My Request for Info on MT Case and MTA Collaboration with Other Groups

[Bart Bolger]

I just sent something to the MTA national listserve to get some information. I was not speaking for the group, obviously and I hope it's not taken that way. But I really feel at a loss trying to answer questions on these topics and I hope MTA gives us something to work with. If I get an official response, I'll post that here, for those not on the national listserve.
Here's my email to them.
========================
I apologize if I've missed something on this list, but what is the MTA position on the Montana case, as it currently stands (i.e., in the pending Supreme Court challenge)?
I've heard (can't remember where) that there is some concern that if the Supreme's rule in favor of MT, they might do so very narrowly and preclude other states from following suit, thus broadening the precedent of Citizens United while allowing MT to have their way.
We're being deluged with calls from groups like MoveOn and Daily Kos to sign petitions in favor of upholding the MT Supreme Court ruling, but I'm reluctant to push that stance until I know more.
Is MTA planning to join an amicus brief to the Supremes as many groups, legislators and state atty's gen'l have?
AND, what is the current state of play with our efforts to collaborate with other groups, e.g., Public Citizen, MoveOn, Common Cause? If that's too sensitive due to ongoing negotiations, I can accept that, but I would like some sort of current status statement we can use in our "elevator pitch" when talking to petition signers and local groups.
Thanks,
Bart Bolger
Corvallis (Oregon) Area Move to Amend
========================

[Bart Bolger]

This just in from Steve Justino, a lawyer and member of the MTA national board.
It makes total sense to me and I agree with him on all points. I still hope to hear from others on the MTA plans for collaboration with other groups and will post that if I get it. Perhaps their silence on the Montana case reflects the ambivalence Steve feels.
=====================

Hi Bart,

I don't think MTA has taken a formal position on the Montana case, yet, but I, personally, have said that, because appellate courts are only supposed to decide a case based on the evidence in that particular case, the Supreme Court could - and actually should - only decide whether Montana's very restrictive strict campaign finance laws are constitutional in light of Montana's unique history of extreme corporate corruption.   

In my opinion, a very narrow SCOTUS decision upholding the Montana law wouldn't have any impact on the other 49 states.  Those states wouldn't be precluded other states from following suit.  Just the opposite - if other states wanted to follow suit, they would have to go to court and argue that their state history of corruption was as bad as Montana's.  Some states might be able to prove that.  Others might not.

Personally, I am very ambivalent about the Montana case. If the Supreme Court decides to hear it - remember they could choose NOT to hear the case - my hope is that SCOTUS will overturn the Montana Supreme Court - in essence  "doubling down" on Citizens United.  I think that would outrage people, energizing our base, and giving us the momentum to deal with the REAL problems - "corporate personhood" and "money = speech."  

In my opinion, just "overturning Citizens United" is NOT enough.  Citizens United is JUST a symptom.  The diseases are "corporate personhood" and "money = speech."  Just treating the symptom is NOT enough.  We need to cure both diseases -  ending corporate personhood, and ending money = speech,  if the patient - our democracy - is going to survive.

My 2 cents worth,

ONWARD!

Steve
Stephen A. Justino
Co-Chair, Colorado Move to Amend

[Dana Allen]

I agree totally with Scott's assessment of the Montana case and its effect on MTA and the movement to save our democracy from corporate personhood and money as speech.  Because of MTA and Occupy, the government and SCOTUS have already mobilized to stop any populist movement.  And the Powers that Be and the Elite know all too well that the power truly rests with the people.  I can almost guarantee that none of these entities will do anything that will mobilize the people.  Therefore, I believe that SCOTUS will rule very narrowly FOR Montana and put the rest of the States in a box.  Anybody want to start a SCOTUS v Montana betting pool?

 

In the meantime, I think we better start thinking about Plan B, C, & D.  And I think MTA needs to start now to publicize the effect of SCOTUS rulings that Scott has outlined.  It is my opinion that MTA needs to frame the debate PROactively and not wait to dissect the decision once it comes down.  People need to start thinking NOW about the impact of the various decisions that SCOTUS could make.  The people need to know in advance which decision means they have been SCREWED AGAIN!

 

Just MY two cents

Dana 

 

---