HELENA — The state argued in new court filings a judge’s decision to strike down campaign contribution limits could cause irreparable harm with just a month before the election — while candidates affected by the ruling seemed to be taking a cautious approach before seeking unlimited donations.
For the time being, at least, Montana joined four other states — Missouri, Oregon, Utah and Virginia — which do not have limits on campaign contributions.
The Montana attorney general’s office was trying to reverse the ruling. Late Wednesday, it asked a federal judge who struck down Montana’s limits on campaign contributions earlier that day to place a hold on his decision.
U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell responded Thursday by giving the conservative and Republican groups who successfully fought for the change until Monday to respond before he issued a decision.
And Attorney General Steve Bullock’s office was also finalizing a request to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene on an emergency basis.
The decision stunned political circles. Some state political candidates who now can accept unlimited donations said they will take a wait-and-see approach before seeking big money.
The commissioner of political practices office said it had not yet determined how to advise the candidates it regulates — but reported the phone was ringing off the hook with calls from candidates wondering what to do.
The limits that were struck down range from $630 for an individual contributing to a governor’s race to $160 for a state House candidate. The amounts are adjusted each election cycle to account for inflation. The law also limited aggregate donations from political parties.
Conservative groups that include the Washington, D.C.-based American Tradition Partnership, successful in other cases to undo state campaign laws, have argued the Montana limits were too low to allow successful campaigning.
Bullock, running his own campaign for governor, was not accepting contributions over the limits, his campaign said. But the campaign did send an email to supporters asking them to give small amounts so he could “fight for the integrity of our elections” as governor.
His opponent, Republican Rick Hill, did not shut the door on the larger donations.
“We are going to play under the rules of the system. Rick looks forward to reviewing the full opinion and the rationale behind it,” said campaign manager Brock Lowrance.
The Republican Party said it was advising candidates that it is now legal accept unlimited contributions, but suggested they consult with their own counsel before making any major decisions on the matter.
Democratic candidate for attorney general Pam Bucy said she so far has an average donation of $50 from about 2,000 donors and doesn’t expect to seek out big-money donors.
“We’re going to continue this campaign that way — playing by the rules, visiting with everyday Montanans and asking them to invest in my campaign,” Bucy said.
One of the attorneys in the case representing the conservative groups who fought for the decision said candidates who accept the unlimited donations now will not have to give them back even if the ruling is stayed in the coming days. But he said candidates will be tentative.
“Contributions to candidates must be disclosed and the public will have access to who is contributing right now and in what amounts. Taking a large contribution right now could lead to political backlash,” Brown said in an email.
Montana has seen many of its laws struck down in the wake the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that opened the door for more corporate spending in federal races, citing freedom of speech issues.
Last month, a federal appeals court struck down Montana’s ban on partisan endorsements of judicial candidates, citing Citizens United.
Lovell earlier this year ruled as unconstitutional laws requiring attack ads to disclose voting records and a ban on knowingly false statements in such ads.
The Supreme Court also tossed the state’s century-old, voter-approved ban on independent corporate political spending in state races. That decision prompted a new ballot initiative that, if approved in November by voters, asks state leaders to seek a constitutional amendment undermining the high court’s decision.
The backers of that initiative seized on the new ruling as evidence their effort must succeed, and said Montana has become the hotspot in the battle over the issue.
“What happens in Montana will have implications for similar ballot initiatives in Colorado, Massachusetts, and beyond,” said Bob Edgar, president of good-government group Common Cause.