Friday, April 15, 2016
in progress, i may delete this or revise it substantially.
montana is home to some of the most speech-hostile campaign regulations in the country.
a new lawsuit has been filed very recently, reports hasen. i'm having trouble finding that lawsuit,
but turning up interesting things, so collecting them in this post.
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/local/2016/04/14/lawsuit-filed-senate-district-race/83060738/
http://politicalpractices.mt.gov/content/2recentdecisions/TutvedtandWelchvRobertsWTPandNRWDecision
this pdf file isn't letting me cut and paste the relevant sections, but finding of fact 7 involves "attribution" which is what montana calls disclaimers. they are complaining that the disclaimer on a website wasn't adequate. so montana is attempting to regulate the internet, a worldwide communcations medium that cannot be subjected to local ordinances.
my guess is if i look at the montana constitution it will say something about free speech.
Section 6. Freedom of assembly. The people shall have the right peaceably to assemble, petition for redress or peaceably protest governmental action.
Section 7. Freedom of speech, expression, and press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech or expression. Every person shall be free to speak or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty.
Section 10. Right of privacy. The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.
Section 13. Right of suffrage. All elections shall be free and open, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.
Section 18. State subject to suit. The state, counties, cities, towns, and all other local governmental entities shall have no immunity from suit for injury to a person or property, except as may be specifically provided by law by a 2/3 vote of each house of the legislature. all adopted 1972.
"It's not a good day for Montanans when somebody challenges reporting and disclosure," Motl said. "It's the foundation of democratic involvement in the electoral process."
Wittich hunt:
http://politicalpractices.mt.gov/content/2recentdecisions/MeddockvFitzpatrickDecision
typical disclaimer harrassment.
t. ADVOCATE (a) A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein: (1) without having fi rst determined through diligent investigation that there is a bona fi de basis in law and fact for the position to be advocated; (2) for the purpose of harassment, delay, advancement of a nonmeritorious claim or solely to gain leverage; or (3) to extend, modify or reverse existing law unless a bona fi de basis in law and fact exists for advocating doing so. (b) A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the
(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifi cations or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory offi cer or public legal offi cer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal offi ce. (b) A lawyer who is a candidate for jud
(b) commit a criminal act that refl ects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fi tness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; (e) state or imply an
http://politicalpractices.mt.gov/content/2recentdecisions/DuffyvNeilDecision
The determination of attribution as to these particular Posters is nuanced. The Posters are anonymous and, under some circumstances, 1"t amendment principles limit enforcement of the attribution requirement of S 13- 35-225 MCA in regard to ErnonJ[nous campaign documents. This measure is best defined in the case of Mclntgre u. Ohio Elections Commission,514 U.S. 334, 347 (19951:'[u]nder our Constitution, anonyrnous pamphleteering is not a pernicious fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent."
Past Montana Commissioners, citing Mclntgre, have determined that the lst Amendment protects written displays (leaflets, pamphlets, signs, posters) of unattributed (anonymous) speech from application of parts of Montana's Campaign Practice Acti Vanmeter u. asksheriffluckglarson, November 10, 2011 (Commissioner Gallik), Wittich u. Campbell, November 17 , 2OO9 (Commissioner Unsworth), McAllister v Gardiner School District, April 2003 (Commissioner Vaughey) and Harmon u. Sweet, December 31, 1997 (Commissioner Argenbright). In this particular matter, however, the Commissioner determines that anonymity was waived
First, Candidate Neil paid for the Posters and placed her name in the Posters.a Second, Candidate Neil informs that she hung the a This use ofher name in the document alone argues against an intention of anonymity. See Bixler u. Suprock, COPP-2O13-CFP-013 (Commissioner Motl) and Olsen u. Valance, November 17 , 2OO9 (Commissioner Unsworth). Decision re: Duffu u. NeiI Page 4 Poster in her own place of business and posted it herself in 4 other public places around town. (FOF No. 7). Both of these actions demonstrate that Candidate Neil did not intend anonymity as to her actions in paying for the
Cangon Ferry Rd. Baptist Church of E. Helena, Inc. u. Unsworth" 556 F. 3d IO2L, LO2a-29 (9th Cir. 2O09) - de minimum requirement
complainmt dismissed as de minimus, but for the wrong reasons. that is, mcintyre bars montana's attribution requirement.
http://politicalpractices.mt.gov/content/2recentdecisions/campbellvbrownoneileverett
no enforcement, but threat of enforcement. 2008.
http://politicalpractices.mt.gov/content/5campaignfinance/AugieAgaWebsiteBannerAdAttributionOpinion 2014 advisory opinion about web page disclaimers - required but waived in this because too small.
zero dollar disclosure upheld
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/montana/mtdce/6:2012cv00095/42265/42/
landsgaard opinion - adopts policy against frivolous complaints. shows complaints went from 1 every ten years to 30 a year.
strizich decision
http://politicalpractices.mt.gov/content/2recentdecisions/StrizichvLoneyDecision
requires elephant on gop literature. more unconstitutional compelled speech.
montana is home to some of the most speech-hostile campaign regulations in the country.
a new lawsuit has been filed very recently, reports hasen. i'm having trouble finding that lawsuit,
but turning up interesting things, so collecting them in this post.
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/local/2016/04/14/lawsuit-filed-senate-district-race/83060738/
http://politicalpractices.mt.gov/content/2recentdecisions/TutvedtandWelchvRobertsWTPandNRWDecision
this pdf file isn't letting me cut and paste the relevant sections, but finding of fact 7 involves "attribution" which is what montana calls disclaimers. they are complaining that the disclaimer on a website wasn't adequate. so montana is attempting to regulate the internet, a worldwide communcations medium that cannot be subjected to local ordinances.
my guess is if i look at the montana constitution it will say something about free speech.
Section 6. Freedom of assembly. The people shall have the right peaceably to assemble, petition for redress or peaceably protest governmental action.
Section 7. Freedom of speech, expression, and press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech or expression. Every person shall be free to speak or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty.
Section 10. Right of privacy. The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.
Section 13. Right of suffrage. All elections shall be free and open, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.
Section 18. State subject to suit. The state, counties, cities, towns, and all other local governmental entities shall have no immunity from suit for injury to a person or property, except as may be specifically provided by law by a 2/3 vote of each house of the legislature. all adopted 1972.
"It's not a good day for Montanans when somebody challenges reporting and disclosure," Motl said. "It's the foundation of democratic involvement in the electoral process."
Wittich hunt:
http://politicalpractices.mt.gov/content/2recentdecisions/MeddockvFitzpatrickDecision
typical disclaimer harrassment.
Jonathan Motl was the author of two initiatives proposed for the November 2008 ballot in Montana, the Montana Home and Community Care Act (2008) and Montana Healthy Kids Plan Act, I-155 (2008).
Motl was partner in the law firm of Reynolds, Motl & Sherwood in Helena, Montana from 1982 through 2013. In 2013, he was appointed to the role of Montana Commissioner of Political Practices. He is a member of the State Bar of Montana, Montana Trial Lawyers Association, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. He serves on the boards of the Montana Justice Foundation and the Montana Public Interest Research Foundation. In 1979-1981, he was a staff aide to Ralph Nader.
http://www.montanaodc.org/ComplaintbrnbspnbspnbspnbspnbspForm/tabid/1210/Default.aspxt. ADVOCATE (a) A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein: (1) without having fi rst determined through diligent investigation that there is a bona fi de basis in law and fact for the position to be advocated; (2) for the purpose of harassment, delay, advancement of a nonmeritorious claim or solely to gain leverage; or (3) to extend, modify or reverse existing law unless a bona fi de basis in law and fact exists for advocating doing so. (b) A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the
(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifi cations or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory offi cer or public legal offi cer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal offi ce. (b) A lawyer who is a candidate for jud
(b) commit a criminal act that refl ects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fi tness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; (e) state or imply an
http://politicalpractices.mt.gov/content/2recentdecisions/DuffyvNeilDecision
The determination of attribution as to these particular Posters is nuanced. The Posters are anonymous and, under some circumstances, 1"t amendment principles limit enforcement of the attribution requirement of S 13- 35-225 MCA in regard to ErnonJ[nous campaign documents. This measure is best defined in the case of Mclntgre u. Ohio Elections Commission,514 U.S. 334, 347 (19951:'[u]nder our Constitution, anonyrnous pamphleteering is not a pernicious fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent."
Past Montana Commissioners, citing Mclntgre, have determined that the lst Amendment protects written displays (leaflets, pamphlets, signs, posters) of unattributed (anonymous) speech from application of parts of Montana's Campaign Practice Acti Vanmeter u. asksheriffluckglarson, November 10, 2011 (Commissioner Gallik), Wittich u. Campbell, November 17 , 2OO9 (Commissioner Unsworth), McAllister v Gardiner School District, April 2003 (Commissioner Vaughey) and Harmon u. Sweet, December 31, 1997 (Commissioner Argenbright). In this particular matter, however, the Commissioner determines that anonymity was waived
First, Candidate Neil paid for the Posters and placed her name in the Posters.a Second, Candidate Neil informs that she hung the a This use ofher name in the document alone argues against an intention of anonymity. See Bixler u. Suprock, COPP-2O13-CFP-013 (Commissioner Motl) and Olsen u. Valance, November 17 , 2OO9 (Commissioner Unsworth). Decision re: Duffu u. NeiI Page 4 Poster in her own place of business and posted it herself in 4 other public places around town. (FOF No. 7). Both of these actions demonstrate that Candidate Neil did not intend anonymity as to her actions in paying for the
Cangon Ferry Rd. Baptist Church of E. Helena, Inc. u. Unsworth" 556 F. 3d IO2L, LO2a-29 (9th Cir. 2O09) - de minimum requirement
complainmt dismissed as de minimus, but for the wrong reasons. that is, mcintyre bars montana's attribution requirement.
http://politicalpractices.mt.gov/content/2recentdecisions/campbellvbrownoneileverett
no enforcement, but threat of enforcement. 2008.
http://politicalpractices.mt.gov/content/5campaignfinance/AugieAgaWebsiteBannerAdAttributionOpinion 2014 advisory opinion about web page disclaimers - required but waived in this because too small.
zero dollar disclosure upheld
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/montana/mtdce/6:2012cv00095/42265/42/
landsgaard opinion - adopts policy against frivolous complaints. shows complaints went from 1 every ten years to 30 a year.
strizich decision
http://politicalpractices.mt.gov/content/2recentdecisions/StrizichvLoneyDecision
requires elephant on gop literature. more unconstitutional compelled speech.
Comments:
Post a Comment
