Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
AttorneyGeneral.release.5.21.12

AttorneyGeneral.release.5.21.12

Ratings: (0)|Views: 7|Likes:
Published by DemocracyforAmerica

More info:

Published by: DemocracyforAmerica on May 21, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/20/2014

pdf

text

original

 
No. 11-1179
================================================================
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
---------------------------------
--------------------------------- AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., f.k.a.WESTERN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC., et al.,
 Petitioners,
v.STEVE BULLOCK, ATTORNEYGENERAL OF MONTANA, et al.,
 Respondents.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
On Petition For Writ Of CertiorariTo The Supreme Court Of TheState Of Montana
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
---------------------------------
---------------------------------S
TEVE
B
ULLOCK 
*Montana Attorney General A
NTHONY
J
OHNSTONE
 
Special Assistant Attorney GeneralJ
 AMES
P. M
OLLOY
 M
ONTANA
D
EPARTMENT
 
OF
J
USTICE
 P.O. Box 201401Helena, MT 59620-1401(406) 444-2026sbullock@mt.gov*
Counsel of Record
 ================================================================
COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831
 
i
QUESTION PRESENTED
 Whether the Montana Corrupt Practices Act,which requires natural persons associating as busi-ness corporations to contribute to and account forpolitical campaign expenditures through a segregatedfund of voluntary contributions, violates the First Amendment in light of the minimal burdens imposedby the Act, significant differences between state andfederal elections, unrefuted evidence of actual andlikely corruption in Montana’s elections, and experi-ence elsewhere since this Court’s decision in
CitizensUnited v. FEC
, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010).
 
iiTABLE OF CONTENTSPageQUESTION PRESENTED................................... iSTATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................. 1REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION ..... 8I. THE COURT BELOW APPLIED
CITI- ZENS UNITED
TO THE FACTS BE-FORE IT .................................................... 10 A. The Corrupt Practices Act Does NotBan or Severely Burden Petitioners’Speech .................................................. 11B. Any Burden Imposed By the CorruptPractices Act Satisfies ConstitutionalScrutiny ............................................... 171. Montana Has Compelling StateInterests in Preventing Corruptionand Maintaining Accountability inState Elections ................................ 19a. A State Has a Distinct Duty toPreserve its Citizens’ PoliticalCommunity ................................ 22b. State Elections Are DistinctlySusceptible to Corrupting In-fluences ..................................... 24c. States Have Distinct Powersand Needs to Regulate Corpo-rations Effectively ..................... 282. The Corrupt Practices Act Is Nar-rowly Tailored to Montana’s Inter-ests .................................................. 32

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->