Supreme Court Lets Unlimited Money Stand, Ignores
Extensive Record of Corruption

Brennan Center Submitted Amicus Brief Urging Court to
Uphold Montana Election Law, Revisit Citizens United

For Immediate Release: June 25, 2012

Contact: Erik Opsal, [log in to unmask], 646-292-8356

Washington, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court today, by a
5-4 vote, struck down Montana's 100-year-old ban on
corporate election spending -- without even allowing
full briefing or argument in the case. The decision
reverses a Montana Supreme Court decision, which upheld
the law due to the state's dramatic history of
corruption.

In May, the Brennan Center submitted a
friend-of-the-court brief urging the Court to uphold
the law, and use the case to revisit the disastrous
Citizens United ruling, which opened the door to
unlimited spending in American elections. The brief,
submitted on behalf of the Center and nine
constitutional law professors in American Tradition
Partnership v. Bullock, argued that Citizens United is
untenable in light of the dominant role now being
played in U.S. elections by super PACs and other
outside groups.

"The 2012 elections make one thing clear: unlimited
spending by super PACs and secretive nonprofits is
corrupting our political process and threatens to swamp
our democracy," said Adam Skaggs, senior counsel in the
Brennan Center's Democracy Program. "Increasing numbers
of Americans believe our government is bought and paid
for by special interests and that their votes don't
matter. By not taking this case, the Court missed a
critical opportunity to rein in some of the worst
excesses of Citizens United, and other rulings, that
created this super PAC mess."

Montana banned corporate election spending for more
than 100 years as a result of a dramatic history of
efforts by big companies to capture the state
government. The state of Montana compiled an extensive
and powerful factual record that demonstrated how
unlimited corporate spending previously held the state
hostage to mining companies and still poses severe
threats to Montana's elections and government. For the
Court to strike down the state's anti-corruption law
without even reviewing that record is a serious
mistake.

By reversing the Montana court and not hearing the
case, the Supreme Court also ensures that super PACs
and other outside groups will continue to play a
dominant role in U.S. elections.

In Citizens United, the Court said that, based on the
facts before it, "independent expenditures, including
those made by corporations, do not give rise to
corruption or the appearance of corruption." Lower
courts extended this decision, reasoning that if
outside spending cannot lead to corruption, then there
is no legitimate basis for restricting how much can be
donated to outside groups. This created super PACs,
which can accept unlimited donations from corporations,
unions, and individuals, and then spend those funds to
support specific candidates.

"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," wrote Justice Stephen Breyer in dissent.

The substantial evidence compiled in recent months
shows that significant outside spending, by super PACs
and other groups, creates a very real risk of
corruption and the appearance of corruption.

A few troubling examples:

A super PAC dedicated to Newt Gingrich's election
received almost all of its money from casino owner
Sheldon Adelson and his family, who donated more than
$20 million. Now that Gingrich is out of the race,
Adelson has given $10 million to Romney's super PAC and
a source close to Adelson says his future donations may
be "limitless." Presidential candidates and their
campaign staff appear at their super PACs' fundraising
events and solicit funds for them, but these activities
are still considered "independent" under the existing
legal scheme. This defies common sense: candidates even
refer to specific super PACs as "my super PAC." Super
PACs have raised more than $234 million and have spent
more than $131 million to influence federal election
results -- five months from the general election. In
total, outside groups have already spent roughly $163
million on federal campaigns, double the amount spent
in the same period in 2008.

Although the Court missed a chance to undo some of the
damage caused by Citizens United, the Brennan Center
will continue working to correct that mistake,
partnering with legal scholars and others to develop
policies that put voters back in charge of elections.

"To truly reform our elections, we must counter the
power of big money in politics," said Michael Waldman,
president of the Brennan Center. "We must adopt a small
donor public financing system so that the voices of
regular voters matter as much as fat-cat donors. We
need to modernize voter registration to add more than
50 million eligible Americans to the rolls. And state
and federal governments must pass disclosure laws to
help guard against corruption that could result from
political spending."

Read the Brennan Center's research on New York City's
successful public financing system and our proposal to
modernize voter registration. See our Election 2012
page for frequent updates on all voting rights and
money in politics news.

To set up an interview, please contact Erik Opsal at
[log in to unmask] or 646-292-8356.

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate