Montana vs Citizens United

The May 19, 2012 edition of The Missoulian reported on the brief filed by Montana’s Attorney General Steve Bullock that asked the U.S. Supreme Court to deny the attempt by American Tradition Partnership and others to overturn the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling in a 5-2 January decision that upholding the Corrupt Practices Act. This act is a 100-year-old state law that voters enacted following bribery and kickback scandals involving lawmakers and mining interests and it remains effective under the Citizens United ruling because the state had a compelling interest to limit corporate involvement in state politics.

When the American Tradition Partnership and other conservative groups along with like-minded companies challenged this decision by appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, they asked the U.S. Supreme Court justices to reverse the Montana ruling without a hearing for conflicting with their Citizens United decision. Twenty-two states and The District of Columbia joined Montana’s brief by asking the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve state-level regulations on corporate political expenditures.  Eric Schneiderman, New York’s Attorney General wrote, “[…] as a state law applying to state and local elections, Montana’s law regulating corporate campaign expenditures is supported by compelling government interests that were not present in Citizens United. The federal law struck down in Citizens United applied only to elections for President and Congress. By contrast, Montana’s law applies to a wide range of state and local offices, including judgeships and law enforcement positions such as sheriff and county prosecutor. This Court has recognized that maintaining impartiality and appearance of impartiality in judicial decisions is critically important, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556U.S. 868 (2009), and analogous interests apply to quasi- judicial and law enforcement offices.” On Friday, May 18, 2012, Montana’s case received support from U.S. Senators, John McCain, R-Arizona and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island. After the Citizens United decision, they found millions in unregulated dollars that have transferred into current presidential electoral campaigns, which showed large independent disbursements, leading to corruption. In addition, U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Beyer have suggested to the court to take action on Montana’s case encompassing the states’ brief that supports a full hearing with oral arguments and merit briefs.

The states represented in the above brief are: Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. In addition, for anyone seeking more information on citizen-funded elections versus corporate involvement in politics, Common Cause  presents in its Money in Politics section, The Fair Elections Now Act: How is Affects You that put in plain words what happens when powerful interests corporate or otherwise are allowed to buy influence in Washington, D.C.

In a related matter in an earlier “Legal News” article from Free Legal Aid highlighted another judicial case originating in Virginia that relates to Citizens United decision; in this case, a federal judge ruled that the ban on companies contributing directly to federal candidates is unconstitutional.  Both of these judicial decisions support a reexamination of the Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Susanne L Woodford, Freelance Writer