.3d 1. In
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, this
Court struck down a similar federal law, holding that
“political speech does not lose First Amendment protection
simply because its source is a corporation.” 558 U. S.
___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 26) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The question presented in this case is whether the
holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law.
There can be no serious doubt that it does. See U. S. Const.,
Art. VI, cl. 2. Montana’s arguments in support of the
judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens
United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case.The
petition for certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Supreme
Court of Montana is reversed.
It is so ordered.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., fka
WESTERN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., et al. v. STEVE
BULLOCK, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MONTANA, et al.
on petition for writ of certiorari to the
supreme court of montana
No. 11–1179. Decided June 25,
2012
Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Ginsburg,
Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan join, dissenting.
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.” 558
U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 42). I disagree with the
Court’s hold- ing 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.” Id., at
___ (slip op., at 67–68). Indeed, Justice Stevens recounted a
“substantial body of evidence” suggesting that
“[m]any corporate independent expenditures . . .
had become essentially interchangeable with direct contributions in
their capacity to generate quid pro quo arrangements.”
Id., at ___ (slip op., at 64–65).
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. 2011 MT 328, ¶¶
36–37, 363 Mont. 220, 235–236, 271 P.3d 1, 36–37.
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.