ShareThis Page

The Montana ruling

| Tuesday, June 26, 2012, 9:01 p.m.

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.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.