SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO HAVE NON-PROFIT BUSINESS CREATE THE ILLEGAL PUMP FOR DONATIONS WITHOUT TAX ON PROFIT

[.]

POLITICAL FUTURE OF USA WS TO BE FOR SALE

“Even if I were to accept Citizens United,” Justice Breyer contined,
“this court’s legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Supreme
Court’s finding, made on the record before it, that independent
expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the
appearance of corruption in Montana. Given the history and political
landscape in Montana, that court concluded that the state had a
compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by
corporations.”

“Montana’s experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since
the court’s decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the
court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or
appear to do so,” Justice Breyer added.

The Montana Supreme Court had ruled that the state’s distinctive
history and characteristics warranted a departure from the principles
announced in Citizens United.

In the Citizens United case, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for
the five justices in the majority, wrote that the First Amendment
prohibits limits on independent political spending by corporations and
unions. Justice Kennedy reasoned that such expenditures “do not give
rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

Citizens United is the Supreme Court’s most controversial decision
since Bush v. Gore in 2000. It has been criticized for contributing to
a political landscape awash in money, and its critics welcomed the
possibility that the justices might revisit the decision. But experts
in election law said there was little reason to think any of the
justices in the majority had changed their minds.

Justice Breyer agreed, saying that he “did not see a significant
possibility of reconsideration.” He said he would have denied the
appeal of the corporations involved in the Montana case, and let the
state Supreme Court’s decision stand.

That court, by a 5-to-2 vote, had upheld a 1912 state law limiting
political activity by corporations.

Chief Justice Mike McGrath of the State Supreme Court, writing for the
majority, said Montana's experience of having its political system
corrupted by corporate interests early in the 20th century justified
the ruling.

“At that time,” Chief Justice McGrath wrote, “the state of Montana and
its government were operating under a mere shell of legal authority,
and the real social and political power was wielded by powerful
corporate managers to further their own business interests. The voters
had more than enough of the corrupt practices and heavy-handed
influence asserted by the special interests controlling Montana’s
political institutions.”

“Citizens United,” he wrote, “does not compel a conclusion that
Montana’s law prohibiting independent political expenditures by a
corporation related to a candidate is unconstitutional.”

Two dissenting justices on the state Supreme Court wrote that they
would have liked to vote with their colleagues but were bound to apply
Citizens United to strike down the state law. “I cannot agree,” one of
them, Justice James C. Nelson, wrote, “that this ‘Montana is unique’
rationale is consistent with Citizens United. And I seriously doubt
this rationale is going to prevail in the Supreme Court when this case
is appealed, as it almost certainly will be.”

In February, two of the dissenters in Citizens United – Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Breyer — issued a statement
explaining that “lower courts are bound to follow this court’s
decisions until they are withdrawn or modified.”

They added, though, that the United States Supreme Court should now
use the Montana case to consider the aftermath of Citizens United. The
Montana case, they wrote, was “an opportunity to consider whether, in
light of the huge sums deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance,
Citizens United should continue to hold sway.”

The challengers in the new case, American Tradition Partnership v.
Bullock, No. 11-1179, are three corporations: American Tradition
Partnership, which says it is “a nonprofit ideological corporation”;
Montana Shooting Sports Association, a gun rights group and Champion
Painting, a family-owned painting and drywall business. They had urged
the court to reverse the lower court’s decision summarily, which is to
say without full briefing and oral arguments.

Montana’s attorney general, Steve Bullock, supported by 22 states,
argued that the case warranted more considered treatment in light of
the characteristics of state and local elections.

They urged the court, in the words of Barbara D. Underwood, New York’s
solicitor general, to give the states “the opportunity to be fully
heard on the question of how to reconcile the free speech rights
recognized in Citizens United with the special problems attendant on
protecting the democratic character of state and local elections and
institutions.”