LITTLE ROCK — A U.S. Supreme Court opinion Monday that allows corporate contributions in state-level elections has no bearing on a proposed Arkansas initiated act that would restrict corporations and unions from donating directly to candidates, supporters of the Arkansas proposal said.
Brent Bumpers of Little Rock, co-chairman of the bipartisan Better Ethics Now Committee, said the Montana law that was struck down bars donations to political action committees, while the Arkansas proposal will allow those contributions to continue but bans contributions made directly to candidates.
He said this follows current federal law. Opponents of the proposed act said they aren’t sure it does.
The court on Monday reversed a decision by the Montana Supreme Court, which found that Montana’s ban on contributions to a candidate or a political committee from corporations did not violate the First Amendment.
In the U.S. Supreme Court the case is American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Steve Bullock, Attorney General of Montana. The court’s opinion is unsigned. The court reversed the Montana Supreme Court’s decision without hearing oral arguments.
The case questioned whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed corporations the same protection of free speech as individuals and thus unlimited independent expenditures, overruled the Montana state law.
“There can be no serious doubt that it does,” the opinion states. “Montana’s arguments in support of the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizen’s United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case.”
Bullock had argued that state-level elections warrant different treatment.
He was supported by Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and attorneys general from 21 other states and the District of Columbia who submitted an amicus - or friend of the court - brief in the Montana case.
“The states, as compared with the federal government, face a much greater risk of domination of their elections by nonresident corporations,” the amicus brief states.
The amicus brief argues that state campaign-finance laws cover a range of elections including judicial and law enforcement positions that have no similar elected position at the federal level.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissented in the 5-4 decision. Their dissent largely refers to objections expressed in a dissent to the opinion in the Citizen’s United case. That dissent said independent expenditures can be corrupting and generate “quid pro quo arrangements.”
The dissent also states that Montana’s history of corruption should have been considered.
“Montana’s experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the court’s decision in Citizen’s United, casts grave doubt on the court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so.”
Montana Code Annotated 13-35-227(1) states: “A corporation may not make a contribution or an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.”
Bumpers said the proposed Arkansas act will allow corporations to donate to PAC’s while banning corporations from donating directly a candidate.
“And that is the current state of federal law,” Bumpers said. “All we are trying to do is extend that federal law to state political candidates. I have 100 percent certainty there is nothing in that initiative that violates Citizens United in any way.”
The initiated act specifies that a candidate can only accept contributions from an individual, political party, county political party committee, legislative caucus committee or approved political action committee. Current Arkansas law allows contributions from corporations and labor unions to be directly given to candidates.
The measure, which also requires lawmakers be out of office two years before they can become lobbyists and bans most gifts to legislators, won’t make it to the ballot this fall unless about 62,000 Arkansas voters sign a petition by the July 6 deadline to turn in signatures.
Bumpers said in early June the group had collected 15,000 signatures on the petition so far. He would not say Monday how many signatures the group has now, because the number fluctuates.
“We still think it’s do-able,” he said.
Little Rock-based group Regnat Populus 2012 proposed the measure. It is also supported by The Better Ethics Now Committee, which includes former Democratic U.S. Sen. and Gov. Dale Bumpers and former GOP U.S. Rep. John Paul Hammerschmidt and former Republican candidate for governor Jim Keet.
On June 6, several state political leaders voiced support for the measure if it gets on the ballot, including Gov. Mike Beebe, Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, ex-Lt. Gov. Bill Halter and several lawmakers.
Beebe spokesman Matt DeCample said the governor is in France and has not reviewed the opinion.
“At this point, his support for the initiated act has not changed,” DeCample said.
The chairmen of the state Republican and Democratic parties also signaled their personal support for the measure, which would also limit gifts to elected officials.
But Republican Lt. Gov. Mark Darr and former House GOP leader John Burris questioned aspects of the provision limiting direct corporate contributions to candidates.
Darr spokesman Sarah Beth Lowe said Darr still questions the initiative and didn’t plan to make an additional statement because of the Supreme Court decision.
Burris said Monday he still believes Arkansas’ measure would be unconstitutional because of previous court rulings and Monday’s opinion from the court.
“Looking at it on a face level you can see that it is definitely related,” he said. “The Supreme Court has now reaffirmed twice that corporations are allowed to be involved in the process, whether you think it’s right or wrong is really irrelevant.”
He said the other rulings that show the initiative would be unconstitutional are the 2003 FEC v. Christine Beaumont opinion by the U.S.
Supreme Court and the 2011 U.S. v. William Danielczyk opinion in U.S. District Court.
The Beaumont opinion upheld federal law banning non-profit groups from directly contributing to a candidate. The Danielczyk opinion deemed the restriction unconstitutional, but only in that specific case.
“There is a mixture of case law on this issue and a Supreme Court opinion is necessary,” Burris said.
Bumpers said concern about the constitutionality of the proposed act largely stems from concerns that it bans all corporate donations.
“All it is does is restrict them from making their $2,000 maximum contribution to a political candidate,” he said. “It is a nuanced distinction truthfully. It’s just frustrating to me. Every day we are finding resistance in the business community because they are confused what this ballot initiative does.”
He said that while he may not agree with the Citizen’s United ruling, he doesn’t see the sense in trying to pass an Arkansas law that violates it just so that law could be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court like Montana’s.
“As long as Citizens United is on the books, we have to live with it, as much as I hate it,” Bumpers said. “Federal law prevails over state law, always.”
Front Section, Pages 3 on 06/26/2012