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
- Whether Citizens United v. FEC controls the constitutionality of a state statute banning corporate independent expenditures in state elections.
- 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.