Quote:

---

Rejecting a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision giving corporations the right to make independent campaign expenditures, the Montana Supreme Court has ruled that banning such spending is justified given Montana's long history of businesses corrupting the state's political process.

The state high court ruled on Dec. 30 that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission did not apply to Montana's Corrupt Practices Law, which prohibits corporations from using general funds to make political contributions.

In Citizens United, the Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibited government from limiting the independent spending of corporations and unions on "electioneering," or communicating about a particular candidate.

"While, as a member of this Court, I am bound to follow Citizens United, I do not have to agree with the [U.S.] Supreme Court's decision," Judge James Nelson wrote. "And, to be absolutely clear, I do not agree with it. For starters, the notion that corporations are disadvantaged in the political realm is unbelievable. Indeed, it has astounded most Americans. The truth is that corporations wield enormous power in Congress and in state legislatures. It is hard to tell where government ends and corporate America begins: the transition is seamless and overlapping."

Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock, who defended the statute along with state Political Practices Commissioner David Gallik, praised the ruling.

"We're really pleased with the decision and think it's based on solid constitutional analysis, common sense and a clear understanding of our history and our current system of electing our state's leaders," Bullock said in a prepared statement.

The Montana law, which was enacted through a voter initiative in 1912, prohibits corporations from directly contributing to or making expenditures for a candidate or political committee but permits them to establish separate funds for such purposes as long as the contributions come from individual shareholders, employees or members of the corporation.

McGrath wrote that a "material factual distinction" existed regarding the regulatory effects of the Montana law versus the McCain-Feingold Act. He added that Montana passed its law after voters became concerned that mining interests disproportionately influenced political campaigns at the turn of the last century.More at http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202537311056&thepag
e=2

---