Money in Politics: A bold ruling from the Montana Supreme Court

Many KFTC members are concerned about the corrupting influence of money in politics. As residents of a state whose economy and political institutions are dominated by a handful of powerful interests, we understand the problem in a deep way. Money in politics pollutes our water, health and democracy.

KFTC members are also aware that voters in our state have sent to Congress two individuals who are among the most outspoken supporters and opponents of campaign finance reforms in the country. On the one hand, Kentucky voters elect Senator Mitch McConnell, who has proudly declared from the Senate floor that "Spending is speech," and has led efforts to block and repeal campaign finance reforms for more than two decades. On the other side, Kentucky's 3rd District Rep. John Yarmuth recently filed a constitutional amendment to reverse parts of the 2010 Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United and reduce the power of big money in politics. "Corporate money equals influence, not free speech,â€ Yarmuth said at the time.

For all those reasons and more, KFTC will from time to time share news and information about campaign finance reform efforts and ways individuals can take action. While our existing issue agenda is already full to bursting, we'll do what we can to keep our members informed. Here's a first installment, thanks to a tip from a Louisville KFTC member who shared this recent news:

"Montana’s Supreme Court has issued a stunning rebuke the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 that infamously decreed corporations had constitutional rights to directly spend money on ‘independent expenditures’ in campaigns. The Montana Court vigorously upheld the state’s right to regulate how corporations can raise and spend money after a secretive Colorado corporation, Western Tradition Partnership, and a Montana sportsman’s group and local businessman sued to overturn a 1912 state law banning direct corporate spending on electoral campaigns."

As part of an 80-page decision, the majority opinion stated why the state had a compelling interest in preserving a century-old ban on corporate spending on state elections. The judges were describing politics in Montana, but their reasoning could apply just as well to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. For example, the majority wrote:

"Issues of corporate influence, sparse population, dependence upon agriculture and extractive resource development, location as a transportation corridor, and low campaign costs make Montana especially vulnerable to continued efforts of corporate control to the detriment of democracy and the republican form of government.â€

This bold move from our neighbors out west provides a great opportunity for letters to the editor here at home in early 2012! For more information about writing and sending letters to the editor in Kentucky, see this previous post.