[3] The court wrote only that the legal issue had already been precluded by Citizens United, and this case offered no new arguments and failed to distinguish that prior decision.

[5] During the early 20th century, a number of rich "Copper Barons" controlled most of the political process through quid pro quo financial transactions with politicians.

Magnuson wrote that Citizens United "is unequivocal: The government may not prohibit independent and indirect corporate expenditures on political speech.

[12] In response to a potential U.S. Supreme Court challenge, the majority opinion included a great deal of historical evidence to document the "corrupting influence of campaign contributions on elections.

The justices asked the court to pay attention to the empirical evidence of corruption caused by the new unlimited spending, a problem that the majority downplayed in their opinion.

2, and that "Montana's arguments in support of the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case."

He would have reconsidered Citizens United or its applicability to the case at hand but believed that the votes to make such an effort meaningful did not exist.