Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

A voter registration drive in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Oct. 5, 2024. The deadline to register to vote for Texas' March 3 primary election is Feb. 2, 2026. Changes to USPS policies may affect whether a voter registration application is processed on time if it's not postmarked by the deadline.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

Keep ReadingShow less
Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less