Saturday, June 27, 2015

Montana surrenders ... sort of

I have always been a fan of Montana, the state that bucked the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United to allow corporations to give as much 'free speech' money to those seeking election as they chose. Montana's 1912 law which limited campaign contributions remembered a time when politicians bought their way into office.

Now Montana has given up its battle with the Supreme Court. It will conform to the Citizens United ruling, but, like a good martial artist, has added a proviso:
HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Montana, a state that has long prided itself on strict campaign finance laws, is giving up on barring corporations from political spending and is instead attempting to expose every penny spent by them in elections.
Proposed rules released Wednesday to guide the state's expansive election law approved earlier this year would increase disclosure requirements for corporations and committees granted free-speech rights by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2010 Citizens United ruling.
"This is an embracing of Citizens United," Montana Commissioner of Political Practices Jonathan Motl said Thursday about the new law. "They can speak, they can spend their money. They simply have to tell Montanans how much they're spending, who they spent it against or for, when they spent it and where they got that money from."

1 comment:

  1. I've always supported the idea of transparency, though i imagine our senators would scream at the loss of a dignity they've never deserved should this idea be brought upon them. And of course the patriotic sounding names of PACs would manage to hide most of the actual sources of donation.

    Nascar-Style Uniforms For Congress
    by JacobSloan on October 13, 2011