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.

A federal judge has ruled a section of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 [FECA] prohibiting direct corporate contributions to federal candidates is unconstitutional. In United States v. Danielczyk, a criminal case being heard in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge James C. Cacheris found corporations have an equal right to make political contributions under federal law as do human beings.

In the decision dismissing one of the counts against the defendants, the judge writes, “But for better or worse, Citizens United held that there is no distinction between an individual and a corporation with respect to political speech. Thus, if an individual can make direct contributions within FECA’s limits, a corporation cannot be banned from doing the same thing. So because individuals can directly contribute to federal election campaigns within FECA’s limits, and because [2 U.S.C.]§ 441b(a) does not allow corporations to do the same, § 441b(a) is unconstitutional and Count Four must be dismissed.”

Currently, during an election cycle, individuals may contribute $2,500 for a federal candidate’s primary election and an additional $2,500 for the general election.

The 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a decision of the District Court which upheld a new Minnesota law that revealed political donations from several corporations. The law was enacted in May of 2010 after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United freed businesses to spend corporate money on elections, overturning restrictions on corporate political spending in about half the states, including Minnesota. Minnesota lawmakers responded by enacting disclosure requirements to publicize corporate campaign spending.

In affirming the decision, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with claims that Minnesota’s disclosure requirements effectively prohibit corporate independent expenditures and impose burdensome regulations that inhibit free speech.  The Court continued that Minnesota’s regulations are similar to laws upheld by the Supreme Court and the regulations on corporate independent expenditures are less burdensome than federal regulations on PACs.

While attending the 35^th Annual Public Affairs Council PAC Conference in Miami last week, there were many questions about the impact of Citizens United in the states.

Last year, State and Federal Communications prepared a report, and we continue to update it, for our clients to understand how it has been applied.

Follow this link for the report. If you have any further questions, don’t hesitate to send an email to our Research Manager John Cozine.

The state legislature has introduced a bill to bring Wyoming’s state campaign finance law into compliance with the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in the “Citizens United” lawsuit. Senate File 0003 sets forth reporting requirements for corporations and others making independent expenditures.

Currently, Wyoming law prohibits corporations from making these expenditures. Under the bill, direct corporate contributions to campaigns would remain illegal.

This image is a segment from the Flag of Wyoming by Dbenbenn on Wikipedia.

The Federal Election Commission has issued Advisory Opinion AO2010-30 Citizens United, allowing Citizens United to rent its email subscriber mailing list to federal candidates, political party committees, and political committees.

The commission concluded the rental is not a coordinated expenditure or a coordinated communication. Citizens United plans to rent its list at fair market prices using a commercial list brokerage firm.

The commission did not have enough votes to approve a response as to whether using the list to solicit contributions or invite recipients to a fundraiser violates the prohibition against corporate facilitation of contributions to candidates or political committees.

Citing extensively to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, King Street Patriots, with the aid of Indiana attorney James Bopp, allege Texas law governing campaign finance contributions is unconstitutional. King Street Patriots claim Texas’s general ban on corporate political contributions violate the principles established in Citizens United because it permits non-corporate groups and individuals to make political contributions, but bans corporations from making the same speech.

The claim is also advanced Texas’s ban violates the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments because it creates an unconstitutional content and speaker-based restriction on speech.King Street Patriots have also targeted Texas law’s reporting requirements associated with direct campaign expenditures by individuals as well as the 30 and 60-day blackout provisions banning contributions by political committees which form close to election dates.

Finally, The King Street Patriots allege Texas law unconstitutionally burdens the free speech of individuals by imposing the same reporting burdens on individuals who wish to make direct campaign contributions over $100 as are associated with political committees conducting a similar activity. The case is currently pending in Travis County District Court.

Under the process in place for changing these rules, the proposals will be sent to the state legislature who will either approve or override them. The approved rules become law on July 1 of each year.

The highlights of this year’s proposals include changes to bring Oklahoma law into compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision, and the abrogation of a rule restricting PAC contributions to ballot-measure committees. The restrictions on contributions to ballot committees have not been enforced in several years because they are unconstitutional.

Photo of the Oklahoma State Capitol copyright © Caleb Long on Wikipedia.

In their application, the plaintiffs, represented by James Bopp, Jr., the Indiana attorney who helped launch the landmark Citizens United v. FEC litigation, requested an order blocking portions of Maine’s campaign finance law which provides matching for candidates as well as the part of Maine law capping contributions to gubernatorial candidates at $750. By the time the plaintiff’s motion reached the high court for the second time, it had been denied three times: by Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Circuit Justice for the First Circuit, by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and by the Maine District Court where the litigation originated.

The plaintiff’s last resort to enjoin the law prior to the November 2nd election was the emergency writ of injunction to the Supreme Court which was presented to Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy who then referred it to the Supreme Court for consideration. The writ’s denial was not unexpected as the Supreme Court has not granted such a motion for two decades.

Photo of the Supreme Court by UpstateNYer on Wikipedia.

A Montana district judge will rule on a challenge to Montana’s nearly century-old, voter-passed restriction on direct corporate spending to support or oppose political parties or candidates.  The Montana law is being challenged based upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s January ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which overturned a federal ban on corporate spending in political campaigns.

Attorneys for the State of Montana defended the law stating that a law enacted in 1912 should not be lumped with a law Congress enacted 90 years later under a one-size-fits-all federal rule.   They added that corporations do speak freely in Montana elections under current law with nearly 200 political action committees active in state politics in the past decade and warned unlimited corporate campaign spending would drastically alter Montana’s current campaigns that rely on person-to-person contact.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has filed a federal lawsuit against the Rhode Island Board of Elections seeking to strike down Rhode Island’s campaign finance law. Citing extensively to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the plaintiffs allege Rhode Island law’s definition of a political action committee, its expenditure ban, and its expenditure reporting requirements are all unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs are asking U.S. District Judge Mary Lisi for declaratory judgments clarifying the extent to which state law’s $1,000 contribution limits on contributions by political action committees apply to them. NOM also seeks a declaratory judgment stating they are not subject to the extensive reporting requirements imposed by state law upon entities which make independent expenditures. An in-chambers conference regarding the lawsuit has been scheduled for Thursday, September 30th, 2010.

Senate Bill 3628, known as the DISCLOSE Act, was reintroduced in the US Senate a second time but failed to garner the 60 votes necessary to be debated on the floor. The motion of cloture vote of 59 to 39 fell along party lines.

A reaction to Citizens United v SEC, the bill includes measures such as requiring organizations to disclose to shareholders, members, or donors information detailing how disbursements were made for campaign-related activity.