The Supreme Court of Montana on Aug. 10 ruled that its state’s November ballots may include Initiative 166, a nonbinding policy statement that would direct the state’s congress to support an amendment to the US Constitution asserting that corporations are not people and money does not qualify as speech. The goal of the endeavor is to counteract the 2010 US Supreme Court decision of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allows corporations to spend and contribute unlimited and unrestricted money in political campaigns. The court’s majority made clear, however, that its decision was limited only to whether the initiative complied with constitutional requirements regarding its proper submission to electors, and that it did not consider the “substantive legality of the issue, if approved by voters.” The dissent echoed this distinction, labeling Initiative 166 as “simply a feel-good exercise exhibiting contempt for the federal government and, particularly, the US Supreme Court.”
Campaign finance laws have been recently contentious in the state of Montana. In a June per curiam opinion, the US Supreme Court struck down a century-old Montana campaign finance law that restricted the amount of money corporations can spend on political campaigns. In particular, the court said that the restrictions imposed by Montana’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act were already rejected by the Citizens United ruling. The June order overturned a previous Montana Supreme Court decision upholding the law.
From Jurist, Aug. 11. Used with permission.
See our last post on corporate rule.
US judge strikes down Montana campaign finance law
A judge for the US District Court for the District of Montana on Oct. 3 ruled that a state law that limits campaign contributions violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Montana’s campaign finance law limits the individual contributions to gubernatorial and lieutenant governor candidates to $500 and contributions to candidates for other statewide offices to $250. Judge Charles Lovell held that the law unconstitutionally prevents both candidates and potential donors from being able to wage an effective political campaign:
Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock plans to appeal the decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
From Jurist, Oct. 4. Used with permission.
Ninth Circuit reinstates Montana campaign finance law
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Oct. 9 issued an order temporarily staying an injunction blocking Montana’s campaign finance law. Montana’s campaign finance law law limits the individual contributions to gubernatorial and lieutenant governor candidates to $500 and contributions to candidates for other statewide offices to $250. The trial court’s injunction found that the law’s limits on campaign contributions violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The new order stays the injunction until the lower court provides its full factual and legal findings: “the district court has not issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its order. … Without such findings, however, the court is severely constrained in its consideration of the underlying issues raised in the emergency motion.” The lower court’s order is expected to be “finalized and filed soon.”
From Jurist, Oct. 10. Used with permission.