This conversation is closed.
Who will win the new Supreme Court v. Supreme Court battle over Citizens United?
Cue the Star Spangled Banner for the Supreme Court v. Supreme Court Citizens United playoffs.
First round host: Montana. Game on as of Friday February 17, 2012. When two Supreme Court justices suggested the court reconsider its decision, that allows unlimited corporate and union spending in elections.
This after a Montana Supreme Court decision upholding a century-old ban on corporate campaign spending in the state.
Starting for flesh-and-blood US citizens:
Justice Ruth Baden Ginsberg and Steven Breyer. They are leading the field for what could be a national championship win against so-called corporate personhood status work around to cloak billions in covert campaign financing by unknown entities, including multi-national US competitors.
As Justice Ginsberg put it:
“Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations ‘do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."
So, where to from here? Will the corporations prevail with money and coercion? Or will US citizens be restored as critical to the representative democracy of the country. Which insures individual human tax-payers fair elections and equal political influence? And, if so, what more will it take for a citizen's win?