The Origins of Montana's Corrupt Practices Act: A More Complete History
![handle is hein.journals/montlr73 and id is 307 raw text is: THE ORIGINS OF MONTANA'S CORRUPT PRACTICES
ACT: A MORE COMPLETE HISTORY
Jeff Wiltse*
I. INTRODUCTION
The copper kings once again loomed large over Montana's political
and legal landscape and briefly recaptured the nation's attention. On De-
cember 30, 2011, the Montana Supreme Court issued a decision in the case
of Western Tradition Partnership v. Attorney General of the State of Mon-
tana that conjured ghosts from the state's tumultuous early history.' At
issue was Montana's Corrupt Practices Act, a law dating back to 1912 that
prohibits a variety of political practices, including direct corporate spending
on political campaigns.2 In a 5-2 decision, the Court reversed a district
court ruling-which had found the Corrupt Practices Act unconstitu-
tional-and reinstated the longstanding law. In justifying its decision, the
Court leaned, in part, on the state's early history of political corruption and
corporate domination. The Montana law at issue in this case, Chief Jus-
tice Mike McGrath wrote in the majority opinion, cannot be understood
outside the context of the time and place it was enacted, during the early
twentieth century.3 Chief Justice McGrath then went on to cite, as the
relevant historical context, famous episodes from the wars of the copper
kings and mining companies monopolizing the state's major newspapers.4
Then, the United States Supreme Court considered Montana's Corrupt
Practices Act and its history. On June 21, 2012, a 5-4 majority summarily
reversed the Montana Court's decision, ruling that its 2010 Citizens United
v. Federal Election Commission5 decision-which held that bans on direct
corporate spending in political campaigns are unconstitutional-applied to
the Montana law. The unsigned majority decision explained: Montana's
arguments in support of the [Western Tradition decision] either were al-
ready rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that
case.6 The four dissenting justices-Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Ka-
gan-disagreed. They accepted the Montana Court's conclusion that the
* Associate Professor of History, The University of Montana. Thanks to Randy Cox and the
editorial staff at the Montana Law Review for their valuable feedback on this article.
1. W. Tradition Partn. v. Atty. Gen. of the St. of Mont., 271 P.3d I (Mont. 2011).
2. Id. at 9.
3. Id. at 8.
4. Id. at 8-9.
5. Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010).
6. American Tradition Partnership Inc. v. Buliock, 567 U.S. - (2012).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/montlr73&div=16&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
The Origins of Montana's Corrupt Practices Act: A More Complete History
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most