8 Eight Steps of Legal Reasoning
Legal Business6/21/14
Steps of Legal Reasoning
American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock 6/25/12
The Facts
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”
Montana Supreme Court rejected petitioners’ claim that this statue violates the First Amendment
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”
The issue
Whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana State law
Reasons and Conclusions
Reasons
There is no serious doubt that it does apply
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
Conclusion
The Judgement of the Supreme Court of Montana is reversed
Relevant Rules of Law
“Independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption” 588 U.S.__, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 42)
“Technically independent expenditures can be corrupting in much of the same way as direct contributions” Id., at __ (slip op., at 67-68)
“[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., 64-65)
Ambiguity
Yes, the argument contains significant ambiguity explaining Montana state laws
Ethical Norm
Justice
Legal Analogies
The legal analogies are very appropriate, there are the same factors that compelled the court’s decision (conclusion) in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that applies in this case.
Missing Information
There could be more extent and content of how the differences of American Tradition
Steps of Legal Reasoning
American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock 6/25/12
The Facts
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”
Montana Supreme Court rejected petitioners’ claim that this statue violates the First Amendment
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”
The issue
Whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana State law
Reasons and Conclusions
Reasons
There is no serious doubt that it does apply
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
Conclusion
The Judgement of the Supreme Court of Montana is reversed
Relevant Rules of Law
“Independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption” 588 U.S.__, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 42)
“Technically independent expenditures can be corrupting in much of the same way as direct contributions” Id., at __ (slip op., at 67-68)
“[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., 64-65)
Ambiguity
Yes, the argument contains significant ambiguity explaining Montana state laws
Ethical Norm
Justice
Legal Analogies
The legal analogies are very appropriate, there are the same factors that compelled the court’s decision (conclusion) in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that applies in this case.
Missing Information
There could be more extent and content of how the differences of American Tradition