<P> On June 27, 2011, ruling in the consolidated cases of Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (No. 10 - 238) and McComish v. Bennett (No. 10 - 239), the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional an Arizona law that provided extra taxpayer - funded support for office seekers who have been outspent by privately funded opponents or by independent political groups . A conservative 5--4 majority of justices said the law violated free speech, concluding the state was impermissibly trying to "level the playing field" through a public finance system . Arizona lawmakers had argued there was a compelling state interest in equalizing resources among competing candidates and interest groups . Opponents said the law violated free - speech rights of the privately financed candidates and their contributors, inhibiting fundraising and spending, discouraging participation in campaigns and limiting what voters hear about politics . Chief Justice John Roberts said in the court's majority opinion that the law substantially burdened political speech and was not sufficiently justified to survive First Amendment scrutiny . </P> <P> As a consequence of the decision, states and municipalities are blocked from using a method of public financing that is simultaneously likely to attract candidates fearful they will be vastly outspent and sensitive to avoiding needless government expense . "The government can still use taxpayer funds to subsidize political campaigns, but it can only do that in a manner that provides an alternative to private financing" said William R. Maurer, a lawyer with Institute for Justice, which represented several challengers of the law . "It cannot create disincentives ." The ruling meant the end of similar matching - fund programs in Connecticut, Maine and a few other places according to David Primo, a political science professor at University of Rochester who was an expert witness for the law's challengers . </P> <P> Despite the Citizens United ruling, in December 2011, the Montana Supreme Court, in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana, upheld that state's law limiting corporate contributions . Examining the history of corporate interference in Montana government that led to the Corrupt Practices Law, the majority decided that the state still had a compelling reason to maintain the restrictions . It ruled that these restrictions on speech were narrowly tailored and withstood strict scrutiny and thus did not contradict Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission . </P> <P> While granting permission to file a certiorari petition, the US Supreme Court agreed to stay the Montana ruling, although Justices Ginsburg and Breyer wrote a short statement urging the Court "to consider whether, in light of the huge sums of money currently deployed to buy candidate's allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway". In June 2012, over the dissent of the same four judges who dissented in Citizens United, the Court simultaneously granted certiorari and summarily reversed the decision in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, 567, U.S. __ (2012). The Supreme Court majority rejected the Montana Supreme Court arguments in a two paragraph, twenty line per curiam opinion, stating that these arguments "either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case ." The ruling makes clear that states cannot bar corporate and union political expenditures in state elections . </P>

Under the 2010 supreme court ruling in citizens united v. fec