Earlier this week, I blogged about a new initiative in Montana that seeks to rein in corporate political spending by amending the state’s constitution to limit the powers conferred on corporations. In a new article for the local Independent Record, Brad Smith, chairman of the Institute for Free Speech and a former commissioner for the Federal Election Commission, dismissed the plan as unserious: “the state cannot condition a benefit (in this case, the right to incorporate) on citizens giving up their constitutional rights.”
Meanwhile, our very own, Rick Hasen, despite his general sympathy for regulating money in politics, told reporters he was “skeptical of the legal strategy behind this maneuver, given the incredible skepticism of the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of regulating corporate political spending.” I agree.
Still, he emphasized:
“There is a political benefit in pushing such a measure and in galvanizing public support against the Supreme Court’s damaging approach to issues of money in politics. . . .
Passing such a measure and having the Court strike it down is a way of reminding the public that the Supreme Court is the entity standing in the way of achieving a fair balance between robust political competition and not allowing the ultra-wealthy to have disproportionate political power in society.”
Jeff Clements, a major advocate of both overturning Citizens United and this new plan, also sought to rein in the idea that the Montana Plan would solve all our money in politics problems (for those who agree they exist).
“While the Montana Plan would help, he said, he also pointed out that billionaires would still be able to spend huge sums of money, another feature of the Citizens United decision.”
This is a point that Rick and I have both made before.
