Skip to main content

"[W]e will see whether the [Supreme C]ourt decides to blow the stink of Washington into Montana, or whether we can preserve our fresh mountain air."
- Montana governor, Brian Schweitzer (D), in an op-ed published Sunday, in the New York Times, discussing his state's open challenge to the court's 2010 Citizens United decision
We do not all live in Montana, but we are all susceptible to the foul smell of corruption from the burst dam of corporate dollars flooding our elections this year. In Big Sky Country, they have had a law on the books against big money in elections since 1912, when, Gov. Schweitzer says in his op-ed:
"...the people of Montana approved a ballot initiative banning corporate money from campaigns (with limited exceptions). We later banned large individual donations, too. Candidates in Montana may not take more than a few hundred dollars from an individual donor per election; a state legislator can’t take more than $160. And everything must be disclosed.

"These laws have nurtured a rare, pure form of democracy. There’s very little money in Montana politics. Legislators are basically volunteers: they are ranchers, teachers, carpenters and all else, who put their professions on hold to serve a 90-day session, every odd year, for $80 a day.

"And since money can’t be used to gain access, public contact with politicians is expected and rarely denied. "

It sounds so idyllic, being able to just knock on the door and say, "Howdy," to your elected representative, one who hasn't been compromised by the corrupted stench of special interest money. But the Supreme Court, last February, stayed that 100 year old law because it violated the ruling in Citizens United. "This means," the Montana Commissioner for Political Practices explains on the state's website, "that, until further notice, corporations may make independent expenditures to support or oppose a candidate or political party."

Direct corporate contributions to candidate or party are still prohibited, under the Montana law.

The stay was in reaction to a 5-2 Montana Supreme Court ruling, on December 30, that found the state's law to be an exception to Citizens United v. F.E.C., because of the Treasure State's sordid history of copper barons buying influence at the turn of the last century. Schweitzer relates the story of one senator from the state, who the U.S. Senate expelled once it was found that, at a time when statehouses chose U.S. senators, he "gave each corruptible state legislator $10,000 in cash, the equivalent of $250,000 today."

UPI, which describes the actions of the state court as "Montana's cheeky slap at Citizens United," explains what might happen when the Supremes meet in D.C., on June 14, to figure out what to do about the case:

"They could let the state court ruling stand -- highly unlikely. They could put the decision off to a later conference. Or they could 'summarily reverse' the state court ruling, undoing the Montana Supreme Court decision without hearing argument."
Of the three possibilities, the second is certainly the one that gives those who oppose the infamous 2010 decision the most hope, especially if it means a refinement of the original ruling. According to SCOTUS' order staying the Montana decision, Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, who dissented in 2010, supported the stay as "an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway."

Certainly, there is a growing movement among states and municipalities across the country to create a constitutional amendment that would make regulating all corporate campaign contributions legal. Gov. Schweitzer argues for it in his column. The Boston Herald reported last month that "56 cities and towns across Massachusetts that are calling on Congress to pass an amendment overturning the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling." And New Jersey's Upper Township Gazette reported, Monday, that the American Dream Movement is supporting efforts in the NJ Senate to pass a resolution "which 'expresses strong opposition to' the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United vs. FEC decision by calling upon Congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment that would define a person as 'only a natural person' with regard to campaign spending by corporations and their protection under the First Amendment."

Prose and Thorn recently reported on other efforts, in California and Illinois, to push for similar legislation.

All the legal back-and-forth aside, this is a fight for who controls the agendas of lawmakers - big corporate money, or the voices of the people.  As Schweitzer warns, if there is no revision of Citizens United, and there is no political will to put forward an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, "the Washington model of corruption — where corporations legally bribe members of Congress by bankrolling their campaigns with so-called independent expenditures, and get whatever they need in return — will have infected" not only our nation's capital, not only Montana, but also the chambers of every capitol building in every state, and every city hall in every town in America.


Originally posted to ProseAndThorn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 08:43 PM PDT.

Also republished by Discussing The Law: TalkLeft's View On Law and Politics.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  "Spoiling Political Infrastructure" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Angry Architect

    I'm gonna think about that when I go to bed. (soon)

    I think I'll sleep OK.

  •  i did not know this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Angry Architect

    about MT

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 09:00:54 PM PDT

  •  Odd that this is really one of the true tests and (2+ / 0-)

    pivot points on which the near-term fate of our political process will be decided...and yet very little mainstream national media coverage.  This is the sort of place where the entire fabric of American political life can start tearing:  a mystifying SCOTUS decision that kills, confounds, and conflicts with the desires of the citizens of many of the several states. Circumstances aren't going to spin out of control to spark a second Civil War over this - mostly because most folks don't care about this because they don't understand it as a succinct issue in their lives - but this is really a potential turning point in terms of the control that the 'landed gentry' has over all the rest of our lives...

    "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile..." - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

    by Jack K on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 09:16:39 PM PDT

    •  Jack K - there is very little media coverage (2+ / 0-)

      on this because everyone expects the SCOTUS to overturn the Montana Supreme Court decision. If you read the MSC dissent it is a draft of how the ruling will come down from the SCOTUS. All of the five members of the Citizen United majority are still on the Court, and the swing voter, Kennedy, was the majority author.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 11:52:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Absolutely - (0+ / 0-)

      A key issue in the health of of our Democracy...

      The important and difficult job is never to find the right answers, it is to find the right question. For there are few things as useless–if not dangerous–as the right answer to the wrong question. -- P. Drucker

      by The Angry Architect on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 03:40:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  ProseAndThorn - no corp contributions for feds (2+ / 0-)

    "Direct corporate contributions to a candidate, or political party, are still prohibited under the Montana law". It is exactly the same for candidates for federal office, post Citizens United. CU did not overturn the Tillman Act of 1907 which prohibits any corporation from making contributions to any candidate for federal office.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 11:58:22 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site