Document: Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., FKA WESTERN ET AL. v. STEVE BULLOCK, ATTORNEY GENERAL MONTANA, ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO 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 candi- date or political committee supports opposes candidate party.” Mont. Code Ann. §13– 35–227(1) (2011). The Supreme Court rejected petitioners’ claim this statute violates the First Amendment. 2011 MT 328, 363 220, 271 P.3d 1. In Citizens United Federal Election Commission, struck down similar federal law, holding “political speech does lose Amendment protection simply because its source is corporation.” 558 U.S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 26) (internal quotation marks omit- ted). question presented case whether of applies to law. There can be no serious doubt it does. See Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. Montana’s arguments support judgment below either were already Citi- zens United, fail meaningfully distinguish case. petition for certiorari granted. reversed. It so ordered. BREYER, J., dissenting JUSTICE whom GINSBURG, JUS- TICE SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN join, dissenting. concluded “independent expenditures, includ­ ing those made by corporations, do give rise corrup­ tion appearance corruption.” 42). I disagree Court’s hold- reasons expressed Justice Stevens’ dissent As Stevens explained, “technically in­ dependent expenditures corrupting much same way as direct contributions.” Id., 67–68). Indeed, recounted “substantial body evidence” suggesting “[m]any corporate inde­ pendent had become essentially inter­ changeable contributions their capacity generate quid pro quo arrangements.” 64–65). Moreover, even if accept legal conclusion should bar Su­ preme finding, on record before it, independent corporations did fact lead corruption Montana. Given history landscape Montana, court State compelling interest limiting corporations. ¶¶ 36–37, 235–236, 1, 2 INC. BULLOCK 36–37. Thus, experience, like considerable ex­ perience elsewhere since decision casts grave supposition corrupt appear so. Were matter up me, would vote grant order reconsider or, least, application But given per curiam disposition, see significant possibility reconsideration. Consequently, stead deny petition.

Category: 2