Montana Supreme Court Uphold's Corporate Ban

The Supreme Court of Montana upheld a 1912 state law that banned corporations from spending money in "connection with a candidate or political party that support or opposes a candidate or political party". The original law in Montana was in response to Copper Baron's that had used their purse strings to purchase judges and legislators to do their bidding. The Montana Supreme Court upheld the law by a 5-2 vote.

While many will see this as a great victory to encourage the United States to reverse their Citizen United case from last year, I see this as a state exerting their 10th Amendment Rights. The 1912 law deals with state and local elections and does not impact the national elections that come through town every four years. If Montana gets a chance to argue their case before the Supreme Court and make a valid case that the 1912 law only effects state and local elections thus doesn't fall under the Citizen United precedent; rather the 1912 law is protected by the 10th Amendment then it could have a ripple effect to other laws of the land.

The ripple effect would be seen first through commerce and actually be a means for states to Constitutionally opt out of Obamacare since their is no interstate commerce going on. Possible even see challenges to Roe v. Wade, Affirmative Action, DOMA and other social concepts that not all States may agree with. Which brings me back to may original point that many that don't agree with Citizen United see this as a possible victory, if it stands I see it having a larger impact on States being able to wrestle back the 10th Amendment that has been eroded since it's birth.

Target doesn’t bend to special interests!

Today comments I sent into the Star Tribune were published on the topic of Targets donation to a pro-business group that subsequently gave money to Rep. Tom Emmer's campaign for Minnesota Governor. The comments posted today is the second time my comments were published by the Star Tribune on this topic. My comment from July 29, 2010 (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/100939139.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:Ug8P:Pc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr) were:

 

The uproar by the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) community over Target's $150,000 donation to a group that has placed an ad for Tom Emmer is questionable. Target is one company that recognizes the plight of the GLBT community by offering domestic partnership benefits and donating money to pride parades.

The donation by Target is to back a candidate who is probusiness.

Why is it OK for the GLBT community to focus on one issue when backing a candidate, but not OK for Target?

Since that time advertising and negotiations have been taking place trying to force Target into donating similar money to groups and candidates that a friendly to the GLBT community. After hearing that Target said they would not cave to pressures from outside of Minnesota I wrote this(http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/100939139.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:Ug8P:Pc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr):

 

Kudos to Target executives for not being baited by the Human Rights Campaign into an attempt to extort money by a single-issue group ("Target balks at counter contribution," Aug. 17). Does the HRC not realize that Target offers benefit programs that are friendly to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community while also giving money for the annual Pride festival? Or is this just another case of an outside force coming to Minnesota to push its weight around?

Target executives made a business decision to give money to a probusiness group that in turn helps probusiness candidates get elected. Target did not donate money to an anti-GLBT group. Will the HRC hire all the workers that Target, or any other company, has to let go if the environment in Minnesota becomes too toxic for businesses to thrive?

To paint Target, or any other business, has being anti-GLBT is pathetic. People are boycotting Target as well because of their donation choice. Don't people understand that in order for Target to thrive and offer jobs that it will back pro-business groups? Just take a look at the West Coast. Recently Utah raised their top level tax rate to 11% and the result was many businesses left the state and revenues dropped by $600 million. We need businesses in our communities to keep tax revenue flowing and if that means they donate money to a pro-business candidate then so be it. As I originally posed, "Why is it OK for the GLBT community to focus on one issue when backing a candidate, but not OK for Target?"