Just a week ago, a federal judge struck down Montana's campaign contribution limits as unconstitutional. In a surprise move, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has brought the limits back.
The court intervened late Tuesday less than a week after a federal judge's decision opened the door to unlimited money in state elections -- during the height of election season.
Conservative groups emboldened by the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision have made Montana the center of the fight over many campaign finance restrictions. The groups have convinced a federal judge to strike down several laws as unconstitutional, including the cap on contributions given to candidates by individuals and political parties.
The federal appeals court says the federal judge needs to file his full reasoning for that decision. A brief order temporarily stayed the decision until the court can review the full case.
For those who haven't followed the dispute, the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that that Montana's limits on corporate campaign spending are unconstitutional and are inconsistent with the Citizens United ruling. The state's Corrupt Practices Act was approved in 1912, after a billionaire bought a U.S. Senate seat. Without even hearing oral arguments, the justices struck down Montana's law in a 5-4 ruling.
Rachel discussed the issue with Sen. Jon Tester (D) of Montana back in June.
Leave a Comment:
Unfortunately, the Republicans will find another judge who is more interested in short term Republican political gain than in the law or the will of the people. This brief interlude of sanity will come to an abrupt end, and the money will once again flow--and flow, and flow.
But it's nice to find some judges that are interested in promoting real democracy.
It is beginning to dawn on GOP ideologues that the beneficiaries of the power grab will be the pluocracy, and that the plutocracy's relationship with the GOP ideologues is only one of temporary convenience.
If the 9th circuit crafts the argument well, they might be able to throw Scotus moderates a line of argument they can uphold or refuse to contest which will partially reverse some of the impact of Citizen's united.
I hope they don't base it on jurisdiction- that is a state's rights argument. I hope they rebut the free speech argument head on, repudiating the foundation of the Citizen's united ruling.
Look here now,this is not what the right means by "State's Rights". Suppressing votes in minority areas or letting the States have anti-abortion or anti-gay legislation is alright but preventing super pacs from buying votes for republicans is non-negotiable!
If consistency were a virtue, then Republicans would be thrilled at the ruling. States Rights, ya know.
"The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people."
And there you go citing the "Constitution" as though the GOTP actually give it more than lip-service in their quest for power....
Is that the republican version? I forget, is their constitution the Magna Carta or the Confederate Constitution?
The reason for this comment is off topic, but I heard that you say all comments are read by TRMS and I am disturbed that there has been no commentary regarding Mitt's new age to not worry about entitlement changes. In his "response" regarding "entitlements", he mostly criticizes Obama's 750B Medicare cuts. When he begins to answer the question, he says that no one who is age 60 need be concerned that something with SS or Medicare will "change their life for the worse" as nothing will change for them.
Ruh Roh!
Did any other fellow late baby boomers, (55-59 year olds) sort of crap their pants like I did? They have been using the age 55 as the cutoff for the whole campaign. I was surprised to NOT see this as a major talking point by the Obama campaign or Rachael Maddow show. They just increased the age group that will get the vouchers and additional SS age cuts by 5 years! (we already were hit the last time with the last reform). Why doesn't Obama jump on this? I assume their are others in my age group that noticed? (Romney's shtick regarding entitlements begins around the 39 minute mark).
So my purpose is to ask the community whether this is a big deal or not. If it is a big deal, why is their no coverage?
thank you.
yeah,, You'd think rummy would tell lies that would increase not decrease the "I got mine" crowd, i.g. a "no vouchers for those over 40" lie.
The story I marvel at that nobody seems to care about is that the repubs want to outlaw the birth control pill !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
While we are a bit off topic, let me chime in.
In the Days of Yore- before FDR, the Great Society, and ObamaCare, Americans were pretty much on their own, as far as health care and old age.
True, most folks either lived on a farm, or had a family there they could return to in times of hardship. The nuclear family- several generations- looked out for each other, and had neighbors who did the same. You could, indeed, pay the doctor with 'a chicken'. So Social Security, a pension, were not much needed.
Now that 'family' is gone, and we depend on the government for this assistance. Or will, until the Republicans do away with these safety nets as "unaffordable.'
Telling Teh Youngsters to prepare for their old age is commendable advice. Telling that to 50 year olds is reprehensible.
@Carol, after the VP candidate debate tomorrow night, I'm sure this will very much be front-and-center again, especially since Ryan is the mastermind behind all this. But I have to say, at its core, I still find it to be a disturbing talking point. I just can't imagine jumping on board with Romney/Ryan with the knowledge that while my Medicare wouldn't be touched, it would be scrapped and converted into a voucher program for the younger generation of my family. That Romney/Ryan is selling this talking point as attractive continues to boggle my mind.
If grandma lives long enough the GOP will attack the medicaid that helps pay for her nursing home. While you worry about this they are planning to mess with your parents medicare. You are on your own but are young enough to begin voting these corporate welfare, panderers to the rich, out of office.