The Montana Supreme Court has held the state law prohibiting independent political expenditures by a corporation related to a candidate is constitutional.

Finding Citizens United v. FEC did not compel invalidating the state’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, the majority opinion of the Montana Supreme Court in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of the State of Montana states, “The corporate power that can be exerted with unlimited political spending is still a vital interest to the people of Montana.”

The Court concludes the state, because of its history and the history of the Act, has a compelling interest to impose statutory restrictions, emphasizing the Citizens United decision allows restrictions to be upheld if the government demonstrates a sufficiently strong interest.

In making its argument, the decision asserts that a “material factual distinction between the present case and Citizens United is the extent of the regulatory burden imposed by the challenged law.” The Court found in contrast to the “complexity and ambiguity” of restrictions for federal PACs, PACs formed and maintained in the state are “easily implemented” by the filing of “simple and straight-forward forms or reports.”

Spending in Michigan’s upcoming Congressional and state Supreme Court elections could be near $100 million in 2012.

The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United case in 2010 which made it possible for special interest groups to spend unlimited funds supporting thier candidates of choice has caused an explosion of campaign related spending that is becoming more apparent while more and more campaigns are underway.

Now that those who have large amounts of money can freely support campaigns with any amount of money, money from special interests is expected to make up a large proportion of the overall total campaign spending in the upcoming elections.

Read this article by Angela Wittrock to learn more.

NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK:  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a challenge to the city’s campaign finance laws.

The laws which prohibit corporate contributions to political campaigns and require candidates to disclose contributions from people and groups that do business with the city were found to not violate constitutional free speech rights and to appropriately address the risk of corruption.

The plaintiffs argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission made the laws unconstitutional. The Court rejected that argument, finding that Citizens United applies only to independent corporate expenditures, and not to contributions limits such as those enacted by New York City.

Photo of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse by Americasroof on Wikipedia.

Amy Loprest, Executive Director of the New York City Campaign Finance Board, testified last Friday before the City Council about the effects of the Citizens United decision on New York City’s campaign finance regulation.

According to their press release:

“Campaign Finance Board Executive Director Amy Loprest testified before the City Council Committee on Governmental Operations regarding the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision earlier today. The Council is considering a resolution that calls for a Constitutional amendment to reverse the decision and establish that corporations are not entitled to the same rights as natural persons.”

“Recognizing a First Amendment right where none had previously been found, Citizens United opened the floodgates to allow massive amounts of unlimited—and too often, undisclosed—independent spending by corporations, unions, and other groups,” Loprest said.

Here is a link to a pdf file of the entire testimony.

The American League of Lobbyists recently posted two videos on their YouTube channel from an October event where they invited Tim Farnum and Peter Overby to speak about Citizens United and soft money in the 2012 elections. ALL President Howard Marlowe was the moderator.

According to the site, “On Friday, October 28th, 2011 the American League of Lobbyists hosted two award winning journalists, Tim Farnum of the Washington Post and Peter Overby of NPR, for a discussion about the role that ‘soft money’ will play in the 2012 elections.”

Part 1

Part 2

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Wisconsin law that set limits on contributions to groups that independently spend on political speech and permanently enjoined enforcement of the law.

The appeal was brought by the political action committee of Wisconsin Right to Life, which previously won a temporary injunction against enforcing the law during recall elections earlier this year.

The court found that after Citizens United v. FEC, W.S. §§ 11.26(4) is unconstitutional to the extent that it limits contributions to committees engaged solely in independent spending for political speech.

Federal House and Senate resolutions meant to blunt the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision have recently been submitted to Congress.

Senate Joint Resolution 33, introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders, and House Joint Resolution 90, introduced by Representative Theodore E. Deutch, both expressly exclude for-profit corporations from “the rights given to natural persons” and prohibit corporation spending in all elections, including ballot issues.

Additionally, the resolutions allow the government “to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.’’

The amendment proposed reads as follows:

Section 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

Section 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.

Section 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.

Section 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.

Other constitutional amendments introduced related to campaign finance can be found in our prior blog posts, including Constitutional Amendment to Control Campaign Financing and Constitutional Amendment to Reverse Citizens United.

The Los Angeles City Council will vote today on a proposed resolution which calls on the U.S. Congress to pass a constitutional amendment declaring only living persons, not corporations, have constitutional rights and money is not the same as free speech.

The resolution, proposed in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, further declares the Citizens United decision supersedes state and local efforts to regulate corporate political activity.

If the resolution passes, Los Angeles will join other municipalities such as Missoula, Montana and Boulder, Colorado which have passed similar resolutions.

Seal of the City of Los Angeles by Mysid on Wikipedia.

A Federal constitutional amendment allowing Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance is being introduced by U.S. Senators Tom Udall and Michael Bennett.

The amendment, a response to last year’s Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v FEC, grants Congress and the states the power to “regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents” in their laws for their respective elections.

The bill allows the government to set limits on both the amount of direct political contributions to candidates and the amount of independent expenditures that may be made in support of or in opposition to those candidates.

According to his press release, Senator Udall states, “With the Supreme Court striking down the sensible regulations Congress has passed, the only way to address the root cause of this problem is to give Congress clear authority to regulate the campaign finance system.”

The full text of the proposed amendment reads as follows:

SECTION 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on:

(1) The amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and

(2) The amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

SECTION 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on:

(1) The amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and

(2) The amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

SECTION 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

A different constitutional amendment addressing the Citizen’s United decision was introduced in September by Congressman John Conyers. Information about that amendment may be found in a prior LobbyComply post here.

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution seeking to reverse the ruling of the Citizens United decision has been reintroduced in Congress.

Congressman John Conyers and Congresswoman Donna F. Edwards, co-sponsors of House Joint Resolution 78, want to give Congress and the states specific authority to regulate corporate expenditures on political activity. The amendment reads “nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit Congress and the States from imposing content-neutral regulations and restrictions on the expenditure of funds for political activity by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity, including but not limited to contributions in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for public office.”

In Congresswoman Donna F. Edward’s press release she states, “Justice John Paul Stevens warned that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United threatened ‘to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation’ and how right he was. Since that flawed ruling was issued, campaign spending by outside groups including corporations surged more than four-fold to reach nearly $300 million in the 2010 election cycle.”

The amendment also reads “nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.”

Salant begins with: “Attorney James Bopp Jr. has spent 30 years fighting limits on campaign spending, and next year’s political landscape could be transformed by his labor: An election season in which at least $6 billion is likely to be spent, more than $700 million higher than 2008.”

The article assesses the increase we are seeing in political spending. It also details Bopp’s landmark legal challenges over the years,  his loyalty to his home state of Indiana, and how free speech is at the heart of his mission.

For the full text of the article, got to “ Election Spending to Exceed $6 Billion Thanks Partly to Jim Bopp.”

The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear the state’s appeal of the 2010 decision in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. State of Montana finding the state’s ban on direct corporate spending for or against political candidates unconstitutional.

Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock found the Montana law unconstitutional.

Attorney General Steve Bullock, who has stated the overturned law guaranteed citizens the right to participate in elections without their interests being overshadowed by corporations, will argue the case.

Voters in Boulder, Colorado will have the opportunity to vote whether they support corporate personhood on the November 1, 2011 ballot.

By a 6 – 3 decision, the Boulder City Council approved placing a resolution on the ballot calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution declaring only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights and money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.

The ballot measure is in response to the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United decision, where the ability of the government to limit corporate and labor union independent expenditures was ruled unconstitutional.

“I think it’s a real threat to our government,” said councilman Ken Williams, “and whatever we can do to change that, I think we should.”

If approved by voters, Boulder would join a growing list of localities that have passed similar resolutions.

Photo of the Flatirons by Aza Toth on Wikipedia.

Yesterday, the judge who ruled corporations may contribute directly to federal candidates reaffirmed his decision, but held it only applies in the criminal case before him. Federal District Judge James C. Cacheris continues to find the “logic remains inescapable” that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United dictates corporations have the same contribution rights as human beings.

The judge writes: “Again, for better or worse, Citizens United held that the First Amendment treats corporations and individuals equally for the purposes of political speech. This leaves no logical room for an individual to be able to donate $2,500 to a campaign while a corporation … cannot donate a cent.” However, his decision states the “flat ban on direct corporate contributions to political campaigns is unconstitutional as applied to this case, as opposed to being unconstitutional as applied to all corporate donations.”

After reviewing the possible impact of his decision in US v Danielczyk, and the unaddressed political contribution issues since the Citizens United decision, the judge characterizes his ruling by concluding it “adds a small drop to what is already a very large bucket.”

This blog post updates a previous article, “Corporate Contribution Ban Found Unconstitutional” by George Ticoras on May 27.