## Facts

- Montana’s Corrupt Practices Act (Mont. Code Ann. § 13-35-227) prohibited corporations from making expenditures in connection with candidates, political parties, or political committees in state elections.
- Montana enacted the law in 1912 in response to perceived corporate domination of state politics and corruption tied to large financial influence.
- After *Citizens United v. FEC* held that the First Amendment prohibits bans on corporate independent expenditures in federal elections, several corporations and associations challenged Montana’s law as unconstitutional.
- A Montana trial court held the statute unconstitutional under *Citizens United*.
- The Montana Supreme Court reversed, upholding the statute based on Montana’s history and asserted “unique and compelling interests” in preventing corporate control and corruption.

## Issues

1. Whether *Citizens United v. FEC* controls the constitutionality of a state statute banning corporate independent expenditures in state elections.
2. Whether a state may sustain such a ban based on a state-specific factual record of past corruption and vulnerability to corporate influence.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and summarily reversed the Montana Supreme Court in a per curiam decision.
- The Court held that *Citizens United* applies to Montana’s corporate independent-expenditure ban, rendering the statute unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
- The Court concluded Montana’s attempted distinctions were either rejected in *Citizens United* or did not meaningfully distinguish it.
- Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, dissented, urging reconsideration or limitation of *Citizens United* and arguing Montana’s record supported regulation of independent expenditures.

## Legal Principles

- Political speech does not lose First Amendment protection because the speaker is a corporation; bans on corporate independent expenditures are unconstitutional.
- Supreme Court interpretations of the federal Constitution bind state courts; state laws conflicting with controlling precedent must yield under the Supremacy Clause.
- State-specific history or factual findings of corruption cannot preserve a categorical ban on corporate independent expenditures where controlling precedent forecloses that justification.

## Conclusion

The Court enforced *Citizens United* against a state corporate independent-expenditure ban, holding that Montana could not rely on its history and asserted anti-corruption interests to maintain a restriction the First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, prohibits.


Am. Tradition P'ship, Inc. v. Bullock, 132 S. Ct. 2490 (2012)