Citizens United resolution dies in House committee

Identical resolution could be introduced in Senate

———

A joint resolution that would have directed the Montana Legislature to take steps to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling on corporate spending in elections never made it out of the House Judiciary Committee.

House Joint Resolution 6, sponsored by Rep. Ellie Hill, D-Missoula, was tabled by the committee on Feb. 1 after a hearing on Jan. 29. The resolution described steps the legislature could take to implement the “policy” called for in Initiative 166, which three-quarters of voters approved last fall.

HJ6 cites three legal decisions that undermined Montana’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, which was passed by citizen initiative and prohibited corporate contributions and expenditures in candidate elections. The act was passed in reaction to the pervasive influence of the Copper Kings on Montana elections.

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court held 5-4 in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission that the First Amendment prohibited government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. The ruling left in place a ban on direct contributions by corporations or unions to candidates or political parties, but is credited for the expanding influence of “super Pacs” in last year’s elections.

In 2011, the Montana Supreme Court ruled in American Tradition Partnership vs. Bullock that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling did not apply to Montana’s campaign laws. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the state court’s ruling in 2012 in a short opinion without oral argument.

Initiative 166 addressed how the legal concept that corporations, unions and other organizations are “persons” applies to elections. I-166 required that Montana’s elected and appointed officials carry out a “policy” stating that corporations are not human beings and do not have constitutional rights.

“I-166 generally directed Montana officials that the people of Montana regard money as property, not speech,” Hill’s joint resolution states, “that the people of Montana regard the rights under the United States Constitution as rights of human beings, not rights of corporations; that the people of Montana regard the immense aggregation of wealth that is accumulated by corporations using advantages provided by the government to be corrosive and distorting when used to advance the political interests of corporations; that the people of Montana intended that there should be a level playing field in campaign spending....”

The joint resolution went on to direct the legislature to encourage the Montana’s congressional delegation to propose a joint resolution offering an amendment to the U.S. Constitution overturning the Citizens United ruling; establishing that corporations are not human beings with constitutional rights; and establishing that campaign contributions or expenditures by corporations, for individual candidates or ballot issues, may be prohibited at any level of government. The joint resolution also directed the Montana Legislature to vote to approve the amendment to the U.S. Constitution if it came to them.

During the Montana House Judiciary Committee’s hearing on HJ6 on Jan. 29, Rep. Jerry O’Neil, R-Columbia Falls, asked Matt Leow, representing Stand With Montana, the group that promoted I-166, whether the intent was to amend the First Amendment. O’Neil wanted to know if the end result might also impact freedom of the press and restrict newspapers and other media.

Leow said the intent was to create a new amendment, not amend the First Amendment, and that he believed the U.S. Supreme Court did not interpret the First Amendment correctly. Noting he was not a lawyer, he questioned whether the outcome of the Citizens United ruling had more to do with free speech or with circumventing election laws. The intent was to address campaign expenditures, not free speech, he said.

“Where does it say that in the resolution?” O’Neil asked, noting that newspapers are owned by corporations.

Hill later expressed dismay after HJ6 was tabled in committee.

“All Montanans, regardless of income, deserve a voice in our democracy,” she said. “It’s time we work together to clean up Montana politics. Elections should be decided by people and their ideas, not wealthy out-of-state special interests.”

Rachel Weiss, a staff worker with Legislative Services who drafted HJ6, said an identical resolution could be introduced in the Montana Senate.

Several other bills dealing with election laws have been carried to Helena. Rep. Rob Cook, R-Conrad, introduced two — House Bill 254 requires a disclosure on campaign literature noting whether it was funded by anonymous donors, and House Bill 255 deals with financial reporting by political committees.

Three bills leave much of the state’s existing election laws in place but call for increasing contribution limits to candidates or parties. House Bill 229, sponsored by Rep. Scott Reichner, R-Bigfork, would increase the contributions limits in gubernatorial races by five times and also redefines a political committee to include corporations and unions.

House Bill 265, sponsored by Rep. Steve Fitzpatrick, R-Great Falls, also calls for increasing contribution limits but doesn’t amend the definition of a political committee. House Bill 221, sponsored by Rep. Mike Miller, R-Helmsville, which would have increased contribution limits by much smaller amounts, died in the House Administration Committee.