ADVERTISEMENT
Advertise Here
Archive

Eye On Boise

Idaho backs Montana in fight to preserve state campaign finance laws against Citizens United decision

Idaho is one of 22 states that have filed a brief today in support of Montana's fight in the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent the 2010 Citizens United decision from being used to strike down state laws restricting corporate campaign spending - even though Idaho has no such laws. Idaho allows direct corporate giving to campaigns, and unlimited corporate independent expenditures in campaigns. “But we do have requirements for reporting,” said Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane. Plus, Idaho places limits on direct corporate contributions to candidates that are the same as its limits as for individual contributions - $1,000 per election cycle for legislative candidates, which means $1,000 for the primary and $1,000 for the general, $5,000 per election cycle for statewide offices - and  several years ago beefed up its reporting laws to prevent corporations from evading the limits by giving the limit from each of numerous sub-entities.

“At the heart of Montana's case is their state regulation of campaign finance,” Kane said. “What we want to do is ensure that Idaho's regime of campaign finance laws is protected. There's a state sovereignty issue involved in our signing on.”

Plus, he said, “This doesn't happen often, but we actually got citizens who emailed and called our office asking us to sign on in support. … And that happens so infrequently, that we actually took notice of it.” Said Kane, “The Montana Attorney General is working to enforce his state's campaign finance law. And if the Idaho Attorney General's office were put in a similar position, we'd want to have support to enforce our laws as well.” Click below for a full report on the case from AP reporter Matt Gouras in Helena.


APNewsBreak: 22 states join campaign finance fight
By MATT GOURAS, Associated Press


HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia are backing Montana in its fight to prevent the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision from being used to strike down state laws restricting corporate campaign spending.

The states led by New York are asking the high court to preserve Montana's state-level regulations on corporate political expenditures, according to a copy of a brief written by New York's attorney general's office and obtained by The Associated Press. The brief will be publicly released Monday.

The Supreme Court is being asked to reverse a state court's decision to uphold the Montana law. Virginia-based American Tradition Partnership is asking the nation's high court to rule without a hearing because the group says the state law conflicts directly with the Citizens United decision that removed the federal ban on corporate campaign spending.

The Supreme Court has blocked the Montana law until it can look at the case.

The Montana case has prompted critics to hope the court will reverse itself on the controversial Citizens United ruling. The 22 states and D.C. say the Montana law is sharply different from the federal issues in the Citizens United case, so the ruling shouldn't apply to Montana's or other state laws regulating corporate campaign spending.

But the states also said they would support a Supreme Court decision to reconsider portions of the Citizens United ruling either in a future case or in the Montana case, if the justices decide to take it on.

Legal observers say don't count on the Supreme Court reconsidering its decision.

“It is highly unlikely that the Court would reverse its decision in Citizens United,” said law professor Richard L. Hasen of the University of California-Irvine.

At best, the court would listen to arguments and might agree a clarification is needed to allow the Montana law to stand. But even that is a long shot, Hasen said.

Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock argues that political corruption in the Copper King era led to the state ban on corporate campaign spending. A clarification of Citizens United is needed to make clear that states can block certain political spending in the interest of limiting corruption, he said.

American Tradition Partnership argues that the state bans unfairly restrict the ability of corporations to engage in the political process that also affects them.

Bullock wrote in a brief to be released Monday that the state does not “ban” corporate political speech, rather, it regulates that speech by requiring the formation of political action committees.

The Democrat, who is running for governor, said the upstart political corporations hoping to take advantage of unfettered spending are merely “an anonymous conduit of unaccountable campaign spending.”

Montana and the other states are asking the court to either let the Montana Supreme Court decision stand or to hold a full hearing. They argue laws like the one in Montana that bans political spending straight from corporate treasuries are needed to prevent corruption.

The other states, many with their own type of restrictions hanging in the balance, argue local restrictions are far different than the federal ban the court decided unconstitutionally restricted free speech. Further, state elections are at much greater risk than federal elections of being dominated by corporate money, requiring tailored regulation, the states' court filing says.

“The federal law struck down in Citizens United applied only to elections for President and U.S. Congress,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman wrote on behalf of the states. “By contrast, Montana's law applies to a wide range of state and local offices, including judgeships and law enforcement positions such as sheriff and county prosecutor.”

The joining states, unlike Montana, ask the court to go further and reconsider core findings in Citizens United. They argue, for instance, it was wrong for the court to say unlimited independent expenditures rarely cause corruption or the appearance of corruption.

And other critics of the Citizens United decision who believe the court was wrong to grant corporations constitutional rights, have intervened and asked the court to reverse itself.

“There is a growing bipartisan consensus that Citizens United needs to be overturned, and Montana is leading the way,” said Peter Schurman, spokesman for a group called Free Speech For People. “The Supreme Court has an opportunity to revisit Citizens United here. That is important because there is evidence everywhere that unlimited spending in our elections creates both corruption and the appearance for corruption.”

On Friday, Montana's case was given a boost when U.S. Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., signed on in support. The senators argue evidence following the Citizens United decision, where millions in unregulated money has poured into presidential elections, shows that large independent expenditures can lead to corruption.

The states who filed the brief in support of Montana are New York, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.

___

Associated Press writer Mark Sherman in Washington contributed to this report.


Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.


Please keep it civil. Don't post comments that are obscene, defamatory, threatening, off-topic, an infringement of copyright or an invasion of privacy. Read our forum standards and community guidelines.

You must be logged in to post comments. Please log in here or click the comment box below for options.

comments powered by Disqus
« Back to Eye On Boise

Get blog updates by email

About this blog

Betsy Z. Russell covers Idaho news from The Spokesman-Review's bureau in Boise.

Named best state-based political blog in Idaho for 2013 by The Fix

Latest comments »

Read all the posts from recent conversations on Eye On Boise.

Search this blog
Subscribe to this blog
ADVERTISEMENT
Advertise Here