Big money is corrupting American politics and threatening our democracy. Congressional campaign spending has increased 500 percent since 1972, forcing candidates to raise obscene amounts of money from special interests. Once elected, politicians return the favor with tax-breaks, special exemptions, and legislation that puts the interests of big money over the interests of the public.

Big money has squeezed out ordinary citizens, whose contributions can't match those of the fat cats that often don't even live in the state of the candidates they fund. Big money fuels lengthy, negative campaigns which turn voters away from the polls.

Congress Passes Campaign Finance "Deform"
On March 20th, the U.S. Senate passed the McCain-Feingold campaign reform bill.  While the bill’s aim was to reduce the influence of money in politics by banning previously unregulated “soft-money” contributions to candidates,  amendments to the bill damaged its effectiveness by raising hard money limits.

While supporting a total ban on soft-money contributions, MontPIRG opposed the McCain-Feingold bill because it nearly doubles hard money contribution limits. 

“While playing lip service to reform, the current McCain-Feingold bill actually boosts the clout of wealthy donors and their candidates,” wrote Lioz in an editorial published in New York Times on March 21st.

While disappointed in the final outcome of the McCain-Feingold bill, MontPIRG will continue to work towards lowering hard money limits and eliminating the influence of money in our political system.

See Phantom Fixes: How The Shays-Meehan And McCain-Feingold Bills Would Not Have Curtailed Enron's And Arthur Andersen's Campaign Spending .

Campaign Finance Reform Under the Big Sky
In 1994 and 1996, the citizens of Montana passed Citizen Initiatives 118 and 125, two of the most comprehensive campaign finance reforms in the state’s history.  MontPIRG was a key player in originating, qualifying, and gaining political support for both measures.  Immediately, both initiatives were attacked by wealthy special interests in the courts. 

In the fall of 2001, two important rulings were issued concerning the fate of these important reform measures.

I-118 – $100 Limits
I-118 was upheld as constitutional by the U.S. District Court in Billings. The measure set limits on the amount of money a candidate can receive from any one source: $400 per election for candidates running for state-wide office and  $100 per election for legislative office.  With the ruling, Montana became the first state in the country to have such low contribution limits upheld.  This has been a major victory for MontPIRG, our allies, and the public interest.

The ruling by the lower court was spurred by an important decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court last January.  In Nixon v. Shrink the Court reaffirmed that campaign contribution limits are justified by the need to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption in the political process.  The ruling also added momentum to the fight to revisit the 1976 Supreme court ruling in Buckley v. Valeo.

I-125 – Getting Big Money Out of the Initiative Process
The United State Supreme Court, in October 2001, refused to hear an appeal by MontPIRG and the National Voting Rights Institute and let stand a lower court ruling that overturned a ban on direct corporate spending on  ballot initiatives passed by Montana voters in 1996.

The refusal by the Supreme Court to hear the case leaves in question the constitutionality of corporate spending restrictions in ballot measure campaigns.       

I-125 was passed amid complaints about corporate spending on ballot initiatives.   At the time, a MontPIRG study found that 75 percent of spending on initiatives came from companies or their trade associations.  It also found that the top spenders usually win.

MontPIRG has argued that I-125 did not limit the rights of business or corporations to participate in the political process because it allowed for the creation of a separate fund to use in the campaign with donations from shareholders or employees but not from the company itself.  A  mechanism the Supreme Court itself had upheld for candidate elections.

Ninth Circuit Court Judge Daly Hawkins called upon the Supreme Court to resolve conflicting legal precedents.  The Supreme Court refused and the conflicting precedents remain unresolved.

“We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has decided to take a walk on this important issue,” said MontPIRG Executive Director David Ponder.  “Clearly  we hoped the Court would recognize the rights of Montanans to prevent a distortion of the political process by wealthy special interests.”

Despite the ruling, MontPIRG continues its advocacy for campaign reform measures at both the state and national levels. 

Our top priority at the state level is improving the disclosure of campaign and lobby expenditures. Despite collecting campaign finance information more than a year ago, the state has failed to make the information accessible to the public.

Additionally, we are pursuing reform measures that clarify the rules and definitions of lobbying  and exploring the opportunities for public financing of certain elections