Montana’s Bold Move to Curb Corporate Cash in Politics

Montana’s Bold Move to Curb Corporate Cash in Politics

In a move that could reshape campaign finance across the nation, the state of Montana is exploring a novel way to limit corporate influence in politics. A ballot initiative, known as the Transparency Election Act, aims to prevent corporations doing business in Montana from donating to political campaigns. Opponents tried to block the effort, but the Montana Supreme Court recently ruled that signature collection can continue. This development offers a glimmer of hope for those seeking to reduce the impact of big money in elections, without directly challenging the Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 Citizens United decision.

Understanding the Citizens United Ruling

To grasp the significance of Montana’s approach, it’s important to understand the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations possess First Amendment rights, which include the right to spend money on political campaigns. This decision effectively removed many restrictions on independent political spending by corporations and unions. Many Americans, around 75% according to Robert Ree, a commentator mentioned in the video, strongly disapprove of this ruling. They feel it allows corporations and wealthy individuals to dominate political discourse and drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.

Montana’s Creative Legal Strategy

Montana’s Transparency Election Act takes a different route. Instead of trying to overturn Citizens United by arguing against corporate speech rights, it focuses on the source of corporate power. Historical legal precedent, dating back to the late 1800s, has established that corporations are artificial beings created by state law. The state grants them specific powers, such as the ability to buy other companies or issue stock. This Montana initiative argues that the power to donate to political campaigns is not an inherent right but a power that the state can choose not to grant.

The Montana initiative basically is not giving the corporation the power to donate to political campaigns. And that’s why it can square within the current Supreme Court law. It’s not treating it differently. It’s saying that the creation of it doesn’t come with this particular power.

This strategy hinges on the idea that states have the authority to define the powers of corporations operating within their borders. Legal arguments cite Supreme Court cases like the 1819 Dartmouth College v. Woodward, which established corporations as artificial beings, and the 1869 case Paul v. Virginia, stating that corporations are “creatures of local law” and not citizens. Even in the more recent Hobby Lobby case, Justice Samuel Alito noted that a company’s objectives are governed by state laws. This suggests that states can indeed regulate the powers granted to corporations.

How it Works in Practice

Most major U.S. corporations are incorporated in Delaware due to its business-friendly laws and extensive case law. However, this Montana law would apply to any corporation doing business within Montana, regardless of where it is incorporated. If a corporation earns a significant amount of money or conducts substantial business in Montana, it must comply with Montana’s business code. If that code, as proposed by the initiative, prohibits corporate political donations, then those corporations would be barred from donating within the state.

This approach is seen as particularly effective because it doesn’t require the Supreme Court to reverse its Citizens United stance. It leverages existing legal principles about state authority over corporations. If this initiative passes in Montana, it could serve as a blueprint for other states. Legislatures or citizen-led initiatives in other states could adopt similar measures to restrict corporate political spending.

Why This Matters

The potential implications of Montana’s Transparency Election Act are far-reaching. It offers a pathway to reduce the flow of corporate money into politics, a concern shared by a broad spectrum of Americans. By focusing on state-granted powers rather than challenging corporate speech rights directly, this initiative sidesteps the difficult legal hurdles presented by the current Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment. If successful, it could empower citizens and state governments to reclaim a greater say in their elections.

Historical Context and Future Outlook

Interestingly, Montana itself had a law barring corporate political donations as far back as 1912, which was later overturned by decisions like Citizens United. This historical context shows a long-standing concern about corporate influence in the state. The current effort in Montana represents a modern attempt to address this issue, adapting to the current legal landscape. If this initiative gains traction, it could spark a nationwide movement, with other states either enacting similar laws through their legislatures or by direct voter initiative. This could lead to a significant shift in how political campaigns are funded and potentially reduce the dominance of corporate interests in American democracy.

The success of this initiative will depend on voter approval in Montana and its ability to withstand any further legal challenges. However, the fact that a conservative state like Montana is leading this charge highlights the widespread dissatisfaction with the current campaign finance system. It suggests that finding common ground on this issue may be possible, even in a politically divided nation.

Source: Red State Supreme Court STUNS GOP with MAJOR Ruling (YouTube)