The Montana ruling
The importance of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in American Tradition Partnership Inc. v. Bullock cannot be understated.
On Monday, the high court voted 5-4 to strike down Montana's 100-year-old ban on political expenditures by corporations. Citing its landmark 2010 Citizens United ruling, the court held that “political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation.”
As Stephen M. Hoersting, president of the Institute for Individualism, notes (in National Review Online), not only has the court upheld the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution — “This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound hereby” — but “communications made independent of candidates and political party committees pose no threat of corruption as a matter of law, not case-by-case adjudication.”
The “progressive” contention of automatic “apparent corruption,” rejected in Citizens and affirmed in American Tradition, is not apparent at all.
Supposedly objective liberal reportage on the ruling mixed into the narrative such biased phrases as “torrent of spending,” “secret world” and “unforeseen consequences.” How sad and tragic that these “progressives” — regressives, really — have no concept of the victory for free speech that the Supreme Court's ruling truly is.