Author Topic: Montana Supreme Court upholds corporate spending limits  (Read 1988 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Deus ex Populo

  • Bishop
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Gender: Male
    • My Tumblr, for what it's worth...
Montana Supreme Court upholds corporate spending limits
« on: January 04, 2012, 05:38:43 pm »
...with a possible challenge to Citizens United.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Quote
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.

In a new opinion drawing on Montana's coal and copper mining history, the court upheld the state's century-old corporate contribution limits, concluding that "the corporate power that can be exerted with unlimited political spending is still a vital interest to the people of Montana."

The decision, handed down last week, applies only to state elections in Montana. But if it is appealed as expected, the case could provide the long-awaited vehicle critics have sought for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the issue decided in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission.

In a 5-2 opinion, the Montana court's majority concluded that the state's long history of well-funded natural resource extractors, small population and historically inexpensive political campaigns allow it to demonstrate compelling government interest in regulating corporate financial muscle. Even one of the justices who dissented — saying that the U.S. Supreme Court left no room for states to exempt themselves — argued forcefully against the broad corporate latitude encompassed in the Citizens United decision.

"Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people — human beings — to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creatures of government," Justice James C. Nelson wrote in his reluctant dissent.

"Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons," he wrote.

The Montana case centered on a constitutional challenge by American Tradition Partnership, which has funneled large amounts of money to battle environmental regulations seen as undermining jobs and economic development. American Tradition Partnership, known as Western Tradition Partnership when the case was filed, was joined as plaintiffs by the Montana Shooting Sports Assn. and Champion Painting Inc., a small paint and drywall firm whose owner is politically active in Montana.

"Crush Gang-Green and their Anti-Business Allies!" American Tradition Partnership says on its website. In a fundraising appeal cited by the court, the group boasts of the anonymity it offers corporate donors.

"As you know, Montana has very strict limits on contributions to candidates, but there is no limit to how much you can give to this program," the appeal states. "No politician, no bureaucrat, and no radical environmentalist will ever know you helped make this program possible."

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."

John Bonifaz of Free Speech for People, a national group pushing for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, called the Montana decision an "enormously significant ruling."

"Even if the [U.S.] Supreme Court lets [the Montana decision] stand, it would effectively open the door for every other state in the union to implement bans on corporate money in elections or to let stand their existing laws that have banned corporate money in state elections," he said.

Donald Ferguson, director of American Tradition Partnership, said that no decision had been made on whether to appeal, but that the U.S. high court had clearly provided for business owners to exercise their constitutional rights in the election process.

"The current state law says that if you own a business and you would like to use the resources of the business to speak out about how you see the law, you essentially have to ask prior permission from the state," Ferguson said.

"Under the current regime, the state regulatory agencies and the newspapers basically have a monopoly on information. We're simply trying to put more free speech in motion," he said.

I'm probably being overly optimistic here, but I actually look forward to how this all plays out.
"Scientific truth is beyond loyalty and disloyalty." - Hari Seldon, Foundation

"[A] blunderbuss or cannon is hardly likely to be used for a drive-by shooting."
- From Wikipedia

Offline cestlefun17

  • Lawful Stupid Resident Tenther Sheeple
  • Neonate
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Montana Supreme Court upholds corporate spending limits
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2012, 05:44:46 pm »
I asked Erictheblue to clarify from this thread before the forum was wiped.

I do not see how the Montana Supreme Court has the right to a stricter interpretation of the 1st Amendment than the United States Supreme Court. The state courts can find greater constitutional rights in their state constitution that go above and beyond the federal constitution, but as Montana is bound by all relevant 1st Amendment case law via the 14th Amendment, I don't see how this ruling will stand.

The dissenting judge in the Montana case has it right, although him sharing his personal disagreement of the Citizens United case is entirely unwarranted as courts are not supposed to give advisory opinions.

Offline erictheblue

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
Re: Montana Supreme Court upholds corporate spending limits
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2012, 11:01:54 am »
I asked Erictheblue to clarify from this thread before the forum was wiped.

I pretty much explained it in the other thread, but I'll paraphrase to make it clearer.

Citizens United was decided on the basis of the US Constitution.

States have their own constitutions and laws. Federal preemption sets a floor, not a ceiling, on what states can do. (So if federal law says "X, Y, and Z," states have do to X, Y, and Z, but can also do A, so long as A does not contract X, Y, and Z.) It's on this basis that states can outlaw capital punishment, even though the USSC has held that the DP does not violate the 8th Amendment.

Same situation here. If the Montana state constitution has a narrower definition of person than the US Constitution, then by interpreting the state constitution, Montana could define persons as excluding corporations. The holding is only valid in Montana.
[Anonymous is] like... an internet Cthulu... you don't want to rouse them, but at the same time... woah think of the beautiful chaos! - SpaceProg

Offline DasFuchs

  • God
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Gender: Male
  • Ruler of his own little world since 1977
Re: Montana Supreme Court upholds corporate spending limits
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2012, 11:57:22 am »
I asked Erictheblue to clarify from this thread before the forum was wiped.

I do not see how the Montana Supreme Court has the right to a stricter interpretation of the 1st Amendment than the United States Supreme Court. The state courts can find greater constitutional rights in their state constitution that go above and beyond the federal constitution, but as Montana is bound by all relevant 1st Amendment case law via the 14th Amendment, I don't see how this ruling will stand.

The dissenting judge in the Montana case has it right, although him sharing his personal disagreement of the Citizens United case is entirely unwarranted as courts are not supposed to give advisory opinions.

No, of course not, the supreme court will override the state...but then again I don't see how it's legit or fair that corporations are allowed to essentially buy themselves an election and screw everyone else for their gain
"To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich. Not some nut that takes on two Tigers!" "You gotta hit'em point blank in the ass!" Oddball

Offline Oriet

  • Homo sapiens scientia
  • Bishop
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Gender: Female
  • Disabled Vet MtF Polyamorous Atheist Auspie
Re: Montana Supreme Court upholds corporate spending limits
« Reply #4 on: January 06, 2012, 10:56:52 am »
I am against the whole Citizens United ruling. I do not fee that corporations should count as people in any way, especially since they cannot be arrested, are not subject to restraining orders, etcetera. That they can also contribute unlimited amounts of money while actual individual people cannot is also inequality, on top of making it so they can buy politicians (more so than they have already been able to in the past).
The Rules, get to know them.


Offline N. De Plume

  • Mysterious Writing Implement
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1936
  • Gender: Male
  • Nom, nom, nom…
Re: Montana Supreme Court upholds corporate spending limits
« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2012, 11:26:35 am »
You know, I agree that spending money on political contributions is a way to exercise free speech. However, having no cap on the spending is the equivalent of letting the rich people shout out at the top of their lungs while forcing the poor to only whisper. Who is going to be heard? This is one place where free speech needs to be regulated.
-A Pen Name

Offline Vene

  • AKA Vene-Eye the Science Guy
  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
  • Patronizing Know-It-All Snotnose
Re: Montana Supreme Court upholds corporate spending limits
« Reply #6 on: January 06, 2012, 11:29:43 am »
Money is not speech, speech is speech. Campaign contributions lead to a situation (ours) where politicians spend more of their time telemarketing than they do governing. We need public financing for elections and only public financing.

Offline N. De Plume

  • Mysterious Writing Implement
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1936
  • Gender: Male
  • Nom, nom, nom…
Re: Montana Supreme Court upholds corporate spending limits
« Reply #7 on: January 06, 2012, 11:38:13 am »
Money is not speech, speech is speech.
By speech, we include things like publishing books, creating advertising and awareness campaigns, and producing works of art, whether or not they have political content. All of which cost money. Restricting the spending on such things is therefore restricting speech.

I just happen to believe that even the great Freedom of Speech needs to be subject to restrictions when it infringes on the freedoms of others. And Freedom of Speech is useless without the Freedom to be Heard, which is what happens with unlimited contributions.

Quote
Campaign contributions lead to a situation (ours) where politicians spend more of their time telemarketing than they do governing. We need public financing for elections and only public financing.
I think this would probably be the best option.
-A Pen Name

Offline Oriet

  • Homo sapiens scientia
  • Bishop
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Gender: Female
  • Disabled Vet MtF Polyamorous Atheist Auspie
Re: Montana Supreme Court upholds corporate spending limits
« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2012, 03:43:38 pm »
I am all for public financing of elections with no outside contributions accepted. I am also against SuperPACs and other such venues that offer unregulated campaigning for or against individual runners or political parties; though if it was able to be kept strictly to issues alone, with no reference to which politicians support or disagree with them, I would be fine with it, though that is not what they do.
The Rules, get to know them.


Offline MaybeNever

  • Got His Red Wings
  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Gender: Male
  • Possessed of a proclivity for prolixity
Re: Montana Supreme Court upholds corporate spending limits
« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2012, 03:56:56 pm »
I think that not only should campaigns be publicly financed, but the bursar should be an elderly woman who will only give every candidate fifty cents so he can go buy some fizzy drink at the soda fountain.
"Great Britain's two most senior military officers added to the uneasiness. [...] Lord Wolseley, Adjutant General, thought that it might be possible for an enemy to invade without waiters and pastrycooks."
-Robert K. Massie, Dreadnought