"In a rebuke to the United States Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of
Montana has held that Citizens United does not apply to Montana campaign
finance law.
"Last Friday, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a
1912 voter initiative -- the Corrupt Practices Act -- that prohibits
corporations from making contributions to or expenditures on behalf of state
political candidates and political parties. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled
that a similar federal prohibition was unconstitutional, prompting a wave of
bills and court rulings that erased prohibitions on corporate and union
political expenditures around the country." Truth-out link
Jeff Milchen (
Jeff@amiba.net ) is a co-founder of the American Independent
Business Alliance, a network of 80 community organizations supporting local
independent businesses based in Bozeman, Montana.
He just wrote the piece "Big Win for Democracy in Big Sky Country," which
states: "Observing oral arguments in the Montana Supreme Court chamber
last September, I could see conflict in the faces of several Justices as they
probed whether Montana’s ban on direct corporate electioneering could
withstand the pending challenge in Western Tradition Partnership (WTP) v
Montana. The terse tone of many questions belied the Justice’s frustration
with the U.S. Supreme Court’s rationale in Citizens United v FEC, which
inspired WTP's lawsuit by striking down a federal law similar to Montana’s.
"The law in question, the Corrupt Practices Act, had stood for 99 years since
Montana citizens passed an initiative in response to some of the most overt
corporate corruption in American history.
"Five of the seven Justices found the State’s defense compelling. In a
December 30 ruling with national implications, the Court overturned a lower
court ruling and rejected arguments that Citizens United rendered the
Corrupt Practices Act unconstitutional.
"Key distinctions in Montana’s circumstances included the State presenting
extensive evidence of actual corruption, which the U.S. Supreme Court
found lacking in Citizens United. And while Citizens United did not address
non-partisan and judicial elections, Montana’s law protects the very Justices
who decided the case from being intimidated or corrupted. Montana’s ruling
quoted the U.S. Supreme Court’s own opinion in Caperton v Massey Coal
(2009), stating, 'Judicial integrity [is] a state interest of the highest order.'
"Of course, money drowning out the voice of citizens can happen in almost
any other election now, thanks to Citizens United bestowing Bill of Rights
protections upon corporations -- entities never mentioned in our
Constitution. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion also asserted 'independent
expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to
corruption or the appearance of corruption.'
"That astounding claim promptly birthed 'super PACs' which can accept
unlimited donations to support their favored candidate and attack his or her
opponents. Fittingly, the obvious early victim of super PACs in the current
presidential election was Newt Gingrich, who previously hailed Citizens United
as a 'great victory for free speech.'"
Milchen added: "Despite the Montana Justices’ efforts to differentiate WTP
v Montana from Citizens United, an appeal is likely. If granted, the case may
create a true focal point to unite the energy of Occupiers fed up with
corporate corruption, Tea Partiers who advocate for states’ rights, and the
nearly 80 percent of Americans who support amending the Constitution to
explicitly state what is obvious to most of us, but not to five men sitting on
the U.S. Supreme Court: the Bill of Rights was enacted to protect the rights
of actual human beings."
AMIBA was party to briefs in both CU v FEC and WTP v Montana.
See: "Granting Corporations Bill of Rights Protections Is Not 'Pro-business.'"
