Montana supreme court says Citizens United doesn't count there

[gloraelin]

Montana’s Supreme Court has issued a stunning rebuke to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 that infamously decreed corporations had constitutional rights to directly spend money on ‘independent expenditures’ in campaigns.

The Montana Court vigorously upheld the state’s right to regulate how corporations can raise and spend

Comments

[jocelyncs]

Uh, as much as I loathe the Citizens United decision, it doesn't work like this. The Montana SC is way out of line if they are refusing to apply it (I can hope this is just bad journalism.)

[soundczech]

he didn't refuse to apply it, he just put his dissent on record before stating that he has to enforce the (US) supreme court's decision anyway

[jocelyncs]

It was the court majority that seems to be refusing to apply it, and that's disturbing. US Supreme Court decisions become the law of the land - state courts have no right to "opt out" or overrule them.

[soundczech]

ahh, whoops. i somehow glossed over the first part.

[sesmo]

No, no. The Supreme Court invalidated a Federal Statute, holding that as written it interfered with the U.S. Constitution. Montana Supreme Court upheld a Montana State Statute, holding at as written it was valid under Montana's Constitution & the U.S. Constitution, in light of the Supreme Court's decision. This is just bad journalism.

[kyra_neko_rei]

If I'm reading it correctly, Montana is upholding a state law that's written somewhat differently than the federal legislation that was struck down under CU.

The Montana court is under the opinion that the two laws are different enough that this one is constitutional even though that one isn't. Except for the dissenter who appears to be applying the spirit of the CU decision over the others' analysis of the letter thereof.