As someone who represented some large corporations in the last decade, even I understand the frustrations about transparency in political spending. More money is pouring into Montana elections than ever, and with less information about where it’s coming from. Proponents of Initiative No. 194 (I-194) want to do something about this “dark money” problem, and I applaud their intent. Unfortunately, the consequences of I-194’s approach – no political spending as a condition of doing business in Montana – outweigh the perceived benefits.
Today I manage a trade association of Montana’s rural telecommunications providers, several of which employ fewer than a dozen people. Their headquarters range from Wisdom to Scobey, Forsyth to Eureka, and other communities in between. Our members sponsor the local little league, award scholarships to rural teachers, and wire community gathering spaces with free internet. They join BroadbandMT for political representation, to have a voice with decision-makers on policy that impacts their work.
I-194 would revoke the charter privileges of trade associations like this one if they use their resources to discuss the merits of a candidate or ballot issue. Elections determine who will write policy, and sometimes the policy itself. If BroadbandMT cannot amplify its message in opposition to a ballot measure that would add a new excise tax on your internet bill, where can the informed voter turn to for that perspective? What public good is being served if an industry that is being attacked on the ballot is not allowed to defend itself?
The silencing effect of I-194 is also direct and devastatingly local. A small business, perhaps a rural broadband provider, in its capacity as a leader in its community may be inclined or asked to weigh in on the next voted levy – a school bond or funding for a new fire station. I-194, if passed, would not allow that small business to spend money or “anything of value” (which could really mean anything!) to express its voice on that local issue. Is that really what the good people who want to end “dark money” had in mind with this proposal? I don’t believe so, but I-194 would put main street businesses in the crosshairs of policy that is meant to rein in massive outside spending.
Checkbook transparency and the right to participate in the electoral process are two different things. If we want to do something about disclosure, let’s have that conversation. Like many others, I too would like to know more about which interests have a stake in our elections and how much they are willing to spend to make their voices heard. But carving out small businesses, trade associations, and community groups from the process is not the answer.
Instead of directly addressing the worthy cause of transparency in political spending, I-194 hits the “Easy Button” by effectively prohibiting Montana businesses from exercising their right to political speech in elections. Vote against I-194 this fall not because of its intentions, but because of its consequences.
Bridger Mahlum is general manager at BroadbandMT, Montana’s association of rural telecommunications and broadband providers.