It’s too bad American electoral races aren’t as transparent as NASCAR races. Tattooed across NASCAR drivers’ jumpsuits and over every square inch of their cars are the logos of the companies sponsoring the teams, underwriting the costs, paying their salaries. Everyone can see who the drivers represent and who is footing the bill.
But two years after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, no one can identify the wizards behind the curtain pouring massive amounts of money into our state and federal campaigns.
Montana hasn’t gone along quietly.
A 1906 editorial in a Montana newspaper read, “The greatest living issue confronting us today is whether the corporations shall control the people or the people shall control the corporations.”
It was the era of the “copper kings,” who bribed state legislators and controlled state resources. In 1912, Montana voters passed a citizen initiative, the Corrupt Practices Act, that banned direct corporate expenditures in elections for state offices. Since then, Montana’s elections have been reasonable in cost and among the fairest in the country. We also have one of the highest rates of voter turnout.
Now Montana is fighting to keep control of its state elections. A Washington-based group, American Tradition Partnership, brandishing the Citizens United decision, challenged the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act in Montana courts and filed two other lawsuits challenging all of our core campaign finance and disclosure rules. It is seeking to systematically dismantle our campaign finance laws and turn back the clock to the days when corporate interests controlled our government and our courts.
The Montana Supreme Court, however, upheld the 1912 law. Now that decision is before the U.S. Supreme Court; it may summarily decide against the state Supreme Court, or it may agree to hold a hearing on the case, which could bring changes to the Citizens United decision.
I’m proud to lead Montana and 22 other states (some red, some blue) — and to be joined by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., — in the fight to defend Montana’s century-old corporate expenditure law before the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe states should have the right to be the masters of their own elections. The integrity of our system and the voices of Montanans, whatever their political views, are too important to be drowned out by modern-day copper kings.
In Montana, no one, including out-of-state corporate executives, has been excluded from spending money — or “speaking — in our elections. Any individual can contribute. All we require is that they use their own money, not corporate money that belongs to shareholders, and that they disclose who they are. And we limit every contribution — for most races the maximum works out to a few hundred dollars, and for the governor’s race, a little more than $1,000.
The American Tradition Partnership lawsuits, if successful, would make it possible for corporations and individuals in some cases to spend and contribute unlimited amounts, with no disclosure.
A winning state Senate race now costs a candidate an average of $17,000. It would be easy, and relatively inexpensive, for spending of the kind unleashed by Citizens United to make our political process unrecognizable.
For a century in Montana, winning an election for state office has meant going door to door and meeting face to face with everyday voters: democracy at its best.
Our legislators are true citizen-legislators; they aren’t amassing war chests, and they are accessible to all citizens, not just to moneyed interests.
I look forward to continuing to defend the way Montanans have chosen to elect our state public servants.
If the Supreme Court takes Montana’s case, I hope it will be the vehicle for the court to reconsider its Citizens United decision and return sanity — and transparency — to all elections in this country.
• Bullock is Montana’s attorney general.





Comments (6)
Add comment...
I seriously do not know why the Supreme Court would even take on this case. It is the right of Montana, or any other state, to have their individual laws regarding elections. Please cite for me where in the Constitution anything is said regarding elections, with the exception of placing a poll tax which is unconstitutional.
All I see is this:
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I seriously don't understand why the US Supreme Court would even hear this case. In the end, it is not an unconstitutional law for Montana to have, and the federal government has no place telling Montana what constitutional laws they can and cannot have.
My guess, a corporate push to remove this law...
wren
I'm with you on this, but I think the argument is that the states can't limit a person's basic rights spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, such as freedom of speech. And of course, a corporation is a person. Mitt Romney said so.
This will be an interesting case to watch. The republican SCOTUS now has to decide between two of their core principles: State's Rights; and Corporate Bootlicking
Sounds like Montana has its act together regarding this subject. If they prevail in this case, maybe Alaska should follow suit with a similar law. But you know it never will.
Montana has its Corrupt Practices Act. Alaska has its Corrupt Bastard$ Club.
...
This is what I think of Mitt Romney...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQwrB1vu74c&feature=related
So...
...you like his steadiness and strength of convictions then. You know exactly what you're getting with Mitt. Rock solid. Yup. Uh huh.
Mitt...
You got it Latitude58! If he is nominated, I will write in Ron Paul. I will never cast another vote for a republican again as long as I live unless by chance another who stands by the Constitution the way he does shows up. The Republican Party is a farce! I've taken the time to do my own research, watch the media bias and watch the youtube videos showing what actually took place at the conventions. The Republican Party will die as far as I'm concerned if Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination. And that doesn't just go for me, that goes for millions of other US citizens. They will spend decades digging themselves out of the hole they have dug for themselves this time.
As for Obama, I dislike him just as much as Mitt. They are equal in my book!
Well Wren
We are in some agreement. Can't say I'm a huge Ron Paul supporter, but I do agree with a bunch of his positions. Refreshing.
Where we definitely agree is about the distinction between Obama and Romney. I think Romney's just a white Obama with nice hair...until he changes his mind...again. I can't imagine why any conservative would vote for him - he's as phony as a three dollar bill. They're just going to be heartbroken by the guy if he wins.
Not sure who I'll vote for. I'm no republican and Alaska's certain to vote republican, so it doesn't much matter who I vote for. Romney will get our three electoral ballots in any event. Maybe some fringe party candidate. But it's solstice, the sky is blue...I'll worry about that crap come November.