I have yet to hear anyone, from any background, argue that our elections need more campaign money from any source to improve their quality.
More specifically, Montana voters enacted the Corrupt Practices Act through a citizens’ initiative in 1912. The law remained in force for 98 years, until the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United made it unconstitutional. The law restricted corporate campaign contributions but was struck down on the grounds that it limited corporations’ First Amendment right to free speech.
My entire 45-year business career took place in Montana. During that time, I operated businesses organized as a Subchapter S corporation, a standard corporation, and a limited liability company. The Corrupt Practices Act was in effect throughout most of my career, and I never witnessed it limiting my involvement in the political process. From the perspective of a Montana business owner, there is no practical difference between the Corrupt Practices Act of 1912 and I-194.
Although the Corrupt Practices Act was overturned on First Amendment grounds, I-194 takes a different approach by redefining the powers granted through a Montana corporate charter under state law. As a result, I-194 is intended to avoid the First Amendment issues raised in Citizens United.
A corporate charter, issued by the state through articles of incorporation, identifies such matters as the corporation’s name, address, business purpose, stock structure, incorporators, and registered agent. Importantly, incorporation establishes the business as a separate legal entity, shielding owners and shareholders from personal liability while granting other powers defined by the state.
Under I-194, a corporate charter would continue to provide these protections and powers but would exclude the authority to contribute to political campaigns.
This change would apply to both existing and newly formed corporations in Montana. I-194 simply limits the powers included in a corporate charter by excluding campaign contributions as a corporate business function. Out-of-state corporations would also be required to comply when operating in Montana. Supporters hope that other states will enact similar laws, eventually expanding the effort nationwide.
Opponents have raised concerns about reduced business activity, diminished smallbusiness influence, and other possible consequences. However, many of these claims are undocumented or unfounded and misrepresent the purpose of I-194. At the heart of the debate is the influence of large, difficult-to-trace corporate campaign contributions.
Importantly, I-194 does not restrict the money or influence corporations and industries may direct toward lobbying. visit transparentelection.org for more information.
Vote yes on I-194.
#I-194 #transparent elections