Western Tradition Partnership v. Bullock

Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock submitted a brief to the Supreme Court regarding the stafe's century old ban against corporate political donations.

The 1912 ban states, "corporation may not make ... an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political party that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party"

Will all five justices who favored the Citizen's United case continue with their majority opinion that political donations will not lead to corruption?

I haven't read the Citizens United opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court or the Bullock's submission. By bringing both up, your inference appears to be that "corruption" in elections trumps the first amendment. Is that your point?

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/01/03...s-citizens-united-decision-upholds-state-ban/

Arguing against this line in the Justice's opinion:

"For the reasons explained above, we now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."

I wonder if the two sides in the argument use the same definitions of "corruption"?

Is this a case of winners get to determine the definition

Yes. That's the nature of using judicial opinions, as in a Supreme Court opinion, to settle disagreements. Opinions are subject to challenge by another opinion and are never settled as in "the final solution" in Germany of the 1930's and 1940's. Doesn't everyone in the U.S. know that from eight grade civics classes?