American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock

Last updated

American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided June 25, 2012
Full case nameAmerican Tradition Partnership, Inc., fka Western Tradition Partnership, Inc., et al. v. Steve Bullock, Attorney General of Montana, et al.
Docket no. 11-1179
Citations567 U.S. 516 ( more )
132 S. Ct. 2490; 183 L. Ed. 2d 448
Case history
PriorWestern Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General, 2011 MT 328
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Per curiam
DissentBreyer, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, 2011 MT 328, is a decision by the Montana Supreme Court ruling that the broad free speech protections given to corporations in Citizens United v. FEC do not apply to Montana's campaign finance laws. [1] The United States Supreme Court reversed the Montana Supreme Court's decision in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, 567, U.S. 516 (2012), in a short, per curiam opinion [2] issued without oral argument. [3] The court wrote only that the legal issue had already been precluded by Citizens United, and this case offered no new arguments and failed to distinguish that prior decision. [4]

Contents

Background

In a 1912 ballot initiative, the citizens of Montana passed the Montana Corrupt Practices Act in response to the major influence of corporations on state elections. [5] During the early 20th century, a number of rich "Copper Barons" controlled most of the political process through quid pro quo financial transactions with politicians. [6] In response, the state restricted the amount of money that corporations and individuals could donate to campaigns. [7] American Tradition Partnership (ATP), formerly known as Western Tradition Partnership, [8] had challenged the Montana Corrupt Practices Act of 1912, which prohibited independent expenditures to influence political campaigns by corporations, after the United States Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. [9] ATP was joined in its suit by Champion Painting and the Montana Shooting Sports Association. [10] In October 2010 District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock ruled that the Montana law is unconstitutional. [9] Ruling Judge Sherlock said he agreed with U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson, who overturned a similar ban in Minnesota. Magnuson wrote that Citizens United "is unequivocal: The government may not prohibit independent and indirect corporate expenditures on political speech." [11] Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock, a Democrat who had been elected to that office in 2008, argued on behalf of the State of Montana that the Corrupt Practices Act should remain in place. [12]

Opinion of the Montana Supreme Court

In response to a potential U.S. Supreme Court challenge, the majority opinion included a great deal of historical evidence to document the "corrupting influence of campaign contributions on elections." [1] Citizens United focused primarily on the free speech limitations of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, whereas the Montana Supreme Court focused on the historical precedent for allowing campaign finance restrictions. [13] In particular, the Montana Supreme Court called the Supreme Court's declaration that corporations have the same constitutional rights as individual citizens "utter nonsense".

The use of abundant historical precedent allowed the majority to argue that their ruling is consistent with the original intent of the First Amendment.

Additionally, the Montana Supreme Court called Citizens United a "crabbed view of corruption" and argued that prior to Montana's campaign finance laws "the state of Montana and its government were operating under a mere shell of legal authority." [1] The majority criticized Citizens United as being unrealistic about the corrupting influence of unlimited secret money, and the court cited a litany of evidence to prove the direct correlation between independent expenditures and political corruption. [13]

The Montana Supreme Court believed that this ruling does not blatantly contradict Citizens United because the ruling deals with a law that has major differences from the McCain-Feingold Act (the law that Citizens United partially overturned).

Dissent

James Nelson, who was one of the two dissenters, agreed with the majority opinion and called the reasoning of Citizens United "smoke and mirrors", but he did not believe that the Montana Supreme Court had the authority to contradict the Supreme Court. According to Nelson, when the highest court makes a constitutional ruling, all other courts must follow it. [1]

U.S. Supreme Court per curiam reversal and implication

American Tradition Partnership appealed the Montana Supreme Court decision after the court issued its decision. [14] "If Montana is allowed to flout this court's holdings in Citizens United in such a willful and transparent fashion, respect for the Constitution, the rule of law and this court will be eroded", James Bopp, American Tradition Partnership lawyer, argued. [15] In February 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the decision pending further review by the high court. [15] Justices Ginsburg and Breyer released a short statement, urging the court to revisit Citizens United and "to consider whether, in light of the huge sums of money currently deployed to buy candidate's allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway." The justices asked the court to pay attention to the empirical evidence of corruption caused by the new unlimited spending, a problem that the majority downplayed in their opinion. [16]

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Montana Supreme Court without hearing oral argument in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, 567 U.S. 516 (2012) by a short, per curiam opinion. The court wrote only that "[t]here can be no serious doubt" that the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law, as per U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, and that "Montana's arguments in support of the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case." Justice Breyer dissented in an opinion joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. He would have reconsidered Citizens United or its applicability to the case at hand but believed that the votes to make such an effort meaningful did not exist. [2] [17]

The court had not summarily reversed any lower court with four strongly dissenting justices with so little analysis since 1968. [18] With its ruling the Supreme Court upheld its Citizens United landmark decision. [19] While the Citizens United decision initially appeared to apply equally to state contests, [20] the Supreme Court ruled in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock that the Citizens United holding does so by applying it to Montana state law. [4] Because the Citizens United decision supersedes state law, [21] the states cannot bar corporate and union political contributions in their own elections. [19]

See also

Related Research Articles

Campaign finance laws in the United States have been a contentious political issue since the early days of the union. The most recent major federal law affecting campaign finance was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold". Key provisions of the law prohibited unregulated contributions to national political parties and limited the use of corporate and union money to fund ads discussing political issues within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election; However, provisions of BCRA limiting corporate and union expenditures for issue advertising were overturned by the Supreme Court in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life.

Corporate personhood or juridical personality is the legal notion that a juridical person such as a corporation, separately from its associated human beings, has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons. In most countries, a corporation has the same rights as a natural person to hold property, enter into contracts, and to sue or be sued.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act</span> 2002 American law regulating political campaigns

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or BCRA, is a United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. A majority of justices held that, as provided by section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, limits on election expenditures are unconstitutional. In a per curiam opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression. It limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power. Justice Byron White dissented in part and wrote that Congress had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending "as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken".

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is the primary United States federal law regulating political campaign fundraising and spending. The law originally focused on creating limits for campaign spending on communication media, adding additional penalties to the criminal code for election law violations, and imposing disclosure requirements for federal political campaigns. The Act was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on February 7, 1972.

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), often referred to as the McCain–Feingold Act.

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time. The United States Supreme Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. The ruling came in response to a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporate donations in ballot initiatives unless the corporation's interests were directly involved.

In law, a per curiamdecision or opinion is one that is not authored by or attributed to a specific judge, but rather to the entire court or panel of judges who heard the case. The term per curiam is Latin for "by the court".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign finance in the United States</span> Contributions to American election campaign funds

The financing of electoral campaigns in the United States happens at the federal, state, and local levels by contributions from individuals, corporations, political action committees, and sometimes the government. Campaign spending has risen steadily at least since 1990.

Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1921), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the United States Constitution did not grant the United States Congress the authority to regulate political party primaries or nomination processes. The court struck down 1911 amendments to the Federal Corrupt Practices Act which placed spending limits on candidate and political election committee spending in primaries or other nomination processes for federal office.

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance regulations. The majority opinion authored by Thurgood Marshall held that the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which burdened political speech by prohibiting corporations from using treasury money to make independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections, was appropriately justified by a compelling state interest so as to overcome a First Amendment challenge. The court also found no Fourteenth Amendment violation, stating that Congress could treat press corporations and nonpress corporations differently without violating the Equal Protection Clause. Upholding the restriction on corporate political speech, The Court stated that "Corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections"; however, the Michigan law still allowed the corporation to make such expenditures from a segregated fund.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other associations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Steve Bullock (American politician)</span> American politician and lawyer (born 1966)

Stephen Clark Bullock is an American politician and lawyer who served as the 24th governor of Montana from 2013 to 2021. He is a member of the Democratic Party.

American Tradition Partnership (ATP), formerly known as Western Tradition Partnership, is a conservative 501(c)4 advocacy group in the United States targeting what it describes as "environmental extremism." ATP has also initiated litigation targeting campaign finance regulations. It maintains a PO Box in Washington, D.C., and has no physical office.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2011 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span> 2011 decisions of the US supreme court

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down fourteen per curiam opinions during its 2011 term, which began October 3, 2011 and concluded September 30, 2012.

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. 185 (2014), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. The decision held that Section 441 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which imposed a limit on contributions an individual can make over a two-year period to all national party and federal candidate committees, is unconstitutional.

A campaign finance reform amendment refers to any proposed amendment to the United States Constitution to authorize greater restrictions on spending related to political speech, and to overturn Supreme Court rulings which have narrowed such laws under the First Amendment. Several amendments have been filed since Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and the Occupy movement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Montana District Courts</span> American state trial courts in Montana

Montana District Courts are the state trial courts of general jurisdiction in the U.S. state of Montana. Montana District Courts have original jurisdiction over most civil cases, civil actions involving monetary claims against the state, criminal felony cases, naturalization proceedings, probate cases, and most writs. They may also hear certain special actions and proceedings, and oversee a narrowly-defined class of ballot issues. Montana District Courts also have limited appellate jurisdiction regarding cases that arise in Justice Courts, City Courts, and Municipal Courts as well as Judicial review of decisions by state administrative law tribunals that fall under the Montana Administrative Procedures Act.

<i>FEC v. National Conservative PAC</i> 1985 United States Supreme Court case

FEC v. National Conservative PAC, 470 U.S. 480 (1985), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States striking down expenditure prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which regulates the fundraising and spending in political campaigns. The FECA is the primary law that places regulations on campaign financing by limiting the amount that may be contributed. The Act established that no independent political action committee may contribute more than $1,000 to any given presidential candidate in support of a campaign.

<i>Dark Money</i> (film) 2018 American film

Dark Money is a 2018 American documentary film directed by Kimberly Reed about the effects of corporate money and influence in the American political system. The film uses Reed's home state of Montana as a primary case study to advance a broader, national discussion on governance in an era of super PACs and Citizens United. Dark Money premiered at the 2018 Sundance Film Festival and premiered to a Montana audience at the Big Sky Film Festival in February 2018. The broadcast rights to Dark Money were purchased by PBS distribution to air the film as part of their docu-series POV in 2018.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Western Tradition Partnership vs. Montana, 2011MT328 (MT2011).
  2. 1 2 Supreme Court of the United States (June 25, 2012). "American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, 567 U.S. 516 (2012) (per curiam), slip op. at 1" (PDF). supremecourt.gov.
  3. ↑ Garrett Epps; RealClearPolitics (June 25, 2012). "Court to Super PACs: Full Speed Ahead". realclearpolitics.com.
  4. 1 2 Liptak, Adam (June 25, 2012). "Court Declines to Revisit Its Citizens United Decision". The New York Times. Retrieved June 26, 2012.
  5. ↑ Alex Altman (June 19, 2012). "Will the Supreme Court Consider a Campaign-Finance Mulligan?". Time .
  6. ↑ Warren Richey; The Christian Science Monitor (June 25, 2012). "Supreme Court strikes down Montana law, reaffirming Citizens United". The Christian Science Monitor.
  7. ↑ Sacks, Mike (January 4, 2012). "'Citizens United' Backlash: Montana Supreme Court Upholds State's Corporate Campaign Spending Ban". Huffington Post. Retrieved January 11, 2012.
  8. ↑ Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago-Kent College of Law (November 21, 2013). "American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock". oyez.org.
  9. 1 2 Andy Malby (October 19, 2010). "Court tosses ban on corporate donations". The Belgrade News. Retrieved July 6, 2012.
  10. ↑ Banks, Marnee (December 27, 2010). "Montana Politics 2010: Corporate Spending Ruling". krtv.com. Retrieved July 6, 2012.
  11. ↑ Johnson, Charles S. (October 18, 2010). "Judge overturns Montana's 1912 ban on corporate campaign contributions". Ravalli Republic State Bureau. Retrieved July 6, 2012.
  12. ↑ Johnson, Charles S. (May 20, 2012). "State urges U.S. Supreme Court to let 1912 Corrupt Practices Act stand". Billings Gazette. Billings Gazette. Retrieved March 1, 2018.
  13. 1 2 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010)
  14. ↑ Damon W. Root (May 23, 2012). "Montana's Misguided Attempt to Nullify Citizens United". Reason . Retrieved July 6, 2012.
  15. 1 2 Stohr, Greg (February 23, 2012). "Montana Corporate Election Spending Ban Halted by High Court". Businessweek. Archived from the original on February 18, 2012. Retrieved June 28, 2012.
  16. ↑ Goldstein, Tom (February 18, 2012). "The Supreme Court, Citizens United II, and the November election". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved June 28, 2012.
  17. ↑ Bravin, Jess (June 25, 2012). "Supreme Court Rejects Corporate Campaign Spending Limits". Wall Street Journal.
  18. ↑ Samuel Fieldman (June 25, 2012). "Supreme Court Throws Out Citizens United II Without Debate". Wolf PAC . Archived from the original on March 7, 2018. Retrieved August 5, 2019.
  19. 1 2 Alex Roarty (June 25, 2012). "Supreme Court Again Smacks Down Campaign-Finance Reformers". The Atlantic. Retrieved June 26, 2012.
  20. ↑ Sherman, Mark (June 26, 2012). "State corporate campaign spending limits rejected". The Associated Press. Atlantic News. Retrieved July 6, 2012.
  21. ↑ Josh Levs and Bill Mears (June 26, 2012). "Supreme Court refuses to reconsider campaign finance controversy". CNN News. Retrieved June 26, 2012.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.