The Supreme Court reaffirmed its controversial Citizens United decision this week, ruling 5–4 that Montana’s century-old restriction on political spending by corporations cannot stand. The Montana Supreme Court had maintained that the state’s history of rampant political corruption by mining companies justified the law. But a majority of justices disagreed, saying “there can be no serious doubt” that the state had to conform to the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums to support or oppose political candidates.
The Supreme Court has just “piled cowardice atop confusion,” said Bloomberg.com in an editorial. It is simply “not possible to credibly argue, as the Citizens United opinion does, that huge corporate expenditures to aid select political candidates do not give rise to corruption.” But the court’s majority “slinked away” from that reality. With Republicans blocking legislation requiring more disclosure on campaign contributions, powerful interests remain free not only to “influence elections, but to do so secretly.”
Montana gave the Supreme Court no choice, said Bradley Smith in NationalReview.com. The state held that it is “so uniquely corrupt” that it can ignore free speech. That’s like a state arguing that its crime rates are so bad that police can conduct unreasonable searches without a warrant. “The argument is absurd on its face.” And while there’s more money in politics now, “that’s a good thing,” because it “increases voter knowledge and interest.”
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
If you want to see the “perfect illustration of the squalid state of political money,” just look at casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, said The New York Times. He has already pledged at least $60 million to defeating President Obama. His checks may even buy his way out of a federal corruption investigation, which he “undoubtedly hopes will go away in a Romney administration.” As long as we have “no legal or moral limits to the purchase of influence,” the super-rich will buy politicians the same way they buy fancy cars and oceanfront mansions.
-
Weapons: Julia Garner stars in 'hyper-eerie' psychological thrillerThe Week Recommends Zach Cregger's 'top notch' new film opens with 17 children disappearing at exactly the same time
-
Freakier Friday: Lohan and Curtis reunite for 'uneven' but 'endearing' sequelThe Week Recommends Mother-and-daughter comedy returns with four characters switching bodies
-
Al fresco art: the UK's best sculpture parksThe Week Recommends Soak up the scenery with a stroll through these open-air galleries
-
NSA surveillance ruled unconstitutionalfeature A federal judge ruled that the National Security Agency's mass collection of domestic phone data “almost certainly” violates the Constitution.
-
The gun debate one year after Newtown
feature The first anniversary of the school shootings in Newtown reignited the debate over gun control, as another school shooting occurred in Colorado.
-
A gun revolt in Colorado
feature Two Colorado Democrats who helped push through tough new gun-control laws were ousted in a historic recall vote.
-
The battle over voter ID laws
feature The Obama administration is challenging the right of Texas to enforce rigorous new voting restrictions.
-
Stricter affirmative action
feature The Supreme Court raised the bar for considering race in university admissions.
-
Voting Rights Act gutted
feature The Supreme Court struck down a core component of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
-
A turning point on gay marriage
feature The Supreme Court struck a historic blow in favor of gay rights.
-
Court approves DNA swabs
feature The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that police are justified in taking DNA samples from anyone who’s arrested.