Comments (1) Total
Judge Tosses Montana Campaign Contribution Limits
U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell of Helena issued the decision Wednesday
HELENA – A federal judge on Wednesday struck down Montana's campaign contribution limits as unconstitutional, a decision that comes less than a month before Election Day and marks the latest in a string of court rulings against the state's campaign laws.
U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell, who issued the decision just three weeks after a trial on the matter, said current limits prevent state candidates from amassing the money needed to run an effective campaign. It affects all races in the state from the governor on down, but does not affect federal races for the U.S. House and Senate that are covered under other laws.
Lovell issued only a short ruling Wednesday, promising more information later. His order blocks the state from enforcing its campaign contribution limits.
"This court will in due course issue complete and extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law that support this order," the judge wrote. "They will be filed separately, though, so that this order can be issued before voting begins in the upcoming election."
Conservative activists, corporations, and Republican groups argued that the limits are unconstitutionally low and prevent effective campaigning. The effort was joined by American Tradition Partnership, a conservative group based in the Washington, D.C., area that has fought state efforts to force it to disclose its donors.
The limits struck down range from $630 for an individual contributing to a governor's race to $160 for a state House candidate. The amounts are adjusted each election cycle automatically to account for inflation.
The law also limited aggregate donations from political parties. A candidate for governor, for instance, was limited to accepting a maximum of $22,600 from all political party committees.
Montana has seen many of its laws struck down in the wake the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that opened the door for more corporate spending in federal races, citing freedom of speech issues.
The Supreme Court subsequently tossed the state's century-old, voter-approved ban on independent corporate political spending in state races. That decision prompted a new ballot initiative that, if approved in November by voters, asks state leaders to seek a constitutional amendment undermining the high court's decision.
Last month, a federal appeals court struck down Montana's ban on partisan endorsements of judicial candidates, citing Citizens United.
Lovell earlier this year ruled as unconstitutional laws requiring attack ads to disclose voting records and a ban on knowingly false statements in such ads. Lovell also decided that Montana cannot ban corporations from making contributions to political committees that make independent expenditures — a similar issue to the one addressed in Citizens United.
U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell, who issued the decision just three weeks after a trial on the matter, said current limits prevent state candidates from amassing the money needed to run an effective campaign. It affects all races in the state from the governor on down, but does not affect federal races for the U.S. House and Senate that are covered under other laws.
Lovell issued only a short ruling Wednesday, promising more information later. His order blocks the state from enforcing its campaign contribution limits.
"This court will in due course issue complete and extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law that support this order," the judge wrote. "They will be filed separately, though, so that this order can be issued before voting begins in the upcoming election."
The limits struck down range from $630 for an individual contributing to a governor's race to $160 for a state House candidate. The amounts are adjusted each election cycle automatically to account for inflation.
The law also limited aggregate donations from political parties. A candidate for governor, for instance, was limited to accepting a maximum of $22,600 from all political party committees.
Montana has seen many of its laws struck down in the wake the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that opened the door for more corporate spending in federal races, citing freedom of speech issues.
The Supreme Court subsequently tossed the state's century-old, voter-approved ban on independent corporate political spending in state races. That decision prompted a new ballot initiative that, if approved in November by voters, asks state leaders to seek a constitutional amendment undermining the high court's decision.
Last month, a federal appeals court struck down Montana's ban on partisan endorsements of judicial candidates, citing Citizens United.
Lovell earlier this year ruled as unconstitutional laws requiring attack ads to disclose voting records and a ban on knowingly false statements in such ads. Lovell also decided that Montana cannot ban corporations from making contributions to political committees that make independent expenditures — a similar issue to the one addressed in Citizens United.
When the first amendment is for sale to the highest bidder, it makes the second amendment even more important.
View comments (1 total) or Submit your own