Citizens United, Part Deux

In 1912, Montana enacted a law that prohibited unlimited corporate spending in state and local 
elections. It's citizens felt that unrestrained levels of money in state politics had an odious and corrupting influence that could only be checked through legislation. However, today in a 5-4 vote the SCOTUS firmly repudiated Montana's century-old law. In the case of American Tradition Partnership Inc v. Steve Bullock, attorney general of Montana, it was determined that the principles of the 2010 Citizens United ruling do indeed apply to Montana. Citizens United held that the the First Amendment allows for corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts for and against candidates during a campaign. Essentially, dollars equal speech. A startling outgrowth of this new reality is the fact that republicans and their affiliated super pacs are planning to spend at least $1 billion on this year's presidential election. The majority of donors to super pacs are not required to disclose their identity. So basically, a corporate ghost can drop a $10 million blitz of negative adverts 10 days before an election, and then fade into the background without any true accountability. This direct affront to democracy is being promulgated by a body that is charged with interpreting the Constitution and orbiting outside the influence of partisan politics. This increasingly radical judicial activism weakens the role of the American citizen in the democratic process. How can the average Jane, who earns $50k a year, possibly compete with XYZ Inc. that has $50 million to spare?