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

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

The president is granting refugee status to white South Africans. Meanwhile, he is issuing travel bans, unsure about his duty to uphold due process, fighting birthright citizenship, and backing massive human rights breaches against people of color, including deporting citizens and people authorized to be here.

The administration’s escalating immigration enforcement—marked by “fast-track” deportations or disappearances without due process—signal a dangerous leveling-up of aggressive anti-immigration policies and authoritarian tactics. In the face of the immigration chaos that we are now in, we could—and should—turn our efforts toward making immigration policies less racist, more efficient, and more humane because America’s promise is built on freedom and democracy, not terror. As social scientists, we know that in America, thinking people can and should “just get documented” ignores the very real and large barriers embedded in our systems.

Keep ReadingShow less
Insider trading in Washington, DC

U.S. senators and representatives with access to non-public information are permitted to buy and sell individual stocks. It’s not just unethical; it sends the message that the game is rigged.

Getty Images, Greggory DiSalvo

Insider Trading: If CEOs Can’t Do It, Why Can Congress?

Ivan Boesky. Martha Stewart. Jeffrey Skilling.

Each became infamous for using privileged, non-public information to profit unfairly from the stock market. They were prosecuted. They served time. Because insider trading is a crime that threatens public trust and distorts free markets.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

A pump jack seen in a southeast New Mexico oilfield.

Getty Images, Daniel A. Leifheit

Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

Getting federal approval for permits to build bridges, wind farms, highways and other major infrastructure projects has long been a complicated and time-consuming process. Despite growing calls from both parties for Congress and federal agencies to reform that process, there had been few significant revisions – until now.

In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed a big part of the game.

Keep ReadingShow less