Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
 
No. 11-1179
I
N
T
HE
 
Supreme Court of the United States
 _______________  A 
MERICAN
T
RADITION
P
 ARTNERSHIP
,
 
I
NC
.,
F
.
K 
.
 A 
.
 
W
ESTERN
T
RADITION
P
 ARTNERSHIP
,
 
I
NC
.,
ET AL
.,
Petitioners,
 v.S
TEVE
B
ULLOCK 
,
 
 A 
TTORNEY 
G
ENERAL OF
M
ONTANA 
,
 ET AL
.,
 
Respondents 
.
 
 _______________ 
On Petition For A Writ Of CertiorariOn Petition For A Writ Of CertiorariOn Petition For A Writ Of CertiorariOn Petition For A Writ Of CertiorariTo The Supreme Court of MontanaTo The Supreme Court of MontanaTo The Supreme Court of MontanaTo The Supreme Court of Montana
 _______________ 
BRIEF OF UNITED STATES SENATORBRIEF OF UNITED STATES SENATORBRIEF OF UNITED STATES SENATORBRIEF OF UNITED STATES SENATORSSSS SHELDONSHELDONSHELDONSHELDONWHITEHOUSEWHITEHOUSEWHITEHOUSEWHITEHOUSE AND JOHN MCCAIN AND JOHN MCCAIN AND JOHN MCCAIN AND JOHN MCCAIN AS AS AS AS
 AMICI  AMICI  AMICI  AMICI CURIAE CURIAE CURIAE CURIAE 
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTSIN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTSIN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTSIN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
 _______________ 
N
EAL
K 
UMAR
K 
 ATYAL
 
Counsel of Record 
 J
UDITH
E.
 
C
OLEMAN
 H
OGAN
L
OVELLS
US
 
LLP555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20004(202) 637-5528neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com
 Counsel for Amici Curiae 
 
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTSPageTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... ii
 
STATEMENT OF INTEREST .................................... 1
 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 2
 
 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 3
 
I.
 
THE MONTANA SUPREME COURT APPLIED THE CORRECT LEGALSTANDARD TO THE FACTUAL RECORDBEFORE IT. ........................................................... 3
 
II.
 
THE COURT SHOULD IN ALL EVENTSDECLINE PETITIONERS’ INVITATIONTO SUMMARILY REVERSE. ............................... 5
 
 A.
 
Political Spending After
Citizens United 
 Demonstrates that Coordination andDisclosure Rules Do Not Impose aMeaningful Check on the System. ................... 8
 
B.
 
Unlimited, Coordinated andUndisclosed Spending Creates a StrongPotential for
Quid Pro Quo 
Corruption. ........ 17
 
C.
 
The Appearance of Corruption Createdby Independent Expenditures is Strong. ....... 20
 
CONCLUSION .......................................................... 22
 
 
 ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESTABLE OF AUTHORITIESTABLE OF AUTHORITIESTABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)CCCC
 ASES ASES ASES ASES
::::
 Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC 
v.
Bennett 
, 131 S. Ct. 2806 (2011) ................ 9
Buckley 
v
. Valeo 
,424 U.S. 1 (1976) ................................................ 5, 8
Caperton 
v.
A.T. Massey Coal Co.
,556 U.S. 868 (2009) .............................................. 19
Citizens United 
v.
FEC 
,130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) ....................................
 passim McConnell 
v.
FEC 
,540 U.S. 93 (2003) ............................................ 6, 16
Youngblood 
v.
West Virginia 
,547 U.S. 867 (2006) ................................................ 5SSSS
TATUTETATUTETATUTETATUTE
::::26 U.S.C. § 501(c) ...................................................... 13RRRR
EGULATIONEGULATIONEGULATIONEGULATION
::::26 C.F.R. § 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2) .................................. 13RRRR
ULEULEULEULESSSS
::::Sup. Ct. R. 10 ........................................................... 2, 4Sup. Ct. R. 36.7 ............................................................ 1
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more