Two years ago, when the Supreme Court struck down bans on independent corporate and union expenditures in elections in the Citizens United case, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion claimed that money does not “give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” While it might result in “influence over or access to elected officials,” he wrote, it is not the same as bribery.

Last month, in a 5-to-2 vote, the Montana Supreme Court rejected that misguided reasoning and upheld a part of a state anticorruption law banning corporations from making political expenditures from general treasuries. The court’s dissenters argued that Montana cannot ignore the Citizens United decision — and they may well be proved right when the case is appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Still, the majority and a dissenting opinion agree that Citizens United has given corporations enormous power barely distinguishable from bribery.

Montana has a long history of fighting political corruption. A century ago, state voters passed an initiative that banned corporate spending to help or hurt candidates for public office. They were responding to epic political corruption caused by the copper kings who controlled a big part of the state’s wealth.

The court’s majority in Western Tradition Partnership v. Montana ruled that Citizens United does not apply to Montana’s law because it is tailored to meet a compelling state interest and its burden on corporations’ “political activity or speech” is minimal — they can easily set up political action committees for contributions from officers and shareholders. The court also stressed the acute need to limit corporate influence in politics because elected officials shape policies that determine winners and losers in fights over the state’s natural resources.

In Citizens United, the conservative majority turned itself into a copper kings’ court. The Montana Supreme Court, faced with tangible effects of corporate electioneering, shows how that decision undermines the fight against political corruption — and can make it far worse.

Read full article here>>

The Montana AG explains why his state’s challenge to the controversial decision could hold up in the Supreme Court

David Sirota, Salon.com, Published 1/6/2012

Last week, while the national press corps was busy pretending the tiny Iowa caucus was the only news in America, a major ruling out of Montana paved the way for a likely U.S. Supreme Court showdown over the role of corporate money in politics.

In the case, which was spearheaded by the state’s Democratic Attorney General Steve Bullock, Montana’s top court restored Big Sky country’s century-old law banning corporations from directly spending on political candidates or committees. Legal experts believe that upon appeal, this case will come before the nation’s highest court. While there, it could serve as the first test of the precedents in the infamous Citizens United decision that essentially allows unfettered corporate spending in campaigns.

This week on my weekday morning radio show on KKZN-AM760, I spoke with Bullock about the case. What follows is an edited transcript of our discussion (you can find the full audio podcast here).

 READ MORE >>

Democratic candidate Steve Bullock dramatically out raised the other 13 candidates for Governor this last quarter.

At $160,000 Bullock has raised nearly $550,000 for his campaign. This puts him ahead of any other candidate.

 READ MORE >>

A shout out goes to the Montana Supreme Court for its decision to uphold Montana’s 99-year-old ban on corporate contributions to political campaigns.

The decision appears to fly in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court’s dreadful decision in the Citizens United case that corporations are, for the sake of political contributions, the same as people.

In arguing before the Montana Supreme Court, state Attorney General Steve Bullock said Montana should be exempted from the ruling because the Treasure State has a sorry history of corporate domination of the state political processes.

Since then, with a few bumps in the road, Montana has been relatively free of graft and corruption, especially when compared to other states.

However, Bullock said that because the state has a small population base and it depends heavily on natural resources and agriculture, it is low-hanging fruit for corporations who might want to overstep their bounds and hand out cash for political causes.

Only the big stick of the strict laws have prevented sleazy corporations from engaging in political corruption, Bullock argued. Thus, the state qualifies for an exemption from the high court ruling, the attorney general declared.

The attorney general’s argument, of course, did not sit well with the Western Tradition Partnership, the outfit that battled Bullock in court with co-plaintiff Montana Shooting Sports Association and its president, Gary Marbut.

The case will almost certainly head to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we dread that the federal justices may overturn the Montana decision.

If they do, Bullock and the majority members of the Montana Supreme Court can be proud they took a valiant stand for what is right.

 READ MORE >>

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2010 striking down federal limits on corporate and union political spending doesn’t apply to similar state laws, the Montana Supreme Court has found, renewing a legal debate over how sweeping the high court intended its ruling to be.

In a decision released late Friday, the Montana court held that the state’s Corrupt Practices Act, a century-old voter initiative banning corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates or parties, complies with the U.S. Supreme Court’s January 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.

Mr. Bullock, a Democrat who is running for governor, praised the ruling as “based on solid constitutional analysis, common sense and a clear understanding of…Montana’s history.”

 READ MORE >>

Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times, Published January 4, 2012

Reporting from Seattle — Montana has engaged in a long, slow dance between corporations and politicians through much of its history. The free-spending audacity of the copper kings during the early 20th century — when mining czar W.A. Clark bought himself a seat in the U.S. Senate — are the stuff of Western lore.

In an attempt to fight back, Montana voters in 1912 passed an initiative barring direct corporate contributions to political candidates and parties — a law that, like those in many states across the country, was undone by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010. The controversial decision gave corporations the same 1st Amendment rights as citizens and allowed businesses to freely spend their way into the nation’s political debates.

Now the Montana Supreme Court has issued a forceful rebuff of that decision.

Montana’s attorney general, Steve Bullock, a Democratic candidate for governor who personally argued the case, said the potential effects of unlimited corporate spending was disproportionately large in a sparsely populated state like Montana.

“It doesn’t take a heck of a lot of money to wind up influencing a state election where our average legislator ends up winning, I think, on $17,000,” he said in an interview. “Montana has a long history of corporate influence in elections, and ultimately the citizens are saying, no, that’s not how we want to run our elections.”

 READ MORE >>

HELENA – The Montana Supreme Court on Friday overturned a lower court ruling and reinstated the state’s century-old ban on direct spending by corporations for or against political candidates.

The justices ruled 5-2 in favor of the state’s attorney general’s office and commissioner of political practices to uphold the initiative passed by Montana voters in 1912.

The Montana Supreme Court decision was a major victory for Attorney General Steve Bullock, who personally argued the case. He is a Democratic candidate for governor in 2012.

“We’re really pleased with the decision and think it’s based on solid constitutional analysis, common sense and a clear understanding of our history and our current system of electing our state’s leaders,” Bullock said.

He said Montana has had a Corrupt Practices Law in place since 1912 and it has served Montana well.

“The Citizens United decision deals with federal laws and elections – like those contests for president and Congress,” Bullock said. “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.”

 READ MORE >>

 3. Montana (Down 1 spot)

A Republican poll released this week underscores the main challenge facing the front-runners in both parties: They’re largely unknown and undefined. A plurality of voters haven’t formed an opinion on state Attorney General Steve Bullock or former Rep. Rick Hill. But retired Navy SEAL Cmdr. Neil Livingstone reminded Hill this week that he first must steer through a muddled 10-person GOP primary. Hill, Livingstone said, has had “two years to put it away and hasn’t done it.” That’s music to Bullock’s ears.

Who won the year: Bullock

Latest poll: Hill 39 percent, Bullock 38 percent (Public Policy Polling, 1,625 voters, Nov. 28-30)

Read more >>

Four gubernatorial elections have wrapped in the past two months, bringing POLITICO’s monthly rankings of the most competitive contests down from 10 to eight. But the remaining campaigns are evolving into real horse races.

Earl Ray Tomblin was sworn in as governor less than three weeks ago, but West Virginia again lands at the top of the list, while a robust recall effort propels Wisconsin into the upper tier.

 2. Montana (down 1 spot)

There are currently nine Republicans vying to wrestle back the governor’s mansion from Democratic control for the first time since 2004. The Associated Press noted this week that the “still-growing field” is creating a “jumbled, messy courtship of the far-right voter bloc.” One candidate is pledging to ban all immigration and abortion and bring Christianity into public schools. If there’s a front-runner in the scrum, it is former Rep. Rick Hill, who has almost 10 times more money in the bank than his nearest GOP rival. Democrats believe Attorney General Steve Bullock will be the ultimate beneficiary of a fragmented Republican field. A Montana State University-Billings poll found that Republicans enjoy a 2-point generic ballot advantage in the governor’s race.

Who won November: Bullock

Latest poll: Hill 37 percent, Ken Miller 10 percent (Public Policy Polling, 700 Republican primary voters, Nov. 28-30)

Read more >>

5) A internal poll of likely Montana voters conducted earlier this month for the Democratic Governors Association shows that Democratic Attorney General Steve Bullock leads former GOP Rep. Rick Hill 42 percent to 38 percent — within the margin of error. The survey, which was conducted by Project New West, shows the race is likely to be competitive. But there’s a long way to go until November 2012 — and many Montanans aren’t familiar with the candidates’ records. Another warning sign for the GOP: Hill faces a competitive primary, while Bullock has no serious competition on the Democratic side.

Link to original story >>