Appeals Court Says Montana's Campaign Limits are Legal

[TexasTowelie]

HELENA — Montana’s limits on direct contributions to political campaigns are justified in trying to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption while still allowing candidates to raise enough money to run a campaign, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday.

The decision overturned a ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell, who in May 2016 said the limits enacted by voters in 1994 restricted political speech.

“This lawsuit … sought to open the floodgates of money in Montana elections by making it easier for out-of-state corporations to buy officeholders,” Gov. Steve Bullock said in a statement. “I’m glad the federal courts upheld Montana’s limits on money in elections.

“For a century in Montana, winning an election for state office has meant going door to door and meeting face to face with everyday voters: democracy at its best. Today, we’re one step closer to keeping it that way. Elections should be decided by ‘we the people’ — not by corporations, millionaires, or wealthy special interests buying more television ads,” he said.

Read more: http://flatheadbeacon.com/2017/10/23/appeals-court-oks-montanas-campaign-contribution-limit/

[riversedge]

1. 'adequate evidence of attempts to purchase legislative action with campaign contributions."

Best truthful phasing yet.



The Office of the Commissioner of Political Practices put the new limits into effect Monday, said spokesman Noah Horan. It would affect candidates running in local elections, but anyone who had received a campaign donation under the old limits would not have to return it.

Two members of the three-judge panel that heard Montana’s appeal said the state presented adequate evidence of attempts to purchase legislative action with campaign contributions. Judge Carlos Bea dissented, arguing there was no proof Montana lawmakers acted on those attempts.

The majority said the state wasn’t required to prove actual corruption.

Judges Raymond Fisher and Mary Murguia said Montana’s limits “target those contributions most likely to result in actual or perceived quid pro quo corruption — high-end, direct contributions with a significant impact on candidate fundraising.”


.....