Gotta love Montana.

A column by former Nixon attorney, John Dean, called my attention to the importance of a Monntana Supreme Court decision issued at the end of last year.

While the U.S. Supreme Court’s granting of personhood to corporations in the now infamous Citizens United v FEC case continues to reverberate, the Montana Supreme Court challenged the ruling by upholding the state’s total ban on corporate money in politics.

Since 1912, Montana has banned direct political contributions by corporations, as well as independent expenditures of corporate funds either for or against candidates. However, the state does allow political spending by corporate political action committees as long as they are funded by voluntary contributions by corporate employees, officers, or shareholders.

In an 29-page decision adopted by a 5-2 vote, the court held that the specific facts of corporate corruption in Montana history provided a compelling justification for the prohibition on corporate money. Two dissenting opinions, though, were spelled out over an additional 50 pages of detailed argument.

Dean wrote:

The MSC majority reasons as follows: “The Dissents assert that Citizens United holds unequivocally that no sufficient government interest justifies limits on political speech. We disagree. The [U.S.] Supreme Court held that laws that burden political speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the government to prove that the law furthers a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to that interest.”

Accordingly, the MSC majority proceeded to assemble facts showing that the Montana legislature had a compelling state interest when—one hundred years ago—its members enacted the Montana law that prohibited corporations from making campaign contributions. What was that interest? It was to reverse the situation as it then stood in Montana: Corporations had, at that time, utterly corrupted the state’s government.

The state’s case in defense of the prohibition on corporate spending had several parts. First, the state argued that setting up a political action committee is simple and cannot be compared to the complexity of establishing and maintaining a PAC under the complexities of federal election law.

Second, based on depositions of the plaintiffs, the state established that the existing law had not prevented companies and industry groups from being active participants in politics.

Third, reviewing Montana state history, the state recounted the massive corporate corruption of the late 19th through the mid-20th centuries, including findings of Congressional investigations into several matters. The state’s political history is one of “naked corporation manipulation” of the government and legislature through bribery and other forms of corruption.

Fourth, the state established that Montana elections cost less than in other parts of the country, allowing smaller amounts of money to make significant impacts on election outcomes.

In any case, I would recommend reading through the decision, which is likely heading for a review by the U.S. Supreme Court.