2012 Ballot Measures: Elections

November 6, 2012 was the first presidential election since the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court in 2010. Consequentially, the 2012 election was more expensive than any other election in our history by more than $700 million.

In an apparent reaction to the ruling, some states voted on limiting or eliminating corporate contributions to elections. Voters in Montana and Colorado approved laws that would prohibit or eliminate corporate contributions and expenditures in both state and national elections. They also sought to charge state lawmakers with asking congressional delegates to overrule Citizens United by amending the U.S. Constitution.

Amendment 2 in Minnesota was an extremely important measure for the future of the state's elections. Amendment 2 would have imposed a strict photo ID requirement at the polls, and although support for the amendment was strong over the summer, it ultimately failed by a few points. This show of support for voters' rights at the polls followed on the heels of Maine voters restoring Election Day Registration in November 2011 after the legislature eliminated it earlier that summer. It seems that given the chance, voters are willing to make changes to election policy and ensure access to the polls.

This post was written by Nonprofit VOTE Intern Lauren Dobbs. Lauren graduated from Boston University with a BA in International Relations in 2011 and will be attending graduate school next fall to obtain an MSc in Development Studies.

Uncertain Future for Montana’s Corrupt Practice Act

For over a century, Montana has prohibited corporate political spending. However, the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision allowed unlimited corporate spending in elections on the basis that it does "not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." After the ruling, at least nine of the 24 states with campaign laws threatened by Citizens United either repealed or suspended them.

Bolstered by the Citizens decision, three corporations filed suit last year to overturn Montana's 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, passed by voter referendum.

So far, the Act has been upheld by the Montana Supreme Court based on "an extraordinary history of political corruption by out-of-state foreign corporations and interests in the years leading up to the aptly-named Act, maintaining an extraordinarily accessible government in a sparsely populated state, and preserving citizens' control of and confidence in an elected judiciary."

Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock further argues that the Act "imposes far different obligations, and therefore affects corporate speech in a far different manner, than the federal law at issue in Citizens United." To many, it seems unlikely that the Supreme Court will accept Montana's argument, but whatever the outcome, it will surely shape this year's election cycle. 

(Image Source)