Montana High Court Upholds Ban On Election Spending
By Corporations
by MATT GOURAS
Great Falls Tribune
December. 30, 2011 
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20111231/NEWS01/112310303/Montana-high-court-upholds-ban-election-spending-by-corporations

HELENA - The Montana Supreme Court restored the state's
century-old ban on direct spending by corporations on
political candidates or committees in a ruling Friday
that interest groups say bucks a high-profile U.S.
Supreme Court decision granting political speech rights
to corporations.

The decision grants a big win to Attorney General Steve
Bullock, who personally represented the state in
defending its ban that came under fire after the
"Citizens United" decision last year from the U.S.
Supreme court.

"The Citizens United decision dealt with federal laws
and elections - like those contests for president and
Congress," said Bullock, who is now running for
governor. "But the vast majority of elections are held
at the state or local level, and this is the first case
I am aware of that examines state laws and elections."

The corporation that brought the case and is also
fighting accusations that it illegally gathers anonymous
donations to fuel political attacks, said the state
Supreme Court got it wrong. The group argues that the
1912 Corrupt Practices Act, passed as a citizen's ballot
initiative, unconstitutionally blocks political speech
by corporations.

"We feel Montanans do not forfeit their freedoms of
speech and association simply because they associate as
a corporation," said American Tradition Partnership
executive director Donald Ferguson in a statement. "We
are currently reviewing our legal options."

The lawsuit was prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court's
Citizens United decision from last year granting
political speech rights to corporations. A lower court
then ruled the state ban was unconstitutional in the
wake of the high court's decision.

But the Montana Supreme Court on Friday reversed the
lower state court's analysis and application of the
Citizens United case.

The Montana Supreme Court said Montana has a "compelling
interest" to uphold its rationally tailored campaign-
finance laws that include a combination of restrictions
and disclosure requirements.

A group seeking to undo the Citizens United decision
lauded the Montana high court, with its co-founder
saying it was a "huge victory for democracy."

"With this ruling, the Montana Supreme Court now sets up
the first test case for the U.S. Supreme Court to
revisit its Citizens United decision, a decision which
poses a direct and serious threat to our democracy,"
John Bonifaz, of Free Speech For People, said in a
statement.

The Montana court agreed with Bullock's argument that
past political corruption, led by the famed Butte
"Copper Kings" that dominated state politics long ago,
gives Montana a compelling interest in regulating
corporate spending. They pointed out also that
corporations can form voluntary political action
committees - subject to disclosure requirements - as a
way to remain politically active.

The high court said it could not find the current laws
unfairly impeded corporate owners from engaging in
political activity. And it said "political" corporations
like American Tradition Partnership "act as conduits for
anonymous spending by others and represent a threat to
the 'political marketplace."'

ATP has gained notoriety tangling with state campaign
finance authorities, and riling Democrats and even some
Republicans with hard-hitting attack mailers. It has
done so without so far filing disclosures on spending or
donors, previously arguing it does not need to do so.

It has a separate state lawsuit challenging the right of
the state to penalize it, and a federal lawsuit that
challenges many other aspects of state campaign finance
regulations and disclosure requirements

The Montana Supreme Court argued there are plenty of
ways for corporations to engage in politics, without
funneling anonymous money into the process.

"The evidence submitted by the state in the district
court similarly demonstrates that corporations, through
their political committees organized under Montana law,
are and have been a substantial presence and active
participants in Montana politics," the court wrote. "The
many lobbyists and political committees who participate
in each session of the Montana Legislature bear witness.
Under the undisputed facts here, the political committee
is an easily implemented and effective alternative to
direct corporate spending for engaging in political
speech."

Two members of the Montana Supreme Court dissented. Both
justices Beth Baker and James Nelson said that a state
can't impose an outright ban against political spending
under the Citizens United decision - even if the U.S.
Supreme Court may have got its decision on the matter
wrong.

"Citizens United is the law of the land, and this court
is duty-bound to follow it," Nelson wrote. "When this
case is appealed to the Supreme Court, as I expect it
will be, a summary reversal on the merits would not
surprise me in the least."

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate