American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock

Background

A Montana law barred corporations from making expenditures in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party. The Montana Supreme Court rejected the challengers’ claim that the law violated the First Amendment, and the question became whether the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision applied to Montana’s statute.

Reasoning

In a short per curiam opinion, the Court said there was no serious doubt that Citizens United controls. The opinion explained that Citizens United held political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation, and found Montana’s arguments either were already rejected there or did not meaningfully distinguish the earlier decision. The Court granted review and reversed the Montana Supreme Court’s judgment, relying on the Constitution’s supremacy to apply the federal rule.

Real world impact

The ruling prevents Montana from enforcing its ban on corporate independent expenditures and applies the same federal rule to similar state laws. The decision means states will face limits when they try to prohibit corporations from spending independently in support of or opposition to candidates or parties. This opinion resolves the dispute here but does not itself rework the core reasoning of Citizens United.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, dissented. He argued that independent corporate expenditures can produce corruption or its appearance, pointed to the Montana court’s finding of such effects on the record, and said he would prefer to reconsider Citizens United or at least its application in this case.