Today the Montana Legislature will convene its 64th regular session. Based on pre-filed bills, issues under consideration include revising campaign laws related to robo-calls, absentee ballots, and disclosure and reporting periods for certain campaign activities.

The Legislature, which regularly meets every two years, is expected to adjourn on April 27.

Photo of the interior dome of the Montana State Capitol by Parkerdr on Wikimedia Commons.

On December 22, the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices’ proposed rule amendment increasing the threshold amount of payment triggering lobbyist registration to $2,500 for 2015 and 2016 was adopted. The payment threshold is adjusted by an inflation factor determined by the commissioner. The previous threshold amount was $2,450 for the calendar years 2013 and 2014.

On October 22, U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen upheld the Montana’s campaign finance law. Montanans for Community Development (MCD), a nonprofit organization, had brought the lawsuit challenging the law’s requirement to have the organization report its financial supporters.

According to Missoulian.com, MCD wanted to circulate political advertisements without disclosing the identity of its donors. Disagreeing with MCD’s argument, the court found the statutes were not too vague to be constitutionally valid. MCD’s legal representation included James Bopp, a frequent challenger of campaign finance laws.

Montana Governor Steve Bullock has named a new commissioner of political practices, according to the Independent Record.

Jonathan Motl will begin service as the commissioner by June 10 to complete the final three years of a six-year term left vacant by prior unconfirmed appointees. A Senate confirmation hearing for the position will not be held until early 2015.

Montana Governor Steve Bullock and Senator Jim Peterson announced a comprehensive campaign finance initiative for the state.

The Transparency, Reporting and Accountability in Campaigns and Elections (TRACE) Act was introduced today at a joint press conference in the governor’s office.

The governor said the provisions of the bill, to be introduced by Senator Peterson, include increasing disclosure by organizations without regard to the organization’s federal tax status, prohibiting direct corporate or union contributions to candidates, and increasing disclosure requirements by corporations making independent expenditures.

The TRACE Act also increases campaign contributions: per election cycle, a candidate for governor could accept up to $2,000 from a political committee or individual, a statewide candidate could accept up to $1,000, and all other candidates could accept up to $500. Additionally, the bill increases the fine for those violating election law and requires all major donors to incidental committees be identified through disclosure.

In his press release, Governor Bullock said, “This isn’t about winning or losing elections. This is about putting our democracy back in the sunlight where [it] belongs – back firmly in the hands of ‘we the people’.”

A Montana judge has dismissed parts of a complaint brought by an organization seeking to block disclosure of its activities that the state believes to be political activity.

On Monday, December 10, 2012, District Court Judge Jeffrey M. Sherlock issued an order dismissing five counts from the court complaint of American Tradition Partnership (ATP), striking additional requests for relief made by ATP, ordering ATP to comply with previously made discovery requests, and requiring ATP to pay the attorney fees and costs incurred by the state in bringing the initial motion to discovery and the motion for sanctions.

Judge Sherlock was upset at ATP’s apparent refusal to comply with his orders, writing, “Never in this author’s 24 years on the bench has he had a litigant flatly refuse to comply with two discovery orders.”

ATP had initially brought the court action against the state in 2010 to prevent Montana from classifying the organization as a political committee required to disclose expenditures and contributions. ATP maintains it is an educational organization not subject to political disclosure and disclaimer statutes.

The organization, known as Western Tradition Partnership (WTP) when it initially filed suit, additionally maintains the state’s statutes are unconstitutional and has repeatedly raised this objection is its discovery responses. Judge Sherlock ended his decision decreeing, “The Court is no longer interested in hearing WTP’s objections. All the Court wants is answers to the questions that have been propounded.”

Initiative 166 passed yesterday, charging Montana’s officials to implement a policy that corporations are not human beings with constitutional rights.

The initiative is a reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Additionally, Montana’s congressional delegation is now charged with offering an amendment to the United States constitution which would overturn the Citizens United decision, establish that corporations are not human beings with constitutional rights, establish that campaign contributions and expenditures by corporations be prohibited at any level of government, and achieve “a level playing field in election spending.”

The initiative also directs the state’s elected and appointed officials to regard “money as property, not speech.”

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court denied an application to vacate the stay allowing Montana to enforce its political contribution limits.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had stayed a District Court’s decision ruling certain state contribution limits unconstitutional and unenforceable. The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, issuing a decision in Lair v. Murry, found the contribution limits in Montana Code Annotated §13-37-216 “prevent candidates from ‘amassing the resources necessary for effective campaign advocacy.’”

The case is pending in the Court of Appeals.

Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 41 page opinion explaining its continuing stay of a lower court’s decision ruling certain statutory contribution limits in Montana were unconstitutional and unenforceable.

On October 3, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, issuing a decision in Lair v. Murry, found the contribution limits in Montana Code Annotated §13-37-216 “prevent candidates from ‘amassing the resources necessary for effective campaign advocacy.’”

On October 9, after the District Court had denied a request to stay its Order, the Court of Appeals reinstated Montana’s campaign contribution limits, overruling the District Court. The District Court was ordered to outline the reasoning for its decision.

The next day, on October 10, the District Court issued a 38 page Opinion and Order detailing its reasoning. The Court of Appeals has rejected the District Court’s arguments, concluding “the state is likely to succeed on appeal.”

James. W. Murry, the Commissioner of Political Practices, has stated “that contribution limits are in effect and will be enforced.”

Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated Montana’s campaign contribution limits under Montana Code Annotated §13-37-216, overruling the District Court. The District Court is ordered to outline the reasoning for its decision, according to AP reports.

On October 3, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, issuing a decision in Lair v. Murry, found the contribution limits in Montana Code Annotated §13-37-216 “prevent candidates from ‘amassing the resources necessary for effective campaign advocacy.’”

Yesterday, the District Court had denied a request to stay its Order, according to the Independent Record. The Attorney General and the Commissioner had appealed the October 3 Order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Even though the District Court has ruled some of Montana’s political contribution limits unconstitutional, the Commissioner of Political Practices wants candidates and political donors to stick to the statutory restrictions.

On October 5, Commissioner James W. Murry issued a statement “strongly recommend[ing] that candidates, political committees, and contributors abide by the contribution limitations that are provided in the statute.”

In his statement, the Commissioner said, “This office will continue to review Judge Lovell’s October 3rd Order as well as any additional orders issued by the courts to determine the current status of the laws relating to campaign contributions.”

UPDATE: Today, the Commissioner has issued an additional statement regarding the Court of Appeal’s decision: “The result of the Ninth Circuit order is that contribution limits are in effect and will be enforced.”

A Federal Court has ruled Montana’s contribution limits are unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

On October 3, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, issuing a decision in Lair v. Murry, found the contribution limits in Montana Code Annotated §13-37-216 “prevent candidates from ‘amassing the resources necessary for effective campaign advocacy.’”

The Court has enjoined the state from enforcing the provisions of the code relating to limiting political contributions.

Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock issued the following statement: “In declaring our campaign contribution limits unconstitutional, a federal judge has effectively put Montana’s elections up for auction to the highest bidder. My office will aggressively pursue all legal remedies available to overturn this decision, including filing an emergency stay before the U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals —the court which upheld Montana’s contribution limits just a decade ago.”

A ballot initiative in Montana advocating a state policy that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights because they are not human beings has been qualified by the Secretary of State for the November ballot.

Initiative No. 166, the “Prohibition on Corporate Contributions and Expenditures in Montana Elections Act,” asks voters to choose whether to charge elected and appointed officials to prohibit corporate campaign contributions and expenditures, limit political spending in elections, and, in the case of Montana’s congressional delegation, propose a joint resolution offering an amendment to the United States Constitution establishing that corporations are not human beings entitled to constitutional rights.

Included in the text of the initiative are directives for elected and appointed officials when carrying out public policy. These directives include “that the people of Montana regard money as property, not speech, … there should be a level playing field in campaign spending that allows all individuals, regardless of wealth, to express their views to one another and their government,” and the rights under the United States Constitution are the rights of human beings, “not rights of corporations.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated a portion of Montana law which prohibits corporations from making independent expenditures in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.

In Western Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, the Court quoted from its prior Citizens United v FEC ruling that “political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation.”

Four of the nine Justices dissented. The dissenting opinion quoted from the dissent in Citizens United, arguing “independent expenditures can be corrupting in much the same way as direct contributions.”

The dissenting opinion also argued the Citizens United ruling should not bar the Montana Supreme Court’s finding “that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana.”

The dissent continued, “Given the history and political landscape in Montana, [The Montana Supreme Court] concluded that the State had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations. Thus, Montana’s experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court’s decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so.”

National and Federal

“Can 46 rich dudes buy an election?” by Charles Riley in CNN Money.

“Obama ‘Super’ PAC Donors Among White House Guests” by Jack Gillum (Associated Press) in The San Francisco Chronicle.

“Planners for Democratic convention in Charlotte scramble to raise funds” by David Nakamura in The Washington Post.

In the States

Indiana: “Super PACs start battle in Senate race” by The Associated Press in the Indianapolis Business Journal.

Iowa: “Group wants to close campaign finance loophole” by Rod Boshart in the Sioux City Journal.

Montana: “New arguments filed in campaign finance case” by Matt Gouras in the Great Falls Tribune.