Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Judge throws out truth-in-naming law for Montana PACs

Montana, truth in labeling, political action committees

A billboard at the heart of the lawsuit, which challenged a 1985 law designed to make political groups be truthful about who's behind them.

U.S. District Court

One of the nation's most unusual campaign finance regulations, Montana's law intended to assure truth in labeling when it comes to the names of campaign organizations, has been struck down by a federal judge.

The law is an unconstitutional infringement on political speech because it is poorly constructed and doesn't accomplish its goal of helping voters understand who is behind groups spending money on elections, Judge Dana Christiansen ruled last week.

In an era when federal regulation of money in politics has essentially come to a halt, campaign finance reform groups have increasingly focused on winning curbs at the state and local level — and now one of those looks to be swept away, as well.


The law has governed the naming of political action committees for 35 years. GOP Attorney General Timothy Fox said he is reviewing the ruling before deciding whether to appeal it.

The case involves a group calling itself Doctors for a Healthy Montana, formed early in the year to target Republicans legislators who voted to expand the state's Medicaid program. A complaint was filed in April by one of those lawmakers, state Rep. Joel Krautter, after the PAC paid for a billboard stating he voted for a bill that provided for taxpayer-funded abortions.

At the time the committee was formed, only one of the four people who donated to it was a doctor. Two were state legislators.

As soon as the complaint was lodged with Commissioner of Political Practices Jeffrey Mangan, who enforces the naming law, the PAC sued to challenge the law on First Amendment grounds and ask the judge to block its enforcement.

That was denied, in part, because by then a majority of the group's donors were doctors. The judge said the name might be misleading, but "at no point can it be said that the name was factually incorrect."

Mangan eventually determined the name of the group did violate the law. And Krautter ended up being defeated in the June primary.


Read More

​Herbert Hoover  listening to a one valve radio set.

Herbert Hoover (1874 - 1964), Republican Party candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America, listening to a one valve radio set.

Topical Press Agency/Getty Images

A Second Axial Age Demands Global Leadership Rooted in Hoover’s Ideals

The time has come when we must take an enlarged vision of the future. (Herbert Hoover)

Our 31st President, Herbert Hoover, said this in 1926. Although one hundred years have passed since — and it is always time to take a larger view of the future — his proclamation rings truer now than ever.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. President Donald Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump on October 16, 2026 in Palm Beach, Florida.

(Photo by Eric Lee/Getty Images)

Trump — President by Law, Not by Constitutional Duty

A president can win an election and still fail the test of leadership. The presidency is a public trust, not a personal platform, family enterprise, or license to demean people and disregard the law. Donald Trump holds the office legally. Yet his conduct raises a fundamental question: is he fulfilling the constitutional duties that give the presidency its meaning? The answer, visible in his behavior, is no. He performs the role of president the way a showman performs a part — loudly, aggressively, and without the substance the office requires.

Leadership is not conferred by a title; it is demonstrated through conduct. Ethical leadership requires integrity, honesty, sound judgment, and accountability. Moral leadership demands empathy, fairness, humility, and the courage to do what is right even when doing so carries a personal or political cost. When a president repeatedly demeans people, disregards established norms, and places personal interests above public duty, citizens have every reason to question his leadership — or whether he is leading at all.

Keep ReadingShow less
voting booths

voting booths

Getty Images

Holding the Lines That Protect Every Voter and Every Election

We are people of many traditions. We do not agree on candidates. We don't need to.

We agree on something older than any election: that every person carries a dignity that no government grants and no government may take away, and that a free people governs itself by counting every lawful vote and honoring the count.

Keep ReadingShow less