“A representative democracy only works when everyone truly has a voice, and when the voices of the many aren’t drowned out by the pocketbooks of a few.” 

(Helena Independent Record Editorial, 2-21-12)

Our Elections Are Under Assault from Big Money

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United vs. FEC opened the floodgates for corporate money. In that decision, the Court ruled that corporations have the same rights as people, and that their unlimited corporate political spending equates to constitutionally protected free speech.

On June 25, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on the case challenging the Montana Corrupt Practices Act. The Court refused to hear the case. Instead, the Court decided to summarily reverse the Montana Supreme Court, throwing out our century-old ban on corporate money in elections.

It’s Time to Fight Back

We believe that the U.S. Supreme Court grossly missed the mark. Quite simply, corporations are not people, they shouldn’t be granted the same rights as people, and they certainly shouldn’t be allowed to buy elections. And the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on Montana's Corrupt Practices Act only means that the campaign FOR I-166 is more important than ever.

It’s time for all Montanans to stand against corruption. It is time to fan the flames of the prairie fire Montana started by standing up against the U.S. Supreme Court and its Citizens United decision. It is time to stand with Montanans in support of I-166.

Gov. Schweitzer and Lt. Gov. Bohlinger Call on You to Join the Fight

Stand with Montanans is supported by:

Logo_Clear.png Amend2012ProjectofCommonCauseHZ.png

Do you like this page?

Showing 186 reactions

commented 2013-12-31 12:48:10 -0700 · Flag
Thank you
followed this page 2012-10-17 10:08:43 -0600
commented 2012-10-16 12:17:39 -0600 · Flag
Gary, I -166 is not a new campaign finance regulation, a Corrupt Practices Act Pt 2 if you will. If it was, then the Supremacy Clause would be relevant. Instead, I-166 is a policy directive, whereby the voters instruct our appointed and elected officials, state and federal, to work to amend the US Constitution to fix the mess created by Citizens United (as well as other cases). It sets as policy of the state of Montana that corporations are not people and money is not speech. This policy provides guidance for Montana officials. The solution is an amendment to the US Constitution. I-166 is a step to get us there.
commented 2012-10-16 10:29:56 -0600 · Flag
I agree, but Montana can’t defy the Supremacy Clause any more than MS or AL. The Sup. Ct. just ruled vin June that Montana can NOT enforce anti-corruption laws that violate Citizens United. So how can this law stand??????
@SFVMathTutor tweeted link to this page. 2012-10-10 09:39:11 -0600
@tuxcedocat Good news! For those who have not already, check out: http://t.co/mEYBrZa5
@DTPORGE mentioned @STANDwMONTANANS link to this page. 2012-10-09 23:14:47 -0600
Check out Stand with Montanans: Corporations Aren't People - Ban Corporate Campaign Spending http://t.co/Ub2tuks8 via @standwmontanans
@CBinMontana tweeted link to this page. 2012-10-08 09:53:25 -0600
Money’s corruption shredding remnants of democracy in Montana: http://t.co/Qe2JtRYs via @missoulian Why I-166 http://t.co/uzzU3wGX
@CBinMontana tweeted link to this page. 2012-10-08 09:32:43 -0600
Gazette opinion: Don’t change 2012 campaign rules http://t.co/2ChzcqNK via @billingsgazette Vote for I-166, http://t.co/uzzU3wGX
@DTPORGE mentioned @STANDwMONTANANS link to this page. 2012-10-04 19:04:52 -0600
Stand with Montanans! Corporations Aren't People - Ban Corporate Campaign Spending http://t.co/Ub2tuks8 via @standwmontanans
commented 2012-10-04 17:39:46 -0600 · Flag
What is the difference between a political contribution and a bribe. The amount of money! Buying a politician is not cheap in this country.
commented 2012-09-25 08:25:39 -0600 · Flag
Margaret, two things. Kochs didn’t pay the 30 million. Alot of people like me supported him too. Please explain to me why 90% of new union memberships in the last 10 years (in Montana at least) is in public employees. SO the “man” or big business is the governor? The legislature? Public employees get paid 30% more than private sector in Montana, including benefits and retirement. Who is sticking it to whom? Your argument that Unions have given me vacation, sick, pay, etc etc, is hollow. While they may have fought for those things, companies got forced to provide many other concessions that make BEING in business impossible. For example, Unions forced GM to provide pensions for young retires. At one time there were 3.5 retirees for each current worker, and the current workers were making 50% more than other comparable jobs on the market. Wonder why cars have gotten so expensive? So fast forward to the GM bailout / stock take over. Stock holders got screwed while Unions and the Democrats made hay with public money. All this so we can FORCE GM to build electric cars that no one wants to buy. Feel safe driving an electric car in Montana in the winter? Not me thanks. I realize I am the sole outcast on this site since it is special interest anti-business, but thanks for letting me share my opinion. If you don’t want corporations to exercise free speech, maybe consider not taxing them. If you can make it pay taxes, it must have a voice and freedom of speech – thats simple fairness.
commented 2012-09-24 19:26:44 -0600 · Flag
Clint, Unions cannot even compete with foriegn, big US corporations and billionaires that would want our resources in Montana. Look at Wisconsin 30 million for the corrupt Governor to stay in office from Koch and friends, while the Union side put up 3 million to fight the assault on workers rights. Thats right Clint the billionaires won, the people lost. Union workers are not required to support political decisions by union leaders they have the right to stop the funding from their own check by request. people fought and died to fight big money barons from abusing workers. You have holidays, vacation, sick pay, insurance, safe working conditions and fair pay because these people fought and died for them.
@flowergirl89 tweeted link to this page. 2012-09-24 18:44:00 -0600
Stand with Montanans: Corporations Aren't People - Ban Corporate Campaign Spending http://t.co/PMoLnjIx
@JoyRaeFreeman tweeted link to this page. 2012-09-10 16:17:02 -0600
Stand With Montanans http://t.co/gHcyssAJ
commented 2012-08-31 16:59:55 -0600 · Flag
Clint, I look forward to discussing this and other issues with you in person on Oct 4th.
commented 2012-08-31 10:32:58 -0600 · Flag
Tom, for an educated person, you lack fundamental common sense. You claim corporations exist to make profit, and exert pressure downward on…etc etc. Farmers exist to make a profit. College professors exist to make a profit. Businesses exist to make our lives better, or else they fail. Government is the only “business” that thrives on failure. Being a liberal democrat doesn’t mean “accepting people for who they are” it means rewarding people for making bad decisions and punishing people who make the right ones. Case in point is blaming the wealthy for their success while guaranteeing unemployment benefits for 99 weeks. People on welfare eat better than I do, have nicer things and have the free time to enjoy them, but I have to pay the bills. So maybe the definition of Conservative Republican is simply – We work to pay YOUR bills, while the liberal democrats tell you not to feel bad about being lazy or making bad choices. Claiming it is a ‘must’ to get corporate money out of politics simply tells me that YOU don’t want voters to know the WHOLE story. You only want the liberal side represented. I, on the other hand, want ALL sides and allow the voters to decide which issue and candidate is their choice. Corporations aren’t people, that’s why they cannot vote.
@denrumer mentioned @STANDwMONTANANS link to this page. 2012-08-30 17:49:12 -0600
Stand with Montanans: Corporations Aren't People - Ban Corporate Campaign Spending http://t.co/MOe4DrU0 via @standwmontanans
commented 2012-08-30 11:50:18 -0600 · Flag
Amen to that, Tom. I concur with your comments completely. The unbridled lies being told and obscene amounts of money being spent by SuperPac groups on either side of this election, tells us a sad saga about how low we have allowed, with the help of the Supreme Court, our country’s moral values to sink … all in the name of peddling political influence.
commented 2012-08-30 10:56:15 -0600 · Flag
Having been a corporate manager I’m aware of how the system works.

Corporations exist to make a profit. That’s what they do. They exert downward pressure on wages and benefits in order to make profits. Unions exist to push back. If you don’t think this is necessary for public employees you are quite mistaken.

As for your assertion that corporations can not exert more control by buying advertisement…why do you think they are seeking to do this if it won’t work?

And yes Clint, I’m a liberal democrat. To me, that means that I accept people for who they are and the choices they make. I doubt that you have the same definition.

I plan on winning this election. When I do, I plan to end my contract with MSU and represent the interests of ALL of the people who live in my district. That includes voting on issues that impact education spending.

See you at the debate,
commented 2012-08-29 12:00:15 -0600 · Flag
Incidentally, corporations survive on profits. They pay the “people who work for a living” that you claim Unions protect. If this is true, can you explain why the only growth in Montana Union Membership is in Public employees? Who do Goverment employees need protection from? “The Man” in this case is state Government, and the employer is “We The People of Montana”. Why do teachers, police, firefighters, building inspectors, and college food services personnel need representation in their fight against Montana taxpayers? I guess we could all just quit our jobs and enjoy two years of unemployment on Obama, but who’s going to pay for it all?
commented 2012-08-29 11:52:28 -0600 · Flag
Tom, it actually isn’t a red herring. Nice for you to avoid the point and then say “Unions are playing the game that corporations are playing” because the Unions have been doing it for decades, and Citizens United only allowed corporate money the last two years. Corporations cannot ‘exert more control’ simply by buying advertising. Obviously you have a profoundly different view of the intelligence of the average voter than I do. I believe people are smart enough to decide who and what to vote for regardless of how well it gets advertised. Of course the fact that you are a professor of Higher Education, and a liberal democrat to boot, I am sure you think YOU know better than the masses. If you beat me in the election, will you be collecting a paycheck from MSU while you also get paid to sit in the legislature? Will you abstain from any votes that impact education spending due to your conflict of interest? Informed voters want to know.
commented 2012-08-29 11:39:32 -0600 · Flag
That’s a red herring Clint, but I can tell you that I would be happy to ban any contributions that do not come from individuals. Any. Until that happens, unions are playing the game that corporations are playing. A major difference is that the “product” or purpose of a union is protecting the rights of people who work for a living.
Look at the amount of money being spent. If you don’t think that this is a problem for the long term health of this republic, if you honestly think it’s a good thing to allow corporations to exert even more control over our country well….we profoundly disagree.
commented 2012-08-28 16:10:05 -0600 · Flag
Why aren’t you concerned about the non-taxed free speech of Union bosses that do not require a vote of their membership in order to support (D)emocrat candidates? Corporations pay taxes, and deserve representation and free speech. Barring a business to advertise for or against a candidate that would harm or help them is no different than Unions doing the same, except that Unions are not taxed. If you want to remove ‘personhood’ protections from corporations then eliminate the taxes on them first.
@ajcarrillo mentioned @STANDwMONTANANS link to this page. 2012-08-22 11:34:43 -0600
Stand with Montanans: Corporations Aren't People - Ban Corporate Campaign Spending http://t.co/Z3FBPSgI @standwmontanans #p2
commented 2012-08-09 12:06:02 -0600 · Flag
This issue is of vital importance. We are at the tipping point Clearly money is swaying many elections. As Murdoch reportedly said “I only need to move 5% of the voters”. Lobbyists, funded by corporations, control what gets passed in Congress. We must reverse ‘Citizens United’ before it is too late.
@CoreyCommCause tweeted link to this page. 2012-08-07 10:20:01 -0600
Grassroots effort to reform campaign finance laws- Stand with Montanans http://t.co/oHwqoNsQ #Amend2012
@CarterTroy tweeted link to this page. 2012-08-05 00:29:00 -0600
grassroots effort to reform campaign finance laws- Stand with Montanans http://t.co/t8O9ybn6 #Montana
commented 2012-08-03 17:05:43 -0600 · Flag
Just a few hours ago I debated James Brown – the attorney that is trying to knock I-166 off the 2012 ballot – and block your right to vote. This is a taped show – will run this Sunday August 5 at 10pm http://www.beartoothnbc.com/features/dunwellreport/index.1.html – and through out Montana the following week.

As soon as it goes live we will post.

We challenged him to say who is funding the lawsuit and we challenged the opponents to a set of debates in September throughout Montana.
@franswami mentioned @STANDwMONTANANS link to this page. 2012-07-22 17:35:56 -0600
Check out the Stand with Montanans: Corporations Aren't People - Ban Corporate Campaign Spending http://t.co/erJoAmW5 via @standwmontanans
@DrIanInc tweeted link to this page. 2012-07-20 10:30:23 -0600
Stand with Montanans - http://t.co/T03ERvRO #Corporations ARENTPeople #DemocracyISNT4Sale
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next →