WTP ATI v Montana bak

=<div>bak, no red txt 917</div><div>
</div><div>2012</div><div>
</div><div>effect 2014 off year:</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/10/election-to-cost-nearly-4-billion-crp-projects-topping-previous-midterms/">https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/10/election-to-cost-nearly-4-billion-crp-projects-topping-previous-midterms/</a></div><div>
</div><div><div class="entry-content" style="margin: 5px 0px; word-wrap: break-word;">Almost $4 billion will be spent for this year’s midterm election, the Center for Responsive Politics is projecting. That figure makes this year’s election <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">by far the most expensive midterm ever</a>. The candidates and parties alone will combine to spend about $2.7 billion, while <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?disp=O" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">outside groups</a> will likely spend close to $900 million on their own — a figure that veers close to the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/fes_summ.php?cycle=2012" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">$1.3 billion spent by outside groups in 2012</a>, when the hyper-expensive presidential race was fueling the fire.By the end of the battle, when totals for every category are added together, Team Red will outspend Team Blue, CRP projects. GOP and conservative-leaning candidates, party committees and outside groups will spend at least $1.92 billion, compared to at least $1.76 billion their rivals on the Democratic and liberal-leaning side will spend.In several categories — spending by House and Senate campaign committees, and money spent by secretive outside groups — conservative or Republican groups are projected to outdo their more liberal counterparts by a wide margin. Democrats and liberals will hold a slight lead when it comes to House and Senate party committee spending, and in the amount spent overall by outside groups. That lead in outside group spending, however, does not include money that groups spent on certain kinds of ads that didn’t have to be reported to the FEC if they were aired more than two months before the election (or 30 days before a primary); <a href="http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/releases/heated-battle-for-u-s-senate-draws-deluge-of-outside-group-ads-most-are-dark-money/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">conservative groups appear to have dominated in that category</a>.The 2010 midterm cost $3.6 billion; this one will run an estimated $333 million more than that. The congressional portion of the 2012 race cost about $3.6 billion as well.These projections are based on spending totals reported by campaigns and committees and outside groups through June 30 or Aug. 31, depending on the Federal Election Commission filing schedule they follow. A more detailed projection of the total cost of the election, taking into account numbers current through the end of September, will be released by CRP next week. These projections were developed by CRP researchers using models based on the 2010 election cycle. The Center has been projecting the cost of the election in every cycle since 1996.Outside Money ExplosionAs with the 2012 cycle, the explosion in outside money is a dominant theme of this election’s spending story. So far, at least $663.3 million has been spent by outside groups like super PACs and 527s (a figure that is current within the last 48 hours), but CRP’s projections based on the pattern in the 2012 cycle indicate that at least another $233.5 million remains to be spent in the 12 days before Nov. 4; that’s a rate of $19.4 million a day.<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/fixed.pie.chart.png" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;"><img class="alignright wp-image-6201" src="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/fixed.pie.chart.png" alt="fixed.pie.chart" width="404" height="350" srcset="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/fixed.pie.chart.png 923w, https://www.opensecrets.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/fixed.pie.chart-300x260.png 300w" sizes="(max-width: 404px) 100vw, 404px" style="border: none; vertical-align: middle; float: right; padding: 4px; margin: 0px 0px 2px 7px; display: inline;" /></a>Overall, liberal outside groups — including 527s — have spent $308.9 million so far, while conservative groups have spent $327.1 million. CRP is projecting that by Election Day, that dynamic will have flipped, with liberal outside groups slightly outspending conservative outside groups, $433 million to $424 million.Those figures, however, come with a major caveat. Our estimate is based on spending disclosed to the FEC. Again, certain ads don’t have to be reported, and it’s difficult to get a fix on exactly how much they cost. One group that began running these so-called “<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/glossary.php#Issue%20Advocacy" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">issue ads</a>” in North Carolina and other states as long ago as late 2013 is <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/nonprof_contrib.php?id=753148958" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Americans for Prosperity</a>, a conservative 501(c)(4) organization under the tax code; AFP, which <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2014/10/02/?entry=1344&php=true&type=blogs&rref=politics" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">says it spent tens of millions</a> on such ads, and similar political nonprofits aren’t required to disclose the identities of their donors, either.Overall, it’s likely that at least $100 million in spending is not being counted, and that money leans distinctly to the right, records filed with the Federal Communications Commission indicate. If that’s an accurate estimate, any advantage the liberal outside spending groups have over conservative ones will be washed away by Election Day.Outside spending by groups — mostly <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/glossary.php#Super%20PAC" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">super PACs</a> — that disclose their donors, on the other hand, is dominated by the left. So far, liberal outside groups that name their donors have logged $197.4 million in reported spending, compared to similar groups on the right that have spent only $132.1 million. By Nov. 4, CRP projects that these liberal groups will spend $270.5 million, and conservative ones will spend just $181.1 million.Among groups that CRP has deemed as “partially disclosing,” meaning that some donors are known but at least some money comes from opaque sources (like secretive nonprofit organizations), the spending shifts heavily in favor of the right. Partially disclosing liberal outside groups have spent $20.5 million, and by Election Day will spend just under $5 million more. Conservative outside groups that partially disclose their donors, however, have already spent $67.6 million and are projected to spend $83.7 million — an additional $16.1 million.As for groups that hide all of their donors, there is a vast gap between the two sides, and it will not close before Election Day. So far, secretive liberal groups have reported spending $24.6 million, according to their FEC filings, or about a quarter of the $99.5 million spent by their conservative counterparts. By the time the polls close, liberal groups that hide their donors will have spent roughly $3.4 million more (a total of $28 million), while comparable conservative groups are projected to spend $113.6 million.Congressional FundraisingDemocratic candidates are currently being outspent by Republican candidates in both houses of Congress — a trend that CRP projects will continue through Nov. 4.In the House, Democratic candidates have spent $195.5 million, while Republican candidates have spent $270.9 million — a 58-42 advantage for the GOP. By Election Day, CRP projects, the ratio will be roughly the same, with Democratic candidates spending a total of $426.1 million, which will be dwarfed by the $591.1 million spent by Republican candidates.In the Senate the ratio is, and will be, closer. Current data shows that Democratic Senate candidates have spent $153.1 million versus $184.8 million spent by Republican Senate hopefuls. CRP researchers project that ratio — 54 percent of all Senate campaign cash being spent by Republicans compared to 45 percent by Democratic candidates — will hold, and Democratic candidates will finish having spent $292.7 million, in contrast to $353.3 million by Republican candidates.Party FundraisingWith the rise of outside groups, the national party structures have been undermined to a certain degree. Super PACs and politically-active nonprofits give big donors many more ways to support their preferred party and candidates. That may be one reason why both the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/totals.php?cmte=DNC&cycle=2014" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Democratic National Committee</a> and the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/totals.php?cmte=RNC&cycle=2014" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Republican National Committees</a> are projected to spend less than they did four years ago. The DNC has spent $114.8 million so far, lagging behind the RNC’s $125 million, and CRP projects it will spend $155.3 million to the RNC’s projected $169.1 million. In 2010, the DNC spent $228.3 million and the RNC, $215.7 million — significantly more than this time around. For the Democrats, that’s a significant decline from 2010, when the DNC spent $228.3 million. Similarly, the RNC spent $215.7 million in 2010.The same is not true, though, of the other left-leaning party committees, including the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/totals.php?cmte=DCCC&cycle=2014" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee</a> and the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/totals.php?cmte=DSCC&cycle=2014" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee</a>. Possibly because of President Obama’s vigorous fundraising for those groups, they are projected by CRP to spend a total of $427 million by Election Day. That is the single area where Democrats are projected to have a significant advantage. Republican equivalents — the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/totals.php?cmte=NRSC&cycle=2014" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">National Republican Congressional Committee</a> and <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/totals.php?cmte=NRSC&cycle=2014" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">National Republican Senatorial Committee</a> — are projected to spent $330.9 million.In terms of fundraising, CRP estimates that all parties and committees will combine to raise $4.2 billion, though only $2.3 billion has been raised so far.</div><footer class="entry-meta" style="line-height: 15px;">
Categories: <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/category/campaign-finance/" rel="category tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Campaign finance</a> <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/category/politicians-elections/congressional-elections/" rel="category tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Congressional Elections</a> <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/category/outside-money/" rel="category tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Outside Money</a> <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/category/politicians-elections/" rel="category tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Politicians & Elections</a> <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/category/about-the-center/press-releases/" rel="category tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Press Releases</a>

Tags: <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/americans-for-prosperityc/" rel="tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">americans for prosperityc</a>, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/cost-of-election/" rel="tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">cost of election</a>, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/dccc/" rel="tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">dccc</a>, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/democratic/" rel="tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Democratic</a>, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/democratic-congressional-campaign-committee/" rel="tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee</a>, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/democratic-national-committee/" rel="tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Democratic National Committee</a>, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/democratic-senatorial-campaign-committe/" rel="tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committe</a>, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/dnc/" rel="tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">dnc</a>, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/dscc/" rel="tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">dscc</a>, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/independent-expenditures/" rel="tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">independent expenditures</a>, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/national-republican-campaign-committee/" rel="tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">national republican campaign committee</a>, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/nrcc/" rel="tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">nrcc</a>, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/press-release/" rel="tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">press release</a>, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/republican-national-committee/" rel="tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Republican National Committee</a>, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/republican-national-se/" rel="tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Republican National Se</a>, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/rnc/" rel="tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">rnc</a>, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/rnsc/" rel="tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">RNSC</a>, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/tag/super-pacs/" rel="tag" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">super PACs</a></footer></div><div>
</div><div></div><div>polarysis</div><div>
</div><div>The case was not on behalf of Brown exactly but his front group, Citizens United (they always have such nice names, except for its Roger Stone rival]). For tax purposes, (well ok, they don't pay any, and people who give them money can write it off their taxes because it's a charitable contribution) these organizations present themselves as performing a social benefit (such as feeding the hungry or educating people), but really they are destroying the common good.[the essence of evil is perversion of that that does the good]. #39 The Citizens United decision led to a huge influx of untraceable corporate cash in the 2010 election, so everyone thought that the arguments the court made that it would not even have even the appearance of corruption was laughable and would be fixed at the first opportunity. Sadly, it was not to be.  The next year Montana foolishly tried to use the anti-corruption laws it created a hundred years before when the Copper Kings had taken over the state (story of bags of cash being heaved over the transom in legislator’s offices like a newspaper delivery  is probably apocryphal but not far from truth; kind of like the railroad in California). This time the suit was brought about by the American Traditions Institute (previously known as Western Traditions Institute [, a sort of western cousin of Citizens United; it was an outgrowth of the Reagan era Sagebrush Rebellion Wise Use/property rights mafia?], but they have to keep changing names when we start to catch on). It's a "think tank," though it's a far piece geographically at least away from the venerable Cato, AEI, CEI etc, etc., and its sole mission, by its own admission and in its own words is to "Crush the green gang" i.e., to fight the environmentalist agenda #39  And despite the fact that it itself had broken election laws (doing hit jobs on political opponents but not reporting anything about who the money was from [they planned to spend $500K), the Supreme Court did not seem to mind. Despite its lack of disclosure, we're pretty sure ATI gets fossil fuel money as Montana is a coal state, and because they really seem to have it in for wind energy for some reason. #40  Of course they deny climate change, for example Joe Bastardi is a TV weatherman (those guys have done more than a little damage on climate, starting with John Coleman) who often appears on Fox News, along with CEI's Chris Horner, Morano and almost as bogus hack and sometimes collaborator of Ebell, Steven Milloy. ATI also picked up the case against Michael "hockey stick" Mann when even state attorney General Cuccinelli threw in the towel (he was, to be fair, trying at the same time to stop Obamacare and safe abortions, so we must cut him some slack). Oh, so what happened in the Montana case, AKA Citizen's United 2 ( Holywood movie tagline: this time it's personhood), turns out the Supremes were right after all! Money = speech caused no problem, despite a record four billion dollars spent [where? When?] , much of it untraceable.(in 2010? Tea party takeover? 2012?] 7 billion 
 So corporations continued to support candidates opposed to climate legislation, including a big influx of Tea Party candidates who portray themselves as independent grassroots reformers #41 <div>
</div></div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div><h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading">Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana</h1><div> any co-ord with CU? who is lawyer?  no high profile nat'l lawyers b/c scotus refused to hear it?</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>sequel?</div><div>
</div><div>http://freespeechforpeople.org/big-money-strikes-again-in-montana/</div><div>
</div><div>may 2016?</div><div>lair</div><div>update?</div><div>...<span source="Source" sans="Sans" pro="Pro" helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" em="em" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">For the time being, the state has<span source="Source" sans="Sans" pro="Pro" helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" em="em" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"> <a href="http://politicalpractices.mt.gov/default.mcpx" source="Source" sans="Sans" pro="Pro" helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" em="em" color="color" rgb="rgb" text-decoration="text-decoration" none="none" transition="transition" all="all" s="s" ease="ease" font-weight="font-weight" bold="bold" background-image="background-image" initial="initial" background-attachment="background-attachment" background-size="background-size" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" background-position="background-position" background-repeat="background-repeat">reinstated</a><span source="Source" sans="Sans" pro="Pro" helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" em="em" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"> <span source="Source" sans="Sans" pro="Pro" helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" em="em" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">the pre-1994 contribution limits. Meanwhile, the governor has<span source="Source" sans="Sans" pro="Pro" helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" em="em" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"> <a href="http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/ap/politics/us-judge-strikes-down-montana-campaign-contribution-limits/article_8672c503-884e-5429-ba86-728c159080cd.html" source="Source" sans="Sans" pro="Pro" helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" em="em" color="color" rgb="rgb" text-decoration="text-decoration" none="none" transition="transition" all="all" s="s" ease="ease" font-weight="font-weight" bold="bold" background-image="background-image" initial="initial" background-attachment="background-attachment" background-size="background-size" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" background-position="background-position" background-repeat="background-repeat">urged</a><span source="Source" sans="Sans" pro="Pro" helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" em="em" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"> <span source="Source" sans="Sans" pro="Pro" helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" em="em" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">the state attorney general to appeal the decision.</div><p source="Source" sans="Sans" pro="Pro" helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" em="em" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">Stepping back, there’s a larger trend of big money interests suing to overturn contribution limits in rural states, from <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1528.ZS.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease; font-weight: bold; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Vermont</a> to Montana to <a href="http://freespeechforpeople.org/alaska-speaks-up-for-self-government/" style="text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease; font-weight: bold; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Alaska</a>. (In the Alaska case, the parties <a href="http://www.adn.com/article/20160503/judge-challenges-attorneys-campaign-finance-trial-wraps" style="text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease; font-weight: bold; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">just finished</a>a seven-day trial, and are awaiting for the judge’s decision.) Opponents of campaign finance reform like to piggyback on the unpopularity of the U.S. Congress, or <a href="http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-incumbents-want-campaign-finance-reform" style="text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease; font-weight: bold; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">claim</a> that campaign finance reform is incumbents protecting themselves from difficult re-election campaigns. But the big money litigation strategy challenging contribution limits passed directly by Montana’s voters themselves unmasks the game: reform opponents’ real concern is not about mistrusting Congress, and it’s definitely <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/221965-on-campaign-finance-laws-trust-the-voters" style="text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease; font-weight: bold; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">not about incumbent self-protection</a>. It’s about <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/03/24/abolishing-wealth-primary-new-poll-tax-american-politics" style="text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease; font-weight: bold; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">preserving the unequal power of wealthy donors</a> and <a href="http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/guest/guest-opinion-unlimited-money-endangers--person--vote/article_1ffc11e4-5baa-577b-9e94-a48248ddcfea.html#ixzz38JOBQ2yr" style="text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease; font-weight: bold; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">weakening the principle of “one person, one vote.”</a>...<p source="Source" sans="Sans" pro="Pro" helvetica="Helvetica" neue="Neue" arial="Arial" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" line-height="line-height" em="em" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">---<div>
</div><div>Lair v. MotlFree Speech For People has filed an amicus brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in support of Montana’s defense of its campaign contribution limits for state elections. Our brief argues that large campaign contributions give wealthy donors more influence than ordinary voters, and Montana has an interest in protecting voter equality from this danger.Montana voters passed these contribution limits as part of a 1994 ballot initiative. The challengers claim that the limits are too low and violate their right to freedom of speech.Free Speech For People’s amicus brief argues that large contributions give wealthy funders more of a vote than ordinary citizens, and that this threatens the principle of voter equality established in the Supreme Court’s voting rights cases. Our brief argues that Montana has a compelling state interest in protecting voter equality by imposing contribution limits that prevent individual funders from contributing so much that ordinary Montanans’ right to vote is abridged.We were joined in this brief by the Honorable James Nelson (a retired Justice of the Montana Supreme Court), the Montana-based American Independent Business Alliance, and the American Sustainable Business Council.<a href="http://www.freespeechforpeople.org/sites/default/files/FSFP%20Lair%20v%20Motl%20amicus%20br.final.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Free Speech For People amicus brief in Lair v. Motl</a> </div><div></div><div>Last week, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) submitted an amicus brief ” <a href="http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/AmicusBriefATPvBullock11-1179.pdf" target="hplink" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">urging the U.S. Supreme Court</a> to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/citizens-united-john-mccain-sheldon-whitehouse-supreme-court-brief_n_1527622.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">let stand Montana’s century-old ban on corporate money</a> in political campaigns despite the court’s Citizens United ruling two years ago declaring unconstitutional a similar federal law sponsored by McCain.”The challenge to Montana’s ban on corporate money comes from a shadowy group called American Tradition Partnership (ATP).ATP is a group based in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area that was launched in 2008 as a 501(c)4 lobbying group called Western Tradition Partnership. It was then renamed American Tradition Partnership. The <a href="http://www.americantradition.org/?page_id=59" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">policy agenda listed on its website</a> runs the gamut of anti-environmental causes. It advocates for everything from curbing environmental lawsuits to winning tax holidays for energy producers.ATP was found to have broken campaign finance laws in Montana in 2010 when it failed to properly register and report its donors as it staged electoral interventions on behalf of polluter-friendly lawmakers. Montana[?] journalist Sue Sturgis wrote at the time:<blockquote style="margin: 0px 0px 18px; padding: 9px 20px 0px 19px; border-width: 0px 0px 0px 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); line-height: 20px; vertical-align: baseline; quotes: none;">A decision issued last year by the Montana Commission of Political Practices found that [ATP] had broken state campaign laws by failing to register as a political committee or properly report its donors and spending. The investigation discovered that the group had solicited unlimited contributions to support pro-mining, pro-logging and pro-development candidates in Montana and avoided disclosing the contributions by passing them along to a sham political action committee that in turn ran attack ads against Democrats.</blockquote>The group decided to sue to overturn Montana’s Corrupt Practices Act of 1912. Although a <a href="http://ravallirepublic.com/news/state-and-regional/article_fa95ee14-db2d-11df-823f-001cc4c03286.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">lower judge ruled</a> that the Citizens United decision meant the law was unconstitutional, Montana’s Supreme Court <a href="http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/MT-expenditures-decision.pdf" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">ruled 5-2</a> that Citizens United does not affect the law.When ATP was still Western Tradition Partnership, it was <a href="http://coloradoindependent.com/68864/western-tradition-director-lawmakers-carroll-schwartz-trying-to-silence-dissent" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">lead by</a> Donald Ferguson, who is now <a href="http://www.americantradition.org/wp-content/themes/cleanbusiness/contact.php" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">on the site</a> as ATP’s National Director of Media & Public Relations. I tried calling Ferguson for comment but he did not pick up. The “main number” listed on ATP’s site – 1-888-987-USA1 — has apparently been disconnected. What I could find about Ferguson was a <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/donnyferguson" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">Twitter account</a> that is apparently his and a personal blog called The Ferguson Forum, where <a href="http://donnyferguson.blogspot.com/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">he opines largely</a> about Washington-area sports.Because it has a 501(c)4 tax status, the group does not have to disclose its donors or much about its funding. The group has a 501(c)3 educational arm, the American Tradition Institute (ATI), but it there were no 990 financial disclosure forms that are required by the IRS listed on Guidestar, which logs these forms on the web. ATI’s executive director is <a href="http://www.atinstitute.org/contact/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Tom Tanton</a>, who, unsurprisingly, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/tom-tanton" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">has both worked</a> at an Exxon-funded think tank and headed up an energy consulting company.If you don’t want shadowy polluter-allied lobbies and think tanks overturning state campaign finance laws, you should help us fight the influence of Big Money in our politics. Thank McCain and Whitehouse for standing against money in politics <a href="http://unitedrepublic.org/mccain-whitehouse" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">here</a>.- See more at: http://www.republicreport.org/2012/meet-the-group-trying-to-use-citizens-united-to-kill-montanas-ban-on-corporate-spending-in-elections/#sthash.MPI3JGJx.dpuf</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div><div>THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA</div><div>2011 MT 328</div><div>
</div><div>WESTERN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., </div><div>a corporation registered in the State of Montana,</div><div>and CHAMPION PAINTING, INC., a Montana</div><div>corporation, MONTANA SHOOTING SPORTS</div><div>ASSOCIATION, INC., a Montana corporation,</div><div> Plaintiffs, Appellees and </div><div> Cross-Appellants,</div><div>
</div><div> v.</div><div>ATTORNEY GENERAL of the State of Montana,</div><div>and COMMISSIONER OF THE COMMISSION </div><div>FOR POLITICAL PRACTICES,</div><div> Defendants and Appellants. </div><div> </div><div>APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District,</div><div>In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. BDV 10-238</div><div>Honorable Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Presiding Judge</div><div>
</div><div>COUNSEL OF RECORD:</div><div>
</div><div>For Appellants:</div><div>Steve Bullock (argued), Montana Attorney General; Anthony Johnstone, </div><div>Solicitor, James P. Molloy, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana</div><div>
</div><div>For Appellees:</div><div>Margot E. Barg (argued); Wittich Law Firm, P.C., Bozeman, Montana</div><div>
</div><div>For Amici Curiae:</div><div>
</div><div>Amy Poehling Eddy; Bottomly, Eddy & Sandler, Kalispell, Montana </div><div>(for former Montana Supreme Court Justices William E. Hunt, Sr., W. </div><div>William Leaphart, James M. Regnier, Terry N. Trieweiler and John </div><div>Warner)</div><div>December 30 2011</div><div>
</div><div>Lawrence A. Anderson, Attorney at Law, Great Falls, Montana </div><div>(for MTLA, Montana Conservation Voters, Montanans for Corporate </div><div>Accountability, and Montana League of Rural Voters)</div><div>
</div><div>Elizabeth L. Griffing, Attorney at Law; Erin Kraft, Clinic Student, </div><div>University of Montana, Missoula, Montana </div><div>(for ACLU of Montana Foundation)</div><div>
</div><div>Jonathan Motl; Morrison Motl & Sherwood, Helena, Montana</div><div>
</div><div>Jeffrey D. Clements, Clements Law Office, LLC, Concord, Massachusetts</div><div>(for Free Speech for People; American Sustainable Business Council;</div><div>Novak and Novack, Inc., d/b/a Mike’s Thriftway; Home Resource, Inc.,</div><div>and The American Independent Business Alliance)</div><div>
</div><div>Mark Mackin, Attorney at Law, Helena, Montana</div><div>(for Montana Public Interest Research Group and Peoples Power League)</div><div>
</div><div>Karl J. Englund, Karl J. Englund, P.C., Missoula, Montana;</div><div>Karl J. Sandstrom, Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, D.C.</div><div>
</div><div>Michael T. Liburdi, James A. Ahlers, Jerica L. Peters, Perkins Coie LLP, </div><div>Phoenix, Arizona </div><div>(for Domini Social Investments LLC; Trillium Asset Management </div><div>Corporation; Newground Social Investment; Interfaith Center On</div><div>Corporate Responsibility; Harrington Investments, Inc.; The Sustainability </div><div>Group of Loring, Wolcott & Coolidge; Calvert Asset Management </div><div>Company, Inc.; The Christopher Reynolds Foundation, Inc.; and Walden </div><div>Asset Management, a Division of Boston Trust & Investment </div><div>Management Company)</div><div>
</div><div>Lee Bruner, Attorney at Law, Butte, Montana</div><div>
</div><div>Allen Dickerson, Attorney at Law, Alexandria, Virginia</div><div>(for Center for Competitive Politics</div></div><div></div><div>IRATE</div><div>
</div><div><div>American Tradition Partnership, Inc., FKA Western Tradition Partnership, Inc., et</div><div>al. v. Steve Bullock, Attorney General of Montana 567 U.S. (2012)</div><div>Per Curiam </div><div>
</div><div>ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA </div><div>No. 11–1179. Decided June 25, 2012 </div><div>PER CURIAM. </div><div>
</div><div>A Montana state law provides that a “corporation may not make . . . an expenditure in</div><div>connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a</div><div>political party.” Mont. Code Ann. §13–35–227(1) (2011). The Montana Supreme Court rejected</div><div>petitioners’ claim that this statute violates the First Amendment. 2011 MT 328, 363 Mont. 220,</div><div>271 P. 3d 1. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, this Court struck down a similar</div><div>federal law, holding that “political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply</div><div>because its source is a corporation.” 558 U. S. , _ (2010) (slip op., at 26) (internal quotation</div><div>marks omitted). The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United</div><div>applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does. See U. S. Const.,</div><div>Art. VI, cl. 2. Montana’s arguments in support of the judgment below either were already</div><div>rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case.</div><div>
</div><div>The petition for certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana is</div><div>reversed.</div><div>It is so ordered. </div><div>
</div><div>JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE</div><div>KAGAN join, dissenting.</div><div>
</div><div>In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court concluded that “independent</div><div>expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the</div><div>appearance of corruption.” 558 U. S. _, _ (2010) (slip op., at 42). I disagree with the Court’s</div><div>hold-ing for the reasons expressed in Justice Stevens’ dissent in that case. As Justice Stevens</div><div>explained, “technically independent expenditures can be corrupting in much the same way as</div><div>direct contributions.” Id., at _ (slip op., at 67–68). Indeed, Justice Stevens recounted a</div><div>“substantial body of evidence” suggesting that “[m]any corporate independent expenditures . . .</div><div>had become essentially interchangeable with direct contributions in their capacity to generate</div><div>quid pro quo arrangements.” Id., at _ (slip op., at 64–65). </div><div>
</div><div>Moreover, even if I were to accept Citizens United, this Court’s legal conclusion should not</div><div>bar the Montana Supreme Court’s finding, made on the record before it, that</div><div>independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the</div><div>appearance of corruption in Montana. Given the history and political landscape in Montana,</div><div>that court concluded that the State had a compelling interest in limiting independent</div><div>expenditures by corporations. 2011 MT 328, ¶¶ 36–37, 363 Mont. 220, 235–236, 271 P. 3d 1, 2 </div><div>36–37. Thus, Montana’s experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court’s</div><div>decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court’s supposition that independent</div><div>expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so. </div><div>
</div><div>Were the matter up to me, I would vote to grant the petition for certiorari in order to reconsider</div><div>Citizens United or, at least, its application in this case. But given the Court’s per curiam</div><div>disposition, I do not see a significant possibility of reconsideration. Consequently, I vote instead</div><div>to deny the petition.</div></div><div>=</div><div><div class="listOfEntitysEvents" style="margin-top: 35px;"><div id="timelineEntries" style="margin-top: 40px;"><div class="i" style="margin-bottom: 20px; margin-right: 5px; padding-left: 10px;"><div class="iT" style="width: 524.8px; display: table;"><a id="a123011mtscwtpban" name="a123011mtscwtpban"></a><a id="a123011mtscwtpban" name="a123011mtscwtpban"></a><a id="a123011mtscwtpban" name="a123011mtscwtpban">             </a><h2 style="margin: 3px 0px 0px; width: 400px; float: left;"><a id="a123011mtscwtpban" name="a123011mtscwtpban"></a><a id="a123011mtscwtpban" name="a123011mtscwtpban"></a><a id="a123011mtscwtpban" name="a123011mtscwtpban"></a><a id="a123011mtscwtpban" name="a123011mtscwtpban"></a><a id="a123011mtscwtpban" name="a123011mtscwtpban">             </a><a href="http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a123011mtscwtpban#a123011mtscwtpban" title="View in context" style="text-decoration-line: none;">December 30, 2011 and After: Montana Supreme Court Rules that State Campaign Finance Ban Stands in Spite of ‘Citizens United’ Decision</a></h2><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div class="iT" style="width: 524.8px; display: table;">
</div>The Montana Supreme Court rules 5-2 in the case of Western Tradition Partnership v. Bullock that a century-old law prohibits corporate spending in state and federal elections conducted within the state. The ruling seems to challenge the US Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling (see <a href="http://www.historycommons.org/item.jsp?item=a012110ussccitizensunited" style="text-decoration-line: none;">January 21, 2010</a>). The case stems from a challenge by a “social welfare organization,” Western Tradition Partnership (WTP, which changed its name to American Tradition Partnership after the original lawsuit was filed), joined by two other corporate entities, to Montana’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act (CPA).</div><div class="iT" style="width: 524.8px; display: table;">
</div><div class="iT" style="width: 524.8px; display: table;"> The law banned corporate spending in elections, after two out-of-state copper industry magnates attempted to “buy” the Montana legislature by pouring money into the 1894 state elections. The law declares that “corporations may not make… an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.” 
</div>
 The Montana Supreme Court finds that the CPA is needed to ensure the integrity of Montana’s elections, and to make sure that citizens and not corporations are running the state. However, the Court acknowledges that its ruling conflicts with the Citizens United decision, though it says that the Citizens United decision allows for restrictions on corporate political speech if the government can demonstrate that the restrictions are as minimal as possible to achieve a compelling governmental interest.
 The Montana Court rules that because of Montana’s history of corporate vote-buying and the narrow restrictions of the CPA, the law should stand. It also notes that Western Tradition Partnership argued in its original suit that disclosure laws, as opposed to outright bans, would serve the public interest and guard against corruption; however, the organization is currently involved in another lawsuit in which it argues that those same disclosure laws are unconstitutional restrictions of the freedom of speech. <cite style="font-style: normal; text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 0.5px;">
</cite> <cite style="font-style: normal; text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 0.5px;">[<a href="http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/MT-expenditures-decision.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">WESTERN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP V. BULLOCK ET AL, 12/30/2011 <img brain="false" src="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/pics/icons/pdfbw.png" alt="pdf file" style="border: none;" /></a>; <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/04/nation/la-na-montana-court-20120104" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">LOS ANGELES TIMES, 1/4/2012</a>; <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/25/us-usa-campaign-court-idUSBRE85O0P520120625" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">REUTERS, 6/25/2012</a>; <a href="http://www.ombwatch.org/node/12113" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">OMB WATCH, 6/25/2012</a>; <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/supreme-courts-montana-decision-strengthens-citizens-united/2012/06/25/gJQA8Vln1V_blog.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">WASHINGTON POST, 6/25/2012</a>;<a href="http://www.ombwatch.org/node/12133" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">OMB WATCH, 7/10/2012</a>]</cite> 
 Even one of the dissenters, Justice James C. Nelson, disagrees with the Citizens United characterizations that corporations are legally people, writing: “Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creatures of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. 
Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.” WTP’s director Donald Ferguson says after the decision that the case hinges on freedom of speech (see <a href="http://www.historycommons.org/item.jsp?item=a012110ussccugopfree" style="text-decoration-line: none;">January 21, 2010</a>): “The current state law says that if you own a business and you would like to use the resources of the business to speak out about how you see the law, you essentially have to ask prior permission from the state. Under the current regime, the state regulatory agencies and the newspapers basically have a monopoly on information. We’re simply trying to put more free speech in motion.” <cite style="font-style: normal; text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 0.5px;">[<a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/04/nation/la-na-montana-court-20120104" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">LOS ANGELES TIMES, 1/4/2012</a>; <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/citizens-united-montana-supreme-court-corporate-spending_n_1182168.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">HUFFINGTON POST, 1/4/2012</a>]</cite> 

 
 Legal Scholars Anticipate Montana Ruling to be Overturned - Paul Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center calls the Montana high court’s ruling “an antidote to the crabbed view of corruption” displayed in Citizens United. Ryan, like many others, anticipates the US Supreme Court will overturn today’s ruling. <cite style="text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 0.5px;">[<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/citizens-united-montana-supreme-court-corporate-spending_n_1182168.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">HUFFINGTON POST, 1/4/2012</a>]</cite> One of those others is law professor Richard Hasen, who writes: “[I]f the Court were being honest in Citizens United, it would have said something like: ‘We don’t care whether or not independent spending can or cannot corrupt; the First Amendment trumps this risk of corruption.’
 But the Court didn’t say that, because it would have faced even greater criticism than it already has. So it dressed up its value judgment (no corruption ‘implied in law’) as a factual statement. The Montana Supreme Court called SCOTUS [the US Supreme Court] on this. And when SCOTUS reverses, the disingenuousness of this aspect of CU will be on full display for all.” Hasen is referring to the Court’s finding in Citizens United that independent spending in elections does not legally imply corruption. <cite style="text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 0.5px;">[<a href="http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27232" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">RICK HASEN, 1/1/2012</a>]</cite> 
 Appeal to Supreme Court - Attorneys for WTP and the other corporate plaintiffs will appeal to the US Supreme Court on the grounds that Montana is bound by theCitizens United decision and that the decision applies to state as well as federal elections. Attorney James Bopp, in filing the appeal, will say: “If Montana can ban core political speech because of Montana’s unique characteristics, free speech will be seriously harmed. Speakers will be silenced because of corruption by others over a century ago.” The US Supreme Court will quickly issue a stay of that decision. <cite style="text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 0.5px;">[<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/25/us-usa-campaign-court-idUSBRE85O0P520120625" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">REUTERS, 6/25/2012</a>; <a href="http://www.ombwatch.org/node/12113" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">OMB WATCH, 6/25/2012</a>]</cite> 
When the case reaches the US Supreme Court, the name of the plaintiff will change into “American Tradition Partnership,” and the Court’s documentation will reflect that change. The Court will overrule the Montana decision (see <a href="http://www.historycommons.org/item.jsp?item=a062512usscmontana" style="text-decoration-line: none;">June 25, 2012</a>). After the decision, American Tradition Partnership’s Web site will disappear, but the liberal accountability organization SourceWatch will describe the organization’s parent, the American Tradition Institute, as described in the group’s mission statement: “a public policy research and educational foundation… founded in 2009 to help lead the national discussion about environmental issues, including air and water quality and regulation, responsible land use, natural resource management, energy development, property rights, and free-market principles of stewardship.” ATI and its affiliates are pro-development and against expanded environmental regulation, according to SourceWatch’s documentation, made up of “a broader network of groups with close ties to energy interests that have long fought greenhouse gas regulation.” <cite style="text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 0.5px;">[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Tradition_Institute" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">SOURCEWATCH, 2012</a>]</cite><cite style="text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 0.5px;">
</cite> <div class="t" style="padding-left: 15px;">Entity Tags: <a href="http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=american_tradition_institute_1" style="text-decoration-line: none;">American Tradition Institute</a>, <a href="http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=american_tradition_partnership_1" style="text-decoration-line: none;">American Tradition Partnership</a>, <a href="http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=donald_ferguson_1" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Donald Ferguson</a>, <a href="http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=james_cnelson_1" style="text-decoration-line: none;">James C. Nelson</a>, <a href="http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=1912_corrupt_practices_actmontana1" style="text-decoration-line: none;">1912 Corrupt Practices Act (Montana)</a>, <a href="http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=sourcewatch_1" style="text-decoration-line: none;">SourceWatch</a>, <a href="http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=supreme_court" style="text-decoration-line: none;">US Supreme Court</a>, <a href="http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=paul_sryan_1" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Paul S. Ryan</a>, <a href="http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=montana_supreme_court_1" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Montana Supreme Court</a>, <a href="http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=james_boppjr_1" style="text-decoration-line: none;">James Bopp, Jr</a>, <a href="http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=richard_l.hasen" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Richard L. Hasen</a>Timeline Tags: <a href="http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=civilliberties" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Civil Liberties</a></div></div></div></div></div><div>=</div> <div id="bodyContent"><div id="siteSub">From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Montana">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Montana</a> </div><div id="mw-content-text" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr" lang="en">Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana, 2011 MT 328, is a decision by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Supreme_Court" title="Montana Supreme Court">Montana Supreme Court</a> ruling that the broad free speech protections given to corporations in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v.FEC" title="Citizens United v. FEC" class="mw-redirect">Citizens United v. FEC</a> do not apply to Montana's campaign finance laws.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-DA11-0081-0">[1]</a> The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Montana Supreme Court's decision in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, 567, U.S. _ (2012), in a short, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_curiam" title="Per curiam" class="mw-redirect">per curiam</a> opinion issued without <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_argument" title="Oral argument" class="mw-redirect">oral argument</a>. 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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-NYT20120625-1">[2]</a><table id="toc" class="toc"><tbody><tr><td><div id="toctitle"><h2>Contents</h2></div><ul><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#Case_Background">1 Case Background</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#Opinion_of_the_Montana_Supreme_Court">2 Opinion of the Montana Supreme Court</a><ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-3"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#Dissent">2.1 Dissent</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-4"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#US_Supreme_Court_per_curiam_reversal_and_implication">3 US Supreme Court per curiam reversal and implication</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-5"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#References">4 References</a></li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table><h2>Case Background</h2>Montana passed campaign finance laws in 1912 in response to the major influence of corporations on state elections. During the early 20th Century, a number of rich "Copper Barons" controlled most of the political process through <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo" title="Quid pro quo">quid pro quo</a> financial transactions with politicians. In response, the state restricted the amount of money that corporations and individuals could donate to campaigns.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-2">[3]</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Tradition_Partnership" title="American Tradition Partnership">American Tradition Partnership</a> (ATP), formerly known as Western Tradition Partnership, had challenged the Montana Corrupt Practices Act of 1912, which prohibited independent expenditures to influence political campaigns by corporations, after the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court" title="United States Supreme Court" class="mw-redirect">United States Supreme Court</a>'s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v.Federal_Election_Commission" title="Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission">Citizens United</a> ruling.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-belgrade-3">[4]</a> ATP was joined in its suit by Champion Painting and the Montana Shooting Sports Association.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-4">[5]</a> In October 2010 District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock ruled that the Montana law is unconstitutional.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-belgrade-3">[4]</a> 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."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-ravalli-5">[6]</a><h2>Opinion of the Montana Supreme Court</h2>In response to a potential <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court" title="Supreme Court" class="mw-redirect">Supreme Court</a> challenge, the majority opinion included a great deal of historical evidence to document the "corrupting influence of campaign contributions on elections."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-DA11-0081-0">[1]</a> Citizens United focused primarily on the free speech limitations of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act" title="Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act">Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act</a>, whereas the Montana Court focused on the historical precedent for allowing campaign finance restrictions.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-citizensunited-6">[7]</a> In particular, the Montana 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_intent" title="Original intent">original intent</a> of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment" title="First Amendment" class="mw-redirect">First Amendment</a>.Additionally, the Montana 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."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-DA11-0081-0">[1]</a> 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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-citizensunited-6">[7]</a>The Montana Court believed that this ruling does not blatantly contradict Citizens United because the ruling deals with a law that has major differences from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain-Feingold_Act" title="McCain-Feingold Act" class="mw-redirect">McCain-Feingold Act</a> (the law that Citizens United partially overturned).<h3>Dissent</h3>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 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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-DA11-0081-0">[1]</a><h2>US Supreme Court per curiam reversal and implication</h2>Western Tradition Partnership appealed the Montana Supreme Court decision after the court issued its decision.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-7">[8]</a> “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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-Businessweek20120218-8">[9]</a> In February 2012, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.Supreme_Court" title="U.S. Supreme Court" class="mw-redirect">U.S. Supreme Court</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay_of_execution" title="Stay of execution">stayed</a> the decision pending further review by the high court.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-Businessweek20120218-8">[9]</a> 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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-9">[10]</a>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.Supreme_Court" title="U.S. Supreme Court" class="mw-redirect">U.S. Supreme Court</a> reversed the Montana Supreme Court without hearing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_argument" title="Oral argument" class="mw-redirect">oral argument</a> in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Bullock" title="American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock" class="mw-redirect">American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock</a>, 567 U.S. _ (2012) by a short, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_curiam" title="Per curiam" class="mw-redirect">per curiam</a> 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." Justices 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.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-10">[11]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-11">[12]</a>The Court has not summarily reversed any lower Court with four strongly dissenting Justices with so little analysis since 1968.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-12">[13]</a> With its ruling the Supreme Court uphold its Citizens United landmark decision.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-Atlantic20120625-13">[14]</a> While the Citizens United decision initially appeared to apply equally to state contests<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-14">[15]</a>, the Supreme Court ruled in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana that the Citizens United holding does so by applying it to Montana state law.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-NYT20120625-1">[2]</a> Because the Citizens United decision supersedes state law<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-15">[16]</a> the states cannot bar corporate and union political contributions in their own elections.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_note-Atlantic20120625-13">[14]</a><h2>References</h2><div class="reflist" style="list-style-type: decimal;"><ol class="references"><li id="cite_note-DA11-0081-0">^ <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-DA11-0081_0-0">a</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-DA11-0081_0-1">b</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-DA11-0081_0-2">c</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-DA11-0081_0-3">d</a> <cite>Western Tradition Partnership vs. Montana</cite>, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/MT-expenditures-decision.pdf">2011 MT 328</a> (MT 2011).</li><li id="cite_note-NYT20120625-1">^ <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-NYT20120625_1-0">a</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-NYT20120625_1-1">b</a> Liptak, Adam (June 25, 2012). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/us/supreme-court-declines-to-revisit-citizens-united.html?src=un&feedurl=http://json8.nytimes.com/pages/national/index.jsonp">"Court Declines to Revisit Its Citizens United Decision"</a>. The New York Times. Retrieved June 26, 2012.</li><li id="cite_note-2"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-2">^{</a> }Sacks, Mike (January 4, 2012). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/citizens-united-montana-supreme-court-corporate-spending_n_1182168.html">"'Citizens United' Backlash: Montana Supreme Court Upholds State's Corporate Campaign Spending Ban"</a>. Huffington Post. Retrieved January 11, 2012.</li><li id="cite_note-belgrade-3">^ <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-belgrade_3-0">a</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-belgrade_3-1">b</a> Andy Malby (19 October 2010). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.belgrade-news.com/news/article_df4999f8-db2d-11df-b5b6-001cc4c002e0.html">"Court tosses ban on corporate donations"</a>. The Belgrade News. Retrieved 6 July 2012.</li><li id="cite_note-4"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-4">^{</a> }Banks, Marnee (27 December 2010). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.krtv.com/news/montana-politics-2010-corporate-spending-ruling/">"Montana Politics 2010: Corporate Spending Ruling"</a>. krtv.com. Retrieved 6 July 2012.</li><li id="cite_note-ravalli-5"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-ravalli_5-0">^{</a> }Johnson, Charles S. (18 October 2010). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://ravallirepublic.com/news/state-and-regional/article_fa95ee14-db2d-11df-823f-001cc4c03286.html">"Judge overturns Montana's 1912 ban on corporate campaign contributions"</a>. Ravalli Republic State Bureau. Retrieved 6 July 2012.</li><li id="cite_note-citizensunited-6">^ <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-citizensunited_6-0">a</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-citizensunited_6-1">b</a> Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/us/558/08-205/case.html">08-205</a> (2010)</li><li id="cite_note-7"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-7">^{</a> }Damon W. Root (23 May 2012). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/23/montanas-misguided-attempt-to-nullify-ci">"Montana’s Misguided Attempt to Nullify Citizens United"</a>. Reason magazine. Retrieved 6 July 2012.</li><li id="cite_note-Businessweek20120218-8">^ <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-Businessweek20120218_8-0">a</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-Businessweek20120218_8-1">b</a> Stohr, Greg (February 23, 2012). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-18/montana-corporate-election-spending-ban-halted-by-high-court.html">"Montana Corporate Election Spending Ban Halted by High Court"</a>. Businessweek. Retrieved 2012-06-28.</li><li id="cite_note-9"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-9">^{</a> }Goldstein, Tom (February 18, 2012). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/02/the-supreme-court-citizens-united-ii-and-the-november-election/">"The Supreme Court, Citizens United II, and the November election"</a>. SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 2012-06-28.</li><li id="cite_note-10"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-10">^{</a> }<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-1179h9j3.pdf">American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock</a>, 567 U.S. _ (2012) (per curiam), slip op. at 1.</li><li id="cite_note-11"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-11">^{</a> }Bravin, Jess (June 25, 2012). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304870304577488472813472062.html">"Supreme Court Rejects Corporate Campaign Spending Limits"</a>. Wall Street Journal.</li><li id="cite_note-12"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-12">^{</a> }Samuel Fieldman (June 25, 2012). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.wolf-pac.com/american_tradition_v_montana">"Supreme Court Throws Out Citizens United II Without Debate"</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolf_PAC&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Wolf PAC (page does not exist)">Wolf PAC</a>. Retrieved June 26, 2012.</li><li id="cite_note-Atlantic20120625-13">^ <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-Atlantic20120625_13-0">a</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-Atlantic20120625_13-1">b</a> Alex Roarty (June 25, 2012). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/supreme-court-again-smacks-down-campaign-finance-reformers/258936/">"Supreme Court Again Smacks Down Campaign-Finance Reformers"</a>. The Atlantic. Retrieved June 26, 2012.</li><li id="cite_note-14"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-14">^{</a> }Sherman, Mark (26 June 2012). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/state-corporate-campaign-spending-1464019.html">"State corporate campaign spending limits rejected"</a>. The Associated Press. Atlantic News. Retrieved 6 July 2012.</li><li id="cite_note-15"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#cite_ref-15">^{</a> }Josh Levs and Bill Mears (June 26, 2012). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/25/politics/scotus-campaign-finance/index.html">"Supreme Court refuses to reconsider campaign finance controversy"</a>. CNN News. Retrieved June 26, 2012.</li></ol></div><table class="navbox" cellspacing="0" style="border-spacing: 0px;"><tbody><tr><td style="padding: 2px;"><table id="collapsibleTable0" class="nowraplinks collapsible expanded navbox-inner" cellspacing="0" style="border-spacing: 0px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><tbody><tr><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#" id="collapseButton0">hide</a>]<div class="noprint plainlinks hlist navbar mini"><ul><li class="nv-view"><div id="bodyContent" style="display: inline !important;"><div id="mw-content-text" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr" lang="en" style="display: inline !important;">  <table class="navbox" cellspacing="0" style="border-spacing: 0px; display: inline !important;"><tbody style="display: inline !important;"><tr style="display: inline !important;"><td style="padding: 2px; display: inline !important;"><table id="collapsibleTable0" class="nowraplinks collapsible expanded navbox-inner" cellspacing="0" style="border-spacing: 0px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; display: inline !important;"><tbody style="display: inline !important;"><tr style="display: inline !important;"><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2" style="display: inline !important;"><div class="noprint plainlinks hlist navbar mini" style="display: inline !important;"><ul style="display: inline !important;"><li class="nv-talk" style="display: inline !important;"><div id="bodyContent" style="display: inline !important;"><div id="mw-content-text" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr" lang="en" style="display: inline !important;">  <table class="navbox" cellspacing="0" style="border-spacing: 0px; display: inline !important;"><tbody style="display: inline !important;"><tr style="display: inline !important;"><td style="padding: 2px; display: inline !important;"><table id="collapsibleTable0" class="nowraplinks collapsible expanded navbox-inner" cellspacing="0" style="border-spacing: 0px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; display: inline !important;"><tbody style="display: inline !important;"><tr style="display: inline !important;"><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2" style="display: inline !important;"><div class="noprint plainlinks hlist navbar mini" style="display: inline !important;"><ul style="display: inline !important;"><li class="nv-edit" style="display: inline !important;"><div id="bodyContent" style="display: inline !important;"><div id="mw-content-text" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr" lang="en" style="display: inline !important;">  <table class="navbox" cellspacing="0" style="border-spacing: 0px; display: inline !important;"><tbody style="display: inline !important;"><tr style="display: inline !important;"><td style="padding: 2px; display: inline !important;"><table id="collapsibleTable0" class="nowraplinks collapsible expanded navbox-inner" cellspacing="0" style="border-spacing: 0px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; display: inline !important;"><tbody style="display: inline !important;"><tr style="display: inline !important;"><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2" style="display: inline !important;"><div class="" style="display: inline !important;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="First Amendment to the United States Constitution">United States First Amendment</a> case law</div></th></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></li></ul></div></th></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></li></ul></div></th></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></li><li class="nv-talk">
</li><li class="nv-edit"><div id="bodyContent" style="display: inline !important;"><div id="mw-content-text" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr" lang="en" style="display: inline !important;"> </div></div></li></ul></div></th></tr><tr style="height: 2px;"><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd hlist" style="width: 885.6px; padding: 0px;"><div style="padding: 0em 0.25em;"><table id="collapsibleTable1" class="nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-subgroup" cellspacing="0" style="border-spacing: 0px;"><tbody><tr><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#" id="collapseButton1">show</a>] <div class=""><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause" title="Establishment Clause">Establishment Clause</a></div></th></tr></tbody></table></div></td></tr><tr style="height: 2px;"><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-even hlist" style="width: 885.6px; padding: 0px;"><div style="padding: 0em 0.25em;"><table id="collapsibleTable2" class="nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-subgroup" cellspacing="0" style="border-spacing: 0px;"><tbody><tr><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#" id="collapseButton2">show</a>] <div class=""><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause" title="Free Exercise Clause">Free Exercise Clause</a></div></th></tr></tbody></table></div></td></tr><tr style="height: 2px;"><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd hlist" style="width: 885.6px; padding: 0px;"><div style="padding: 0em 0.25em;"><table id="collapsibleTable3" class="nowraplinks collapsible uncollapsed navbox-subgroup" cellspacing="0" style="border-spacing: 0px;"><tbody><tr><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,Inc.v.Attorney_General_of_Montana#" id="collapseButton3">hide</a>] <div class=""><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States" title="Freedom of speech in the United States">Freedom of speech</a> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Freedom_of_speech" title="Portal:Freedom of speech">portal</a>)</div></th></tr><tr style="height: 2px;"><td> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width: 877.6px; padding: 0px;"><div style="padding: 0em 0.25em;"><table class="nowraplinks navbox-subgroup" cellspacing="0" style="border-spacing: 0px;"><tbody><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition" title="Sedition">Sedition</a>and
imminent danger</th><td class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; width: 770.8px; padding: 0px;"><div style="padding: 0em 0.25em;"><ul><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts" title="Alien and Sedition Acts">Alien and Sedition Acts</a> (1798)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v.United_States" title="Schenck v. United States">Schenck v. United States</a> (1919)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrams_v.United_States" title="Abrams v. United States">Abrams v. United States</a> (1919)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masses_Publishing_Co.v.Patten" title="Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten">Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten</a> (S.D.N.Y. 1917)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v.New_York" title="Gitlow v. New York">Gitlow v. New York</a> (1925)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_v.California" title="Whitney v. California">Whitney v. California</a> (1927)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_v.United_States" title="Dennis v. United States">Dennis v. United States</a> (1951)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v.United_States" title="Yates v. United States">Yates v. United States</a> (1957)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_v.Floyd" title="Bond v. Floyd">Bond v. Floyd</a> (1966)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyishian_v.Board_of_Regents" title="Keyishian v. Board of Regents">Keyishian v. Board of Regents</a> (1967)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v.Ohio" title="Brandenburg v. Ohio">Brandenburg v. Ohio</a> (1969)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Indiana_v.Whitcomb" title="Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb">Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb</a> (1974)</li></ul></div></td></tr><tr style="height: 2px;"><td> </td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group">False speech</th><td class="navbox-list navbox-even" style="border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; width: 770.8px; padding: 0px;"><div style="padding: 0em 0.25em;"><ul><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v.Alvarez" title="United States v. Alvarez">United States v. Alvarez</a> (2012)</li></ul></div></td></tr><tr style="height: 2px;"><td> </td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words" title="Fighting words">Fighting words</a> and
the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto" title="Heckler's veto">heckler's veto</a></th><td class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; width: 770.8px; padding: 0px;"><div style="padding: 0em 0.25em;"><ul><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantwell_v.Connecticut" title="Cantwell v. Connecticut">Cantwell v. Connecticut</a> (1940)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v.New_Hampshire" title="Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire">Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire</a> (1942)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminiello_v.Chicago" title="Terminiello v. Chicago">Terminiello v. Chicago</a> (1949)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feiner_v.New_York" title="Feiner v. New York">Feiner v. New York</a> (1951)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v.Chicago" title="Gregory v. Chicago">Gregory v. Chicago</a> (1969)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v.Village_of_Skokie" title="National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie">National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie</a> (1977)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V.v.City_of_St.Paul" title="R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul" class="mw-redirect">R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul</a> (1992)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v.Phelps" title="Snyder v. Phelps">Snyder v. Phelps</a> (2011)</li></ul></div></td></tr><tr style="height: 2px;"><td> </td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly" title="Freedom of assembly">Freedom of assembly</a>
and public forums</th><td class="navbox-list navbox-even" style="border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; width: 770.8px; padding: 0px;"><div style="padding: 0em 0.25em;"><ul><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_v.Committee_for_Industrial_Organization" title="Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization">Hague v. CIO</a> (1939)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneider_v.New_Jersey" title="Schneider v. New Jersey">Schneider v. New Jersey</a> (1939)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v.Struthers" title="Martin v. Struthers">Martin v. Struthers</a> (1943)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niemotko_v.Maryland" title="Niemotko v. Maryland">Niemotko v. Maryland</a> (1951)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox_v.Louisiana" title="Cox v. Louisiana">Cox v. Louisiana</a> (1965)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v.Louisiana" title="Brown v. Louisiana">Brown v. Louisiana</a> (1966)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adderley_v.Florida" title="Adderley v. Florida">Adderley v. Florida</a> (1966)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_v.Princess_Anne_County" title="Carroll v. Princess Anne County" class="mw-redirect">Carroll v. Princess Anne County</a> (1968)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coates_v.Cincinnati" title="Coates v. Cincinnati">Coates v. Cincinnati</a> (1971)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_a_Better_Austin_v.Keefe" title="Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe">Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe</a> (1971)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v.Robins" title="Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins">Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins</a> (1980)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_v.Colorado" title="Hill v. Colorado">Hill v. Colorado</a> (2000)</li></ul></div></td></tr><tr style="height: 2px;"><td> </td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group">Symbolic speech</th><td class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; width: 770.8px; padding: 0px;"><div style="padding: 0em 0.25em;"><ul><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v.O%27Brien" title="United States v. O'Brien">United States v. O'Brien</a> (1968)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v.California" title="Cohen v. California">Cohen v. California</a> (1971)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v.Goguen" title="Smith v. Goguen">Smith v. Goguen</a> (1974)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v.Johnson" title="Texas v. Johnson">Texas v. Johnson</a> (1989)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v.Eichman" title="United States v. Eichman">United States v. Eichman</a> (1990)</li></ul></div></td></tr><tr style="height: 2px;"><td> </td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group">Compelled speech</th><td class="navbox-list navbox-even" style="border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; width: 770.8px; padding: 0px;"><div style="padding: 0em 0.25em;"><ul><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minersville_School_District_v.Gobitis" title="Minersville School District v. Gobitis">Minersville School District v. Gobitis</a> (1940)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v.Barnette" title="West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette">West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette</a> (1943)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooley_v.Maynard" title="Wooley v. Maynard">Wooley v. Maynard</a> (1977)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Regents_of_the_University_of_Wisconsin_System_v.Southworth" title="Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth">Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth</a> (2000)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davenport_v.Washington_Education_Association" title="Davenport v. Washington Education Association">Davenport v. Washington Education Association</a> (2007)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knox_v.Service_Employees_International_Union,Local_1000&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 (page does not exist)">Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000</a> (2012)</li></ul></div></td></tr><tr style="height: 2px;"><td> </td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_speech%28First_Amendment%29" title="School speech (First Amendment)">School speech</a></th><td class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; width: 770.8px; padding: 0px;"><div style="padding: 0em 0.25em;"><ul><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v.Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District" title="Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District">Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District</a> (1969)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Education_v.Pico" title="Board of Education v. Pico" class="mw-redirect">Board of Education v. Pico</a> (1982)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_School_District_v.Fraser" title="Bethel School District v. Fraser">Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser</a> (1986)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_School_District_v.Kuhlmeier" title="Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier" class="mw-redirect">Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier</a> (1988)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenberger_v.University_of_Virginia" title="Rosenberger v. University of Virginia">Rosenberger v. University of Virginia</a> (1995)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v.Frederick" title="Morse v. Frederick">Morse v. Frederick</a> (2007)</li></ul></div></td></tr><tr style="height: 2px;"><td> </td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity" title="Obscenity">Obscenity</a></th><td class="navbox-list navbox-even" style="border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; width: 770.8px; padding: 0px;"><div style="padding: 0em 0.25em;"><ul><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosen_v.United_States" title="Rosen v. United States">Rosen v. United States</a> (1896)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v.One_Book_Called_Ulysses" title="United States v. One Book Called Ulysses">United States v. One Book Called Ulysses</a> (S.D.N.Y. 1933)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v.United_States" title="Roth v. United States">Roth v. United States</a> (1957)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One,Inc.v.Olesen" title="One, Inc. v. Olesen">One, Inc. v. Olesen</a> (1958)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_v.Search_Warrant" title="Marcus v. Search Warrant">Marcus v. Search Warrant</a> (1961)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MANual_Enterprises_v.Day" title="MANual Enterprises v. Day">MANual Enterprises v. Day</a> (1962)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v.Ohio" title="Jacobellis v. Ohio">Jacobellis v. Ohio</a> (1964)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity_of_Books_v.Kansas" title="Quantity of Books v. Kansas">Quantity of Books v. Kansas</a> (1964)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedman_v.Maryland" title="Freedman v. Maryland">Freedman v. Maryland</a> (1965)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoirs_v.Massachusetts" title="Memoirs v. Massachusetts">Memoirs v. Massachusetts</a> (1966)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redrup_v.New_York" title="Redrup v. New York">Redrup v. New York</a> (1967)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginsberg_v.New_York" title="Ginsberg v. New York">Ginsberg v. New York</a> (1968)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_v.Georgia" title="Stanley v. Georgia">Stanley v. Georgia</a> (1969)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v.Thirty-seven_Photographs" title="United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs">United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs</a> (1971)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kois_v.Wisconsin" title="Kois v. Wisconsin">Kois v. Wisconsin</a> (1972)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v.California" title="Miller v. California">Miller v. California</a> (1973)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Adult_Theatre_I_v.Slaton" title="Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton">Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton</a> (1973)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v.12_200-ft.Reels_of_Film" title="United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film">United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film</a> (1973)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkins_v.Georgia" title="Jenkins v. Georgia">Jenkins v. Georgia</a> (1974)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v.Ferber" title="New York v. Ferber">New York v. Ferber</a> (1982)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Booksellers_v.Hudnut" title="American Booksellers v. Hudnut">American Booksellers v. Hudnut</a> (7th Cir., 1985)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renton_v.Playtime_Theatres,Inc." title="Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.">Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.</a> (1986)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_v.Ohio" title="Osborne v. Ohio">Osborne v. Ohio</a> (1990)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v.X-Citement_Video" title="United States v. X-Citement Video">United States v. X-Citement Video</a> (1994)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v.American_Civil_Liberties_Union" title="Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union">Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union</a> (1997)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v.Playboy_Entertainment_Group" title="United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group">United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group</a> (2000)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v.Free_Speech_Coalition" title="Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition">Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition</a> (2002)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v.American_Civil_Liberties_Union" title="Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union">Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union</a> (2002)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitke_v.Gonzales" title="Nitke v. Gonzales">Nitke v. Gonzales</a> (S.D.N.Y., 2005)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v.Williams" title="United States v. Williams">United States v. Williams</a> (2008)</li><li>FCC v. Fox Televisions Stations - 2 cases (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission_v.Fox_Television_Stations%282009%29" title="Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations (2009)">2009</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission_v.Fox_Television_Stations%282012%29" title="Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations (2012)">2012</a>)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Booksellers_Foundation_for_Free_Expression_v.Strickland" title="American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland">American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland</a> (6th Cir., 2009)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v.Kilbride" title="United States v. Kilbride">United States v. Kilbride</a> (9th Cir., 2009)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v.Stevens" title="United States v. Stevens">United States v. Stevens</a> (2010)</li></ul></div></td></tr><tr style="height: 2px;"><td> </td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group">Public employees</th><td class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; width: 770.8px; padding: 0px;"><div style="padding: 0em 0.25em;"><ul><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garner_v.Board_of_Public_Works" title="Garner v. Board of Public Works">Garner v. Board of Public Works</a> (1951)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickering_v.Board_of_Education" title="Pickering v. Board of Education">Pickering v. Board of Education</a> (1968)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connick_v.Myers" title="Connick v. Myers">Connick v. Myers</a> (1983)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankin_v.McPherson" title="Rankin v. McPherson">Rankin v. McPherson</a> (1987)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waters_v.Churchill" title="Waters v. Churchill">Waters v. Churchill</a> (1994)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v.Ceballos" title="Garcetti v. Ceballos">Garcetti v. Ceballos</a> (2006)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borough_of_Duryea_v.Guarnieri" title="Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri">Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri</a> (2011)</li></ul></div></td></tr><tr style="height: 2px;"><td> </td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939" title="Hatch Act of 1939">Hatch Act</a>
and similar laws</th><td class="navbox-list navbox-even" style="border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; width: 770.8px; padding: 0px;"><div style="padding: 0em 0.25em;"><ul><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Curtis" title="Ex parte Curtis">Ex parte Curtis</a> (1882)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Public_Workers_v.Mitchell" title="United Public Workers v. Mitchell">United Public Workers v. Mitchell</a> (1947)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Civil_Service_Commission_v.National_Association_of_Letter_Carriers" title="United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers">United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers</a> (1973)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadrick_v.Oklahoma" title="Broadrick v. Oklahoma">Broadrick v. Oklahoma</a> (1973)</li></ul></div></td></tr><tr style="height: 2px;"><td> </td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_speech" title="Commercial speech">Commercial speech</a></th><td class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; width: 770.8px; padding: 0px;"><div style="padding: 0em 0.25em;"><ul><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine_v.Chrestensen" title="Valentine v. Chrestensen">Valentine v. Chrestensen</a> (1942)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Press_Co.v.Pittsburgh_Commission_on_Human_Relations" title="Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations">Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations</a> (1973)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_v.Commonwealth_of_Virginia" title="Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia">Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia</a> (1974)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_State_Pharmacy_Board_v.Virginia_Citizens_Consumer_Council" title="Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council">Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council</a> (1976)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_v.State_Bar_of_Arizona" title="Bates v. State Bar of Arizona">Bates v. State Bar of Arizona</a> (1977)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linmark_Associates,Inc.v.Willingboro" title="Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro">Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro</a> (1977)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Hudson_Gas%26_Electric_Corp.v.Public_Service_Commission" title="Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission">Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission</a> (1980)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Edison_Co.v.Public_Service_Commission" title="Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Commission">Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n</a> (1980)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoffman_Estates_v.The_Flipside,Hoffman_Estates,Inc." title="Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.">Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.</a> (1982)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Gas%26_Electric_v.Public_Utilities_Commission" title="Pacific Gas & Electric v. Public Utilities Commission">Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California</a> (1986)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posadas_de_Puerto_Rico_Associates_v.Tourism_Company_of_Puerto_Rico" title="Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico">Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico</a> (1986)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Arts%26_Athletics,Inc.v.United_States_Olympic_Committee" title="San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee">San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee</a> (1987)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44_Liquormart,Inc.v.Rhode_Island" title="44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island">44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island</a> (1996)</li></ul></div></td></tr><tr style="height: 2px;"><td> </td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group">Campaign finance and
political speech</th><td class="navbox-list navbox-even" style="border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; width: 770.8px; padding: 0px;"><div style="padding: 0em 0.25em;"><ul><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v.Valeo" title="Buckley v. Valeo">Buckley v. Valeo</a> (1976)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v.Bellotti" title="First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti">First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti</a> (1978)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizens_Against_Rent_Control_v.City_of_Berkeley&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (page does not exist)">Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley</a> (1981)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_Medical_Association_v.FEC&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="California Medical Association v. FEC (page does not exist)">California Medical Association v. FEC</a> (1981)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brown_v.Socialist_Workers%2774_Campaign_Committee&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee (page does not exist)">Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee</a> (1982)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regan_v.Taxation_with_Representation_of_Washington" title="Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington">Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington</a> (1983)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FEC_v.National_Conservative_Political_Action_Committee&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee (page does not exist)">FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee</a> (1985)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FEC_v.Massachusetts_Citizens_for_Life&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (page does not exist)">FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life</a> (1986)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_v.Michigan_Chamber_of_Commerce" title="Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce">Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce</a> (1990)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntyre_v.Ohio_Elections_Commission" title="McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission">McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission</a> (1995)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorado_Republican_Federal_Campaign_Committee_v.FEC&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (page does not exist)">Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC</a> (1996)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v.Shrink_Missouri_Government_PAC" title="Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC">Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC</a> (2000)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FEC_v.Colorado_Republican_Federal_Campaign_Committee&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (page does not exist)">FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee</a> (2001)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McConnell_v.FEC" title="McConnell v. FEC" class="mw-redirect">McConnell v. FEC</a> (2003)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FEC_v.Beaumont&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="FEC v. Beaumont (page does not exist)">FEC v. Beaumont</a> (2003)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_v.Sorrell" title="Randall v. Sorrell">Randall v. Sorrell</a> (2006)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEC_v.Wisconsin_Right_to_Life,Inc." title="FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc." class="mw-redirect">FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.</a> (2007)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_v.FEC" title="Davis v. FEC" class="mw-redirect">Davis v. FEC</a> (2008)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v.FEC" title="Citizens United v. FEC" class="mw-redirect">Citizens United v. FEC</a> (2010)</li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arizona_Free_Enterprise_Club%E2%80%99s_Freedom_Club_PAC_v.Bennett.&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett. (page does not exist)">Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett.</a> (2011)</li><li>American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock (2012)</li></ul></div></td></tr></tbody></table></div></td></tr></tbody></table></div></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div> </div><div>===</div>