Citizens United Comes to Montana

by: Matt Singer

Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 19:33:05 PM MST

The Citizens United case is a remarkable example of the right-wing majority on the Supreme Court deciding law rather than settling a case. The independent expenditure in question in Citizens United was mostly financed by individuals (as I understand it, corporate financing would round to 0% of the budget pretty clearly) and didn't even actually specifically advocate against Hillary Clinton's election.

Additionally, Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority that the government's anti-corruption interest did not hold sway.

Let's compare that to the facts on the ground in Montana where three plaintiffs appear. The first two are interesting examples:

• Montana Shooting Sports Association. I've been under the impression that MSSA is an individual membership organization, so I don't even think the ban on corporate spending would apply to them..
• A local small business in Bozeman. This is a corporation that exists basically for liability purposes. The owner argued simply that he wanted to be able to use his business as a disclaimer in ads instead of his own name because he thought it would carry more weight. I'm not sure that creates a legal right to incorporate and use a random name for political argument whenever one chooses, but whatever.

That's their explicit strategy. As Debra Bonogofsky, a Republican who was targeted by WTP in a legislative primary in June, highlighted, the Montana state investigator looking into Western Tradition Partnership found that they have been soliciting funds from "officers of several foreign corporations." Toward what end? Their own words can speak for themselves:

"Our success won't depend on which party is in power," the presentation [WTP] said. "Politicians get the message loud and clear when their colleagues get beaten in the ballot box."

Fortunately, the Montana Supreme Court has a chance to revisit this decision if Steve Bullock chooses to take this fight upstairs.