Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has been had. "A campaign finance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures with effective disclosure has not existed before today," he confidently wrote in his majority opinion in Citizens United, the Court’s 2010 decision that freed corporations, unions and others to spend unlimited sums on electioneering.
In summarily dismissing a Montana case in which the state’s high court had upheld an anti- corruption statute regulating corporate spending on elections, the U.S. Supreme Court this week opted to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no truth.
The U.S. Supreme Court blocked a century-old Montana ban on corporate campaign spending, signaling the justices may reinforce a 2010 ruling that allowed companies to donate unlimited amounts to influence elections.
A divided U.S. Supreme Court threw out Montana’s ban on corporate campaign spending in a reaffirmation of the 2010 decision that unleashed super-PACs and left federal elections awash in money from big spenders.
Carol Patterson was waiting for a call from her doctor. When the phone rang on that afternoon in August 2011 at her home in Cortland, Ohio, it wasn’t a physician on the other end. A woman named Robin said she was representing the American Diabetes Association.
A divided U.S. Supreme Court struck down decades-old limits on the total amount donors can give to federal candidates and parties, dealing a fresh blow to efforts to curb the role of money in American politics.
On the evening of June 29, Amedeo Scognamiglio, a jewelry designer on the Isle of Capri, met friends for drinks at the elegant Grand Hotel Quisisana. Around midnight, Scognamiglio says, “I noticed some familiar American faces.”