Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Montana's tough donor disclosure law survives at Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging Montana's donor disclosure law.

Drew Angerer/Getty Photos

Montana's disclosure requirements for campaign donors will remain among the gold standards for statewide campaign finance regulation now that the Supreme Court has decided to leave the law alone.

A federal appeals court last August upheld state requirements that groups paying for political advertising reveal their funders and spending. Without comment Monday, the Supreme Court said it would not reconsider that ruling.

The decision amounts to a symbolic but not insignificant win for advocates of more openness about political spending. Campaign finance reform groups hope Montana will provide a template for other states to adopt similarly tight disclosure requirements. And they assume the high court's ruling will form a precedent protecting future state laws against similar challenges.


"Declining to hear this case protects the ability of state lawmakers across the country to use disclosure laws as a tool to promote transparency in elections," said Paul Smith of the Campaign Legal Center. "Disclosure laws like Montana's are critical because voters deserve to know who is spending money to influence their votes."

The law requires nonprofit groups to register with the state as political committees if they run any kind of ad that refers to a candidate or ballot issue within two months of an election.

It was enacted five years ago as a counterbalance to the unlimited spending allowed by the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision. But a year after it was enacted, the National Association of Gun Rights sued on the grounds the law violated the politically motivated nonprofit group's free speech rights.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument and said instead that voters had the right to know who was financing political advertising.

The law was pushed by Gov. Steve Bullock, who made a commitment to tighten campaign finance rules a centerpiece of his brief run for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination and subsequently his campaign for the Senate. He handily won his primary Tuesday and will challenge Republican incumbent Steve Daines in what will be one of the country's most closely watched congressional races.

"Time and again, dark money groups have tried to attack Montana's campaign finance laws — because those laws work," Bullock said after the Supreme Court's dismissal.

Read More

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’
Independent Voter News

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’

The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation.

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project developed a “Redistricting Report Card” that takes metrics of partisan and racial performance data in all 50 states and converts it into a grade for partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote Here" sign

America’s political system is broken — but ranked choice voting and proportional representation could fix it.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Election Reform Turns Down the Temperature of Our Politics

Politics isn’t working for most Americans. Our government can’t keep the lights on. The cost of living continues to rise. Our nation is reeling from recent acts of political violence.

79% of voters say the U.S. is in a political crisis, and 64% say our political system is too divided to solve the nation’s problems.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less