Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock

Supreme Court of the United States · 2012 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentCampaign FinanceFirst Amendmentcorporate political speechindependent expendituresstate campaign finance lawCitizens United

Facts

A Montana statute provided that a corporation may not make an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or political party. Petitioners challenged that state law under the First Amendment. The Montana Supreme Court upheld the statute. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether Citizens United governed the validity of the Montana restriction.

Issue

Does the holding of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission apply to a Montana state law that prohibits corporations from making expenditures in connection with candidates or political committees supporting or opposing candidates or political parties?

Rule

Political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation, and a state may not uphold a law barring corporate independent expenditures when the law is not meaningfully distinguishable from the law invalidated in Citizens United.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Oregon enacts a statute providing that no corporation may spend money to advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for governor, mayor, or state legislature. Pine Street Manufacturing, a Portland corporation, wants to fund television ads expressly urging voters to defeat a candidate for the Oregon House, without coordinating with any campaign.

If Pine Street Manufacturing challenges the statute under the First Amendment, how should a court rule under the controlling doctrine?

Explanation. The governing rule is that political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation, and a state law barring corporate independent expenditures in connection with candidates cannot stand when it is not meaningfully distinguishable from the restriction already invalidated in prior Supreme Court precedent. Oregon's ban directly prohibits corporate independent expenditures supporting or opposing candidates, so the challenge should succeed. (Derived from American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock (2012).)