MontPIRG heralded last Tuesday’s U.S. District Court Judge Jack Shanstrom’s ruling upholding contribution limits
as a major victory for Montanans and the democratic process. The judge
upheld I-118 which set $100 contribution limits for candidates seeking
legislative office. Montana citizens approved the initiative in 1994 by
a margin of 61% to 39%.
“It
is an important victory in the fight to curb the corrupting influence
of big money in politics and in the revitalization of the democratic
process,” said David Ponder, Executive Director of the Montana Public
Interest Research Group (MontPIRG.) “We are happy to see that the
courts have upheld the will of the people.”
The
U.S. Supreme Court in January upheld low contribution limits for
Missouri’s state elections, reaffirming that such limits are justified
to prevent undue influence over the elections process by wealthy
interests. In that case, the Court rejected “the contention that
$1,000, or any other amount, was a constitutional minimum below which
legislatures could not regulate.”
Under
the precedent of the January Supreme Court ruling, courts have upheld
contribution limits of $250 per election in Maine and $200 per election
cycle in Vermont. But this ruling in Montana
marks the first time since the Supreme Court reaffirmed state’s rights
to set low contribution limits that courts have ruled on limits of $100
– the amount suggested by most reformers as a reasonable level within
striking distance of ordinary citizens. “Montana will now be the
bell-weather for other states to follow,” said Derek Cressman, PIRG’s
national democracy campaign director.
In
his ruling, Judge Shanstrom affirmed what campaign finance reform
advocates have been saying all along: that it is worth the effort to
have politicians raise funds from ordinary citizens. “Two plaintiff
witnesses testified that they had to work harder and talk to more
people in order to raise the same amount of campaign money. While this
may be true, it is precisely the purpose behind contribution
limitations; for candidate to acquire a broad and diverse base of
support to eliminate undue influence,” stated Shanstrom.
“The
real winners in this case are the people of Montana. This ruling starts
to put control of elections within the reaches of ordinary folks and
affirms that the system belongs to the people and not wealthy special
interests,” concluded MontPIRG’s Ponder.
Montana_Ruling.pdf