• Time for Citizens United: Round 2? Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the Montana Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the state’s longstanding campaign finance laws banning corporate political spending, American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock. The decision came after American Tradition Partnership and two Montana businesses filed an application asking the Court to strike down the Montana Supreme Court’s decision. ATP now has until the end of March to formally request that the Court review the Montana Supreme Court’s decision. If they don’t, the Montana’s decision would stand, but should they file the request, it would pave the way for a full review of the controversial Citizens United decision. (photo courtesy of flickr user kenudigit)  source

• Basically, it affirmed what we were all seeing on the streets, which is the average Missoulian wanted to have their voice heard … and they want their elected officials to fix the problem of corporate personhood. So I hope this message is heard and we get started on fixing the problem.
• Missoula, Montana Councilwoman Cynthia Wolken • Discussing her successful efforts last week to get a referendum passed in her city against the concept of corporate personhood, which was codified with the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision. While the vote — which had a 75/25 split at the polls — wasn’t binding, it is one step in the direction of encouraging Congress to pass an amendment to help fix the system, and one small push in a larger national movement. (thanks Michael Cote) source

• Fighting back against “Citizens United:” Senate Democrats, led by Tom Udall, have introduced a constitutional amendment meant to blunt the effects of Citizen’s United, the Supreme Court decision that paved the way for unlimited, undisclosed campaign contributions by corporations. The amendment wouldn’t directly overturn CU, but rather give congresses–both federal and state–the authority to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures. Like most proposed constitutional amendments, it probably won’t get anywhere close to ratification, but hey, it rallies the base, right? source

• $75
  million anonymous donations to conservative/Republican campaigns this cycle
• $10
  million anonymous donations to liberal/Democratic campaigns this cycle source

• Things that weaken the parties and place the outcome of elections in the hands of billionaires who can write checks and political consultants who can get themselves hired by billionaires who write the checks, give me some concern.
• Karl Rove in 2004 • Denouncing the rise of independent 527 groups and their influence on that year’s election. In March of this year, Rove founded his own 527 group, American Crossroads, to fund conservative candidates. In June, he co-founded an offshoot group that allows its donors to remain anonymous. source

• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is an important case. This may be one of the most important cases that we see in our lifetimes, because it’ll have a direct effect on who gets elected, what laws get passed, and who can say what during an election. It’s such an important case that the dissenting opinion is as important as the decision itself. So, here goes.

The case at hand:

• It was about a movie that trashed Hillary Clinton. The producers of “Hillary the Movie,” which was designed by a highly-funded conservative nonprofit political organization to smear the then-presidential candidate, wanted to show the film during the 2008 primaries, but couldn’t because of campaign finance laws (most notably, one passed by John McCain and Russ Feingold back in 2002). Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission had a narrow scope, and dealt with a small part of campaign finance law.

Key points in campaign finance reform:

• 1971 The Federal Election Campaign Act passes, requiring campaigns to report hard-money contributors to their campaigns, but leaving the door for “soft money” contributions wide open.
• 1990 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce was decided by the Supreme Court, a key decision which upheld the longstanding restriction on corporate speech that could influence elections.
• 2002 The McCain-Feingold Act passed, which limited so-called “soft money” contributions and limited the broadcast of corporate and non-profit political messages near elections, passes.

Main points of the majority opinion:

• Chilling political speech Anthony Kennedy’s opinion argues that the “speech that is central to the meaning and purpose of the First Amendment” is getting frozen with current campaign finance laws, despite their good intentions.
• Broad, not narrow Instead of focusing on the narrow view of Citizens United, the court decided to widely interpret the law, rendering nearly 100 years of campaign finance laws and judicial rulings useless.
• Corporate ad crazy The court decided to overturn some of the most important elements of Austin and McCain-Feingold, so now we can be barraged with annoying political ads all the way up to election day!

Why John Paul Stevens is awesome:

• 89the age of John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court’s oldest justice and also its most liberal
• 90 number of pages of pure, unadulterated dissent from Johnny boy; not bad bro source

The main point of his (mostly) dissenting opinion:

• The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.
• John Paul Stevens • In his lengthy, massive dissenting opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, probably the most dramatic decision the court has made in at least a decade, due to the impact it has on the electoral process. He apologizes for the length for the document before leaping in. But he really had to. This thing is huge – it’s nearly twice the size of the opinion it refutes. source

What does all this mean for you, ShortFormBlog fan?

• one Corporate influence is once again going to be a major factor in political campaigns. And they won’t have any limits on their speech.
• two You’re going see more ads on TV in the days leading up to major elections. The ads could be from corporations or nonprofits.
• three If Fred Thompson runs for president again, TNT can air repeats of his episodes of “Law and Order” all the way up until election day. source