Montana: Thanks for trying!

While most of the attention earlier today went to decisions by the Supreme Court involving Arizona's immigration law and the absence of a decision on healthcare, I was more interested in a case involving Montana.

Let's let Montana's Governor, Brian Schweitzer, tell the story as he did in an op-ed in the NY Times on June 3 of this year: "Montana’s approach to campaign law began when a miner named William A. Clark came upon a massive copper vein near Butte. It was the largest deposit on earth, and overnight he became one of the wealthiest men in the world. He bought up half the state of Montana, and if he needed favors from politicians, he bought those as well."

"In 1899 he decided he wanted to become a United States senator. The State Legislature appointed United States senators in those days, so Clark simply gave each corruptible state legislator $10,000 in cash, the equivalent of $250,000 today."

"Clark “won” the “election,” but when the Senate learned about the bribes, it kicked him out. “I never bought a man who wasn’t for sale,” Clark complained as he headed back to Montana."

"Nevertheless, this type of corruption continued until 1912, when the people of Montana approved a ballot initiative banning corporate money from campaigns (with limited exceptions). We later banned large individual donations, too. Candidates in Montana may not take more than a few hundred dollars from an individual donor per election; a state legislator can’t take more than $160. And everything must be disclosed."

"These laws have nurtured a rare, pure form of democracy. There’s very little money in Montana politics. Legislators are basically volunteers: they are ranchers, teachers, carpenters and all else, who put their professions on hold to serve a 90-day session, every odd year, for $80 a day."

"All this is in jeopardy, though, thanks to the Supreme Court and its infamous Citizens United ruling. In February the court notified the office of Montana’s commissioner of political practices, which oversees state campaigns, that until further notice, we may no longer enforce our anti-corruption statute, specifically our restriction on corporate money."

".... I’ve started receiving bills on my desk that have been ghostwritten by a host of industries looking to weaken state laws, including gold mining companies that want to overturn a state ban on the use of cyanide to mine gold, and developers who want to build condos right on the edge of our legendary trout streams."

"In the absence of strict rules governing campaign money, these big players will eventually get what they seek. I vetoed these bills, but future governors might sign them if they have been bribed by the same type of money that is now corrupting our State Legislature."

The Montana Supreme Court had ruled that the Citizens United decision of the U.S. Supreme court did not apply to Montana state and local elections. In light of the flood of  secret money flowing into this year's presidential election, many hoped that the court would use the Montana case to take another look at Citizens United. More than 20 other states joined on the side of Montana.

This morning, without hearing arguments in the case, the court issued a summary judgment overturning the Montana Supreme Court decision.

One often hears the false equivalency that corporate cash can be balanced by unions. That may be true if you're living in the 1960's when 50% of the private workforce was unionized. It is now 7% of the private sector and 32% of the public sector.

And that public sector share is rapidly shrinking. The active membership of NYSUT has shrunk by over 18,000 members in the last three years.

We have a comment section. If you can explain how this is good for our country, I'd love to listen.