'Citizens United' Backlash: Montana Supreme Court Upholds State's Corporate Campaign Spending Ban

more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...preme-court-corporate-spending_n_1182168.html

and:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-montana-court-20120104,0,5533901.story

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204368104577139100369896494.html?mod=ITP_pageone_1

Needs moar this:

Oh man, smells like a state rights vs. federal rights suit is brewing. Mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm

I love this quote from Esquire:

The Age of Enlightenment was filled with much ado about the Rights of Man. (Robbie Burns even wrote on the Rights of Women in 1792. Sexist now, but at least he was thinking.)

I don't recall anyone wasting any ink, blood or gunpowder on the Rights of Corporations.

Go Big Sky Country! singin': meet me underneath that big montana skyyyyyyyyyyy!

It occurred to me late last night that Citizens United is like a Transformer, where all the elements combine to make this gigantic and not necessarily benevolent construct.
SuperPACs remind me of that too.

And how do we take down a Transformer, people?

Nice.

D&D rule #1: If it has hit points, it can die.

+1000 Internetz for the D&D reference.

A REALLY BIG GUN!!!! *pantpantpant*

You deprive it of it's source of energy. Which in this case is money. Which is exactly what the Montana SC is trying to do.

I love cowboys.

The law being cited was written 100 years ago.
Still trying, after all these years, still trying after all these years
(with apologies to Paul Simon)

I figure 100 years is enough time to figure out that the solutions don't work. But we are offered more of the same failures.
IOW, politics as usual. Create a problem, blame the market, then create a solution that punts the problem down the road for a few more years, when a different crop of thieves politicians can do it all over again. What bothers me is that people keep falling for the same scam.

Tom Jefferson offered nulification as the solution to overreach by government. The States are supposed to protect their citizens from US government overreach, and we the people are supposed to nullify any law that is unconstitutional in our judgement.

Did he leave instructions on how we go about nullifying things? I have a rubber stamp and I'm not afraid to use it!

He did, but it's up to us to apply it. and there's the rub. It was ignored for 150 years (have any of you heard of the Principles of '98 before. that's 1798. This is not taught in schools.(EDIT: I first heard of it a few weeks ago) So our government schools totally ignore any real critiques of their power. If the schools never teach it it is up to us to learn it on our own.

here's an example of nullification at an OW

Here's an example of nullification in nature. The last minutes, when the water buffalo triumph over the lions.

At the end of the day, the only authority a law has is determined completely by the power and willingness of those who wish to enforce versus the power and determination of those wishing to resist it. Most times people are willing to accept a law rather than deal with the problems inherent in resisting it, even when a law is unfair or tyrannical. But eventually, enough people get pissed off enough to finally say "fuck this shit."

A mob preventing someone from being arrested is one form of nullification. Another form is what's called "Jury Nullification" where the jury decides to deliver a not guilty verdict even when the defendent actually is technically guilty of the law in question. They do so, not because they think he didn't break the law, but because they view the law, itself, as wrong, and thus they let the defendant free as an act of protest against the law's unfairness. Most juries have no idea they have that right, after all it's never told to them, but there has been some cases where the jury did decide to do exactly that--obviously it's rare. And then, of course, there's the process of a State asserting it's 10th amendment right by passing a law in their State that nullifies a federal law, like when California legalized medical marijuana, and when Montana passed a law that made null and void all federal gun control laws within the State of Montana.

People should also look into getting their local Sheriffs on their side as well. Sheriffs have more power within their jurisdictions than most people would think.

Good points all.
But I'll say that 'mob' could describe either side of the (human) video I posted.
Jury nullification was used in the 50s and 60s to get racists off, and was how OJ got off (the first time).
But it was also used to free blacks from being sent back to slavery in the years before the Civil War.
But on the whole, jury nullification is a good thing but never ever mention it if you are being considered for a jury. Unless of course you don't want to serve.

The whole point of nullification rests on the supremacy of the people. Jefferson considered it a middle course between subjugation to illegal authority and secession from the union.

And up until about the 1850s it was common for judges to tell the juries of their authority to nullify a law.
According to the principles laid out the States made a compact with the US Gov, then delegated 16 powers to them, no more. It was a contract, hence any of the signatories had the right to leave the compact. And if the Federal government tried to impose its will on the States, the states were expected to say "NO", to 'interpose' themselves between the US Gov and the people.

Also, I forgot,
the reason the sheriff is so important is that he is the ONLY elected law enforcement official in a given jurisdiction. SO If you think voting is cool and cutting edge, then that means you can unelect Xenu.

Good information in this thread.

Lee Fang ‏@lhfang 59 minutes ago
I asked Justice Kennedy about the crux of his Citizens United decision unraveling.
He shrugs. I get escorted out.

Justice Kennedy, Author of Citizens United, Shrugs Off Question About His Deeply Flawed Premise

By Lee Fang, The Intercept, September 20, 2016

Quote:

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the 2010 Citizens United decision that unraveled almost a century of campaign finance law, doesn’t seem to care that the central premise of his historic decision has quickly unraveled.

I spoke briefly to Kennedy during his visit to the U.S. Courthouse in Sacramento, before his security detail escorted me out of the room.

In the Citizens United decision, Kennedy claimed that lifting all campaign finance limits on independent groups — now known largely as SuperPACs — would not have a corrupting effect upon candidates. “By definition,” Kennedy wrote confidently, “an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate.”

Such a legalistic view of campaign finance law has little relationship with reality. Outside, so-called “soft money” groups have always maintained close ties with candidates.

And, in fact, since the Citizens United decision, vast sums of money have poured into Super PACs that are no longer making even a pretense of independence, and the Federal Election Commission hasn’t lifted a finger to enforce the rule. SuperPACs now openly coordinate with candidates with no fear of being prosecuted. Mitt Romney appeared at events for his campaign SuperPAC in 2012. In this election, Hillary Clinton is openly coordinating strategy and messaging with her SuperPAC Correct the Record, which allows her effectively to circumvent campaign finance limits placed and candidates and collect checks as large as $500,000.

I caught up with Kennedy during a reception at the Justice Anthony M. Kennedy Library and Learning Center in the Robert Matsui Courthouse hosted by the Federal Bar Association Sacramento Chapter last Friday. Kennedy, after listening to my question about the false crux of his decision, waved his hand and shrugged off the issue, calling it something for others, “the bar and the lower bench to figure out”:

Continued here:
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/20/justice-kennedy-citizens-united/