We have all managed to come across at least one news item relating to the recent Supreme Court case on corporate spending on elections. But why has it been attracting so much of attention when it is a common practice for corporate houses to spend on election campaigns? This issue cropped up after the judgment passed by the United States Supreme Court in the Citizens United Case. The main question in this case was pertaining to the Freedom of Speech and Expression promised to the Corporations or Association of persons who wish to engage in political speech.  The honorable Court’s decision lead to complete freedom of these organizations from any restriction linked to spending in elections.

While, this decision was celebrated by many there were others, like- U.S. Pres. Barack Obama, who were critical of this decision and he said that “[the Citizens United decision] gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington — while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates" . The Supreme Court was unaware that this action would lead to questioning of a 100 year old law of the state of Montana until the American Tradition Partnership, Inc. case came up in this court.

The Montana Law of 1912 restricts (not prohibits completely) the corporate spending on elections. This state’s own law on corrupt practices in elections was upheld by the Montana Supreme Court which is claimed to be a reversal of the Citizens United Case. Prof. B.A.Smith, a professor of Law, said “we are waiting to see the outcome of this issue, it will change a lot of things!”

Possibilities: If the Supreme Court denies a hearing to this case on the basis of restriction imposed by the 11th Amendment (which is claimed to restrict the Supreme court from hearing this matter on Montana law), then the Citizens United case will be implicitly reversed and the Montana Law would prevail. The other scenario entails an improbable situation where the Supreme Court accepts its mistake committed in the Citizens United Case. While they have the power to do so, this step is seldom resorted to. The last scenario would be where Citizens United Case is upheld and the Montana Law is struck off. This step would be a killer in a democracy. If a hundred year old law, which people support and rely on it as a means to curb corruption, is struck off then there remains no reason for the fellow Americans to either trust the judiciary or the political system.