The Montana Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge by industry groups to a ballot initiative that, if approved, will prevent corporations from spending on state elections.
It’s called the “Montana Plan” and it’s a project of the Transparent Election Initiative and founder Jeff Mangan. It would label corporations as “artificial persons,” and state Attorney General Austin Knudsen gave it the thumbs up to appear on the ballot.
Thanks to developments in another case, Knudsen reviewed only its “legal sufficiency” and not its “substantive legality.” Groups like the Montana Mining Association and the Montana Chamber of Commerce say Knudsen should have decided whether the initiative is constitutional, which they argue it is not.
The state Supreme Court has long recognized limitations on the Attorney General’s authority to address the substantive legality of ballot initiatives, Justice Beth Baker wrote last month. The court will soon hear arguments in Ellingson v. State, where a trial judge found much of state law – including the AG’s power to consider the legality of initiatives, is unconstitutional.
“Given that the statute purporting to confer such authority is not presently in effect, we decline to disturb this precedent here,” Baker wrote. “The Attorney General correctly refused to consider the opponents’ substantive constitutional arguments.”
And the Supreme Court wouldn’t address the groups’ constitutional arguments either, as the initiative has not yet passed.
“We’re grateful for the Montana Supreme Court’s swift and unanimous decision, which reaffirms the right of Montanans to participate in the initiative process and have their voices heard,” Mangan said.
“The Montana Plan is about giving people a real voice in their elections — not allowing big money to drown that voice out — and we’re proud to keep that work moving forward.”
A previous version of the initiative was rejected by the Supreme Court as not direct enough. It was reworded by TEI, a group dedicated to fighting against the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which held that corporate spending on political issues is protected under the First Amendment.
The groups challenging the initiative say it violates the free speech rights of corporations, as it would prohibit them from spending money or “anything of value” on political matters. In Montana, “artificial persons” are barred from political spending.
“If entities’ political speech could be effectively silenced through a simple definitional exercise, nothing would prevent states from eliminating entities’ ability to speak on all manner of subjects,” they told the Supreme Court. “That cannot be right.”
