Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 

Per Curiam 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., FKA
 

WESTERN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., 

ET AL. v. STEVE BULLOCK, ATTORNEY
 

GENERAL OF MONTANA, ET AL. 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME 

COURT OF MONTANA
 

No. 11–1179. Decided June 25, 2012

 PER CURIAM. 

A Montana state law provides that a “corporation may 

not make . . . an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a 

candidate or a political party.” Mont. Code Ann. §13–

35–227(1) (2011). The Montana Supreme Court rejected 

petitioners’ claim that this statute violates the First 

Amendment. 2011 MT 328, 363 Mont. 220, 271 P. 3d 1. 

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, this 

Court struck down a similar federal law, holding that 

“political speech does not lose First Amendment protection

simply because its source is a corporation.” 558 U. S. ___, 

___ (2010) (slip op., at 26) (internal quotation marks omitted). The question presented in this case is whether the 

holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state 

law. There can be no serious doubt that it does. See U. S. 

Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. Montana’s arguments in support of 

the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case.

The petition for certiorari is granted. The judgment of

the Supreme Court of Montana is reversed. 

It is so ordered. 
 

Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., FKA
 

WESTERN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., 

ET AL. v. STEVE BULLOCK, ATTORNEY
 

GENERAL OF MONTANA, ET AL. 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME 

COURT OF MONTANA
 

No. 11–1179. Decided June 25, 2012

 JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting. 

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 

Court concluded that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” 558 U. S. ___, ___ 

(2010) (slip op., at 42). I disagree with the Court’s holding for the reasons expressed in Justice Stevens’ dissent 

in that case. As Justice Stevens explained, “technically independent expenditures can be corrupting in much the

same way as direct contributions.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at

67–68). Indeed, Justice Stevens recounted a “substantial 

body of evidence” suggesting that “[m]any corporate independent expenditures . . . had become essentially interchangeable with direct contributions in their capacity to 

generate quid pro quo arrangements.” Id., at ___ (slip op.,

at 64–65).

Moreover, even if I were to accept Citizens United, 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. 2011 

MT 328, ¶¶ 36–37, 363 Mont. 220, 235–236, 271 P. 3d 1, 
 

2 AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC. v. BULLOCK 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

36–37. Thus, 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. 

Were the matter up to me, I would vote to grant the

petition for certiorari in order to reconsider Citizens United 

or, at least, its application in this case. But given the 

Court’s per curiam disposition, I do not see a significant 

possibility of reconsideration. Consequently, I vote instead to deny the petition.