{mosads}”Citizens United was wrong when it was decided, and as two Supreme Court justices have observed since, independent expenditures by corporations are threatening the health of our democracy,” Schultz said. “Citizens United mistakenly overruled longstanding cases that protected the fairness and integrity of elections. Unfortunately, the court today missed an opportunity to correct that mistake.”
 
Montana had argued that a state law, on the books for a century, should be allowed to restrict corporate spending on elections. But the court ruled without hearing arguments that its 2010 decision applied on the state level and that the Montana law should be invalidated.

“The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law,” the court’s per curiam stated. “There can be no serious doubt that it does.”

Obama has long been a critic of the Citizens United decision, blasting the Supreme Court during the 2010 State of the Union.

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people,” Obama said.

But in February, Obama announced that his reelection team would embrace super-PACs working for his reelection.

“With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm,” wrote campaign manager Jim Messina in an email to supporters. “Therefore, the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP super-PAC.”