FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
WTP files to drop Political Practices complaints, protect Montanans’ First Amendment rights
Motion for summary judgment would drop all complaints, allow corporate in-kind contributions, strike down ‘political committee’ and campaign ‘expenditure’ statutes as unconstitutional
HELENA, MONT. -- Western Tradition Partnership (WTP) filed a motion for partial summary judgment Tuesday in their First Amendment free speech and association case against Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock and the Office of Political Practices. If WTP’s motion for summary judgment is granted, the Commissioner would be required to drop all complaints against the group, allow corporations to make in-kind contributions to candidates in Montana, and strike down Montana’s “political committee” and campaign “expenditure” statutes as unconstitutional. Further, if granted, WTP’s constitutional claims would strike down laws and regulations, such as the incidental political committee requirement, that have been infringing for years on the rights of Montanans to engage in political speech and association without having to register and report those activities to the State of Montana.
The filing, made in Helena's First Judicial District Court, asks Judge Jeffrey Sherlock to dismiss with prejudice a Political Practices complaint filed in 2008 by an environmentalist activist and subsequent COPP decision WTP, and a complaint filed in 2010 by an unsuccessful candidate for legislature from Billings. As part of its suit, WTP also requests that Judge Sherlock invalidate that portion of Montana law that prohibits corporations from making in-kind political contributions.
In the conclusion of its briefing, WTP states that free speech and association guarantees have their fullest and most urgent application during the conduct of campaigns for political office. WTP asserts that the laws and regulations challenged in the case and sought to be enforced against them by the State of Montana “impose impermissible burdens on Plaintiffs’ speech and association activities”, and states that the “Court has the right and duty to knock down unconstitutional overreaching by the State of Montana and its agents”.
"Our filings show Attorney General Bullock and Political Practices attempted to chill every Montanans' First Amendment rights by applying unconstitutional 'political committee' requirements and electioneering restrictions to a citizens' group that does not meet the United States Supreme Court’s definition of those activities,” said WTP Executive Director Donald Ferguson. "We ask the court to order these politically-motivated and defamatory complaints be dropped and that Bullock and Political Practices be prohibited from continuing to apply unconstitutional laws and regulations to WTP and to every other Montanan who engages in protected political speech."
“Our only issue in filing this case is to promote good, and constitutionally-permissible government. WTP’s mission is to promote good environmental policy,” said Ferguson.
"Additionally, we ask the court follow a recent federal ruling protecting the First Amendment right of employers to make campaign contributions," said Ferguson.
Two issues are at play here.
First, in Oct. 2010 WTP won a resounding victory against Bullock and Political Practices after the pair announced they would defy the U.S. Supreme Court's "Citizens United" ruling allowing employers to engage in uncoordinated independent expenditures. WTP sought to overturn state prohibition on uncoordinated political expenditures by corporations. Bullock argued the case personally and his defeat was reported nationally. This case has since been appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.
Three days after WTP won the political speech case against the State of Montana and just days before the 2010 election, the Commissioner of Political Practices released a "finding" accusing WTP of wrongdoing relating to a two-year-old complaint about speech by a different organization. After making a long string of false and defamatory accusations, which Political Practices openly admitted they had no evidence to back up, the office announced they would sanction the WTP for not registering as a political committee, despite the fact WTP did not engage in the speech in question and meets none of the United States Supreme Court’s definitions of a political committee.
WTP has always followed all applicable laws. Political Practices' attempt to force a non-electioneering group to register and report as an electioneering group is a clearly unconstitutional attempt to chill WTP's First Amendment rights.
Under well-established constitutional jurisprudence, the State of Montana can only regulate those organizations whose major purpose is the defeat or election of clearly identified candidate or candidates for public office. WTP only keeps its members and the public informed encourages the passage or defeat of legislation and does not advocate for or against the election of candidates. In their filing Political Practices refused, contrary to what Montana law and regulation expressly require, to state what type of committee WTP was so it could insist WTP adhere to "political committee" regulations.
In addition to the 2008 complaint, WTP asks Judge Sherlock to have a frivolous complaint filed by a losing 2010 candidate dismissed as well.
Second, Montana's ban on in-kind by incorporated associations is vaguely written, which chills the free speech rights of corporations by leaving permissible forms of political speech that are not express advocacy nonetheless open to prosecution.
WTP asks Judge Sherlock to overturn Montana's ban on in-kind corporate campaign contributions, citing the risk of prosecution for non-express advocacy speech because of the state's vague requirement and the 2010 "Citizens United" federal court and a May 2011 Virginia federal court ruling finding political speech by incorporated associations do not pose a threat to the integrity of the electoral process. WTP also argues Montana's ban on in-kind expenditures by corporations violates the Fourteenth Amendment by singling out corporate speech as the one type of political speech that cannot be made in Montana.
The argument follows a May 27 ruling by a Virginia federal judge (U.S. v Danielczyk) finding an outright ban on corporate contributions to federal candidates is unconstitutional because it regulates political speech based on nothing more than the identity of the "speaker.” Numerous other states already allow contributions from corporations.
Additionally, WTP's filing also asks Judge Sherlock to invalidate the requirement organizations such as WTP include electioneering disclosure statements ("Paid for by") on its materials. Those requirements are only constitutional if they are applied to political committees. WTP is not a political committee, does not electioneer, does not seek to influence elections and the requirement is unconstitutionally vague, posing a threat of prosecution for legally-permissible speech.
Among the plaintiffs in the case are Western Tradition Partnership, Montana Citizens for Right to Work and the Sweet Grass Council for Community Integrity. Defendants include Bullock and Political Practices Commissioner David Gallik.
WTP does not advocate the election or defeat of candidates. Supported by grassroots members, largely in Montana, WTP is a fast-growing non-profit organization dedicated to fighting environmental extremism and promoting private property and responsible development and management of land, water, and natural resources.
# # #
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
WTP files to drop Political Practices complaints, protect Montanans’ First Amendment rights
Motion for summary judgment would drop all complaints, allow corporate in-kind contributions, strike down ‘political committee’ and campaign ‘expenditure’ statutes as unconstitutional
HELENA, MONT. -- Western Tradition Partnership (WTP) filed a motion for partial summary judgment Tuesday in their First Amendment free speech and association case against Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock and the Office of Political Practices. If WTP’s motion for summary judgment is granted, the Commissioner would be required to drop all complaints against the group, allow corporations to make in-kind contributions to candidates in Montana, and strike down Montana’s “political committee” and campaign “expenditure” statutes as unconstitutional. Further, if granted, WTP’s constitutional claims would strike down laws and regulations, such as the incidental political committee requirement, that have been infringing for years on the rights of Montanans to engage in political speech and association without having to register and report those activities to the State of Montana.
The filing, made in Helena's First Judicial District Court, asks Judge Jeffrey Sherlock to dismiss with prejudice a Political Practices complaint filed in 2008 by an environmentalist activist and subsequent COPP decision WTP, and a complaint filed in 2010 by an unsuccessful candidate for legislature from Billings. As part of its suit, WTP also requests that Judge Sherlock invalidate that portion of Montana law that prohibits corporations from making in-kind political contributions.
In the conclusion of its briefing, WTP states that free speech and association guarantees have their fullest and most urgent application during the conduct of campaigns for political office. WTP asserts that the laws and regulations challenged in the case and sought to be enforced against them by the State of Montana “impose impermissible burdens on Plaintiffs’ speech and association activities”, and states that the “Court has the right and duty to knock down unconstitutional overreaching by the State of Montana and its agents”.
"Our filings show Attorney General Bullock and Political Practices attempted to chill every Montanans' First Amendment rights by applying unconstitutional 'political committee' requirements and electioneering restrictions to a citizens' group that does not meet the United States Supreme Court’s definition of those activities,” said WTP Executive Director Donald Ferguson. "We ask the court to order these politically-motivated and defamatory complaints be dropped and that Bullock and Political Practices be prohibited from continuing to apply unconstitutional laws and regulations to WTP and to every other Montanan who engages in protected political speech."
“Our only issue in filing this case is to promote good, and constitutionally-permissible government. WTP’s mission is to promote good environmental policy,” said Ferguson.
"Additionally, we ask the court follow a recent federal ruling protecting the First Amendment right of employers to make campaign contributions," said Ferguson.
Two issues are at play here.
First, in Oct. 2010 WTP won a resounding victory against Bullock and Political Practices after the pair announced they would defy the U.S. Supreme Court's "Citizens United" ruling allowing employers to engage in uncoordinated independent expenditures. WTP sought to overturn state prohibition on uncoordinated political expenditures by corporations. Bullock argued the case personally and his defeat was reported nationally. This case has since been appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.
Three days after WTP won the political speech case against the State of Montana and just days before the 2010 election, the Commissioner of Political Practices released a "finding" accusing WTP of wrongdoing relating to a two-year-old complaint about speech by a different organization. After making a long string of false and defamatory accusations, which Political Practices openly admitted they had no evidence to back up, the office announced they would sanction the WTP for not registering as a political committee, despite the fact WTP did not engage in the speech in question and meets none of the United States Supreme Court’s definitions of a political committee.
WTP has always followed all applicable laws. Political Practices' attempt to force a non-electioneering group to register and report as an electioneering group is a clearly unconstitutional attempt to chill WTP's First Amendment rights.
Under well-established constitutional jurisprudence, the State of Montana can only regulate those organizations whose major purpose is the defeat or election of clearly identified candidate or candidates for public office. WTP only keeps its members and the public informed encourages the passage or defeat of legislation and does not advocate for or against the election of candidates. In their filing Political Practices refused, contrary to what Montana law and regulation expressly require, to state what type of committee WTP was so it could insist WTP adhere to "political committee" regulations.
In addition to the 2008 complaint, WTP asks Judge Sherlock to have a frivolous complaint filed by a losing 2010 candidate dismissed as well.
Second, Montana's ban on in-kind by incorporated associations is vaguely written, which chills the free speech rights of corporations by leaving permissible forms of political speech that are not express advocacy nonetheless open to prosecution.
WTP asks Judge Sherlock to overturn Montana's ban on in-kind corporate campaign contributions, citing the risk of prosecution for non-express advocacy speech because of the state's vague requirement and the 2010 "Citizens United" federal court and a May 2011 Virginia federal court ruling finding political speech by incorporated associations do not pose a threat to the integrity of the electoral process. WTP also argues Montana's ban on in-kind expenditures by corporations violates the Fourteenth Amendment by singling out corporate speech as the one type of political speech that cannot be made in Montana.
The argument follows a May 27 ruling by a Virginia federal judge (U.S. v Danielczyk) finding an outright ban on corporate contributions to federal candidates is unconstitutional because it regulates political speech based on nothing more than the identity of the "speaker.” Numerous other states already allow contributions from corporations.
Additionally, WTP's filing also asks Judge Sherlock to invalidate the requirement organizations such as WTP include electioneering disclosure statements ("Paid for by") on its materials. Those requirements are only constitutional if they are applied to political committees. WTP is not a political committee, does not electioneer, does not seek to influence elections and the requirement is unconstitutionally vague, posing a threat of prosecution for legally-permissible speech.
Among the plaintiffs in the case are Western Tradition Partnership, Montana Citizens for Right to Work and the Sweet Grass Council for Community Integrity. Defendants include Bullock and Political Practices Commissioner David Gallik.
WTP does not advocate the election or defeat of candidates. Supported by grassroots members, largely in Montana, WTP is a fast-growing non-profit organization dedicated to fighting environmental extremism and promoting private property and responsible development and management of land, water, and natural resources.
# # #
No comments:
Post a Comment