Supreme Court rebuffs Montana ban on corporate campaign spending

The Supreme Court ordered Montana to hold off enforcement of a state election law - upheld by the Montana Supreme Court - that forbids corporations from spending to help elect political candidates and puts the state at odds with the high court's controversial Citizens United ruling.

The hold could enable the court's liberal justices - who dissented on the 5-4 ruling that said the 1st Amendment protects corporate political spending - to bring the issue back to the court.

"Montana's experience, and experience elsewhere since Citizens United make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations 'do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,'" said Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer in a statement accompanying the order.

But Ginsburg wrote that nevertheless, "lower courts are bound to follow this Court's decisions until they are withdrawn or modified."

Montana's Supreme Court ruled in December that a 100-year-old anti-corruption law adopted via ballot initiative should still apply to political spending in the state. That brought state law into conflict with the Citizens ruling, which said corporations, unions, and interest groups could give in the same way individuals did to political campaigns and political action committees.

Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock said in a statement Friday he hoped the Court would allow the state to challenge the Citizens ruling.

"While I'm disappointed that for the first time in 100 years Montanans won't be able to rely on our corporate spending ban to safeguard the integrity of our elections, I am encouraged that the Supreme Court will give this careful consideration and I look forward to continuing to fight for Montana in defending our century-old law," Bullock said in a statement.

"For more than a century, anyone has been able to participate in Montana elections - even out-of-state corporate executives. All we required is that they used their own money, not that of their stockholders, and they disclosed who they are."

---