Federal appeals panel upholds Montana's campaign-donor limits
By The Associated Press
09.25.02
HELENA, Mont. — Montana's limits on campaign contributions are constitutional because they represent a legitimate effort to prevent even the appearance of corruption in the political process, a federal appeals court panel ruled yesterday.
The 2-1 decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejects claims by the Montana Right to Life Association that the restrictions violate the rights of those who want to donate more than the limit to candidates.
The caps on contributions by individuals and political action committees, called PACs, do not hamper campaigns to the point that free-speech and related rights are violated, the court held.
"We hold that Montana's interest in purging corruption and the appearance of corruption from its electoral system is sufficiently important to withstand constitutional scrutiny," wrote Judge Barry Silverman in Montana Right to Life Assoc. v. Eddelman.
He said that "individuals and PACs remain free to engage in independent political expression, to associate actively through volunteering their services and to assist in a limited — but nonetheless substantial extent — in supporting the candidates and committees with financial resources."
State Solicitor Brian Morris, who represented the state in defending the limits, said the ruling is significant because it upholds such low caps on donations. The decision also reinforces a state's power to customize restrictions for its own needs, he said.
"It shows states have the latitude to craft contribution limits to meet their particular needs," Morris said. "There's no one-size-fits-all remedy."
The ruling was a defeat for Montana Right to Life Association, which had argued that the contribution limits prevented candidates from waging effective campaigns and infringed on the free-speech rights of those wanting to donate money.
Gregg Trude, executive director for the anti-abortion group, said he would like the ruling appealed to the nation's highest court, but no decision had been made on whether to do so.
He declined further comment, however.
Jonathan Motl, who authored the two laws targeted in the lawsuit, applauded the ruling.
"It should encourage citizens to keep trying to reform the campaign-finance system for its elected officials," he said yesterday. "It's possible to do so. It's a long arduous trip, but you can do it."
The case involved two laws. One enacted in 1983 limits how much in total PAC contributions a candidate can receive. The second, created by Initiative 118 in 1994, limits contributions from individual donors and political action committees to candidates for the Legislature, governor and other statewide offices.
Under I-118, campaign-contribution limits are set at $400 in the primary and $400 in the general election for governor and lieutenant governor. The limit is $200 in both the primary and general election for other statewide offices such as attorney general, auditor, superintendent of schools, secretary of state and state Supreme Court. The contribution cap is $100 in the primary and general election for other public offices, including the state Legislature, district court and Public Service Commission.
Motl said the ruling on restricting cumulative PAC donations could clear the way for more states to adopt such limits. He estimates that only five states have them.
The appeals court decision upholds the ruling of U.S. District Judge Jack Shanstrom of Billings, who said the state had demonstrated need for the laws.
The 9th Circuit panel based its decision on two U.S. Supreme Court rulings, Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Gov’t. PAC (2000), that said campaign-contribution limits are OK if they satisfy an important enough state interest and are narrowly written to do that.
Montana provided enough evidence to support its claim that the restrictions were necessary to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption in politics, the 9th Circuit said.
It referred to a 1981 legislator's letter that talked about the need for Republicans to support a bill in order to retain financial support from the insurance industry.
The court also noted former state Rep. Hal Harper, a 30-year veteran of the Legislature, testified about the effectiveness of campaign donations from special-interest groups. The court also said a 1982 poll, which found most people believe money buys power and influence, reflected public suspicion about the corruptive nature of money in politics.
Although the law restricts some funding sources for candidates, they have other supplies such as political parties and their own pockets, the court said. PACs and others can spend money on independent ads to voice support for a candidates, the panel found.
Judge James Teilborg, a federal district judge from Arizona, was the lone dissenter.
While the state made a case for limiting donations from any single person or PAC, it failed to justify a provision that caps the maximum total PAC contributions any candidate can receive, he said.
Preventing any single PAC from exerting undue influence over a candidate was warranted, but the state was unable to prove that all PACs, as a group, exerted such pressure and deserved to have their collective contributions restricted, Teilborg said.
Judge Arthur Alarcon sided with Silverman in the majority opinion.