Montana Gov: Call for Amendment to Overturn Citizens United
By Kymberly Bays | 06/27/2012 | Campaign Finance, Electoral Reform | 9 Comments
In a ruling released on Monday, the Supreme Court overturned a Montana state law banning corporate political expenditures and affirmed their decision on Citizens United, that political contributions fall under First Amendment speech rights. Montana’s Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer and Lieutenant Governor John Bohlinger, a Republican, recently responded to the Court’s action invalidating the 100-year-old Corrupt Practices Act. In short, they will continue to challenge the precedent set by the Court’s Citizens United ruling and are calling to amend the U.S. Constitution to “make it clear that corporations do not have constitutional rights as if they were people”. Learn more at ElectionsAreForUs.org
Leave Your Comment →
9 Comments
Sally Champlin
06.28.2012
You go, guys!! Tell them and tell them again and then tell them AGAIN!!
Jeannette Castaneda
06.28.2012
Someone needs to put the Supreme Court in the right place. People are people, corporations are not people.
Bruce Knoles
06.28.2012
God bless Montana!
Lisa Jensen
06.28.2012
Montana is awesome, and you rexcellent stand against large hauls regarding tarsands
Aidan King
06.28.2012
I’m all for campaign re-finance, but what about unions? Should they count as special interest as well? I mean look at the Wisconsin recall
Che Harness
06.28.2012
Complaining about how much money is spent to influence people in elections is really just a complaint about how easily people are manipulated. Wanting a more educated and active populace seems like a pipe dream when most of us just struggle to get by in our daily lives. Paying attention to government is like a second full-time job.
How much money is spent on elections seems meaningless. People would still be required to pay attention and understand what their representatives are doing on a local, national and global level for the Republic to work properly.
I’m not sure if the populace can be saved but I do think there are ways we can help our elections along.
Making it easier for other parties to get on the ballot.
Preferential Voting
Mandatory questionnaires for candidates
Mandatory debates with specific questions of regional and national focus
Hell, put ‘em on a Jeopardy-like game show to test their historical, national, and Constitutional knowledge.
I certainly understand the problem of corporate influence in our government officials, but I don’t think that will changed on whether this law lives or dies.
JC Nighswander
06.28.2012
This cant happen without corporate reform. We have to scale back corporations and re establish the tax rates and regulations that made America proper for so long. We built roads, public swiming pools, highways, interstates, public libaries, and other things that helped create jobs, and revenue. Corporations used to give back and replenish the economy they fed off of, and it benifited them to do so, they made more money when they invested in America. Now we have freed the bull and a gold rush began that took about thirty years to plunder America clean. No jobs, no homes, no money except the multi million dollar bonuses and salariers. No money for the American people but 700,000,000,000.00 for corporations who were recording profits, and taking in multi million dollar bonuses for their CEOs, and many other signs that this recession is the American version of the Irish Potato Famine. Wake up and give me Corporate Reform!
Lance Willis
06.28.2012
It’s the MBA’s……..they are taught only one thing….more margin…..at any cost…….MBA…More Bad Advice
Eric Hutchins
06.28.2012
How do they justify depriving corporations of First Amendment rights without also depriving those rights from other associations of people, such as unions, professional organizations, political parties… none of which are any more “people” than a corporation. Oh, and newspapers are corporations, so they shouldn’t have speech rights, yes? How is what they’re advocating anything less than a license to engage in arbitrary censorship? Let’s see the Citizens United critics explain the inconsistency of their position.