Molnar v. Fox
2013 MT 132
Mont.2013Background
- Molnar, a Montana Public Service Commissioner candidate, sought reelection while Fox, a district resident and Molnar's opponent’s campaign manager, filed ethics complaints in 2008.
- Fox alleged Molnar received gifts of substantial value from NorthWestern Energy and PPL Montana to aid the Billings Brownout; Molnar deposited the funds personally and used them for campaign materials.
- Fox also alleged Molnar used PSC email, phone, and computer for reelection and campaign purposes, including a Fundraising Letter, campaign website, and emails to media and the Bucking Horse Sale.
- Hearing examiner Corbett found Molnar violated § 2-2-104 by accepting unlawful gifts and § 2-2-121 by improper use of state facilities; recommended fines and costs; the Commissioner adopted and augmented the decision.
- Molnar petitioned for judicial review; the District Court affirmed; Molnar appealed to the Montana Supreme Court, which also affirmed on all issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to file ethics complaints | Fox had standing as a 'person' who could file under § 2-2-136(1). | Molnar argued standing should require direct harm to Fox; ordinary public harms are insufficient. | Fox had standing; statute permits any person to file ethics complaints. |
| Gifts of substantial value were unlawful | Molnar contends funds were gifts used for education and fall within exemptions. | Molnar received personal, unrestricted funds; exemptions do not apply when money is given directly to the officer. | Gifts were unlawful; Molnar accepted gifts of substantial value that could improperly influence. |
| Use of state facilities for political purposes | Molnar argues time-based limits create absurd results; focus is on use of facilities. | Molnar used PSC email/phone and state facilities for campaign activities via Fundraising Letter, website, etc. | Molnar violated § 2-2-121(3)(a) by using public facilities for campaign purposes. |
| Penalty statute not vague | Molnar claims § 2-2-136 penalties are vague about multiple fines versus a single fine. | Statute constitutionally applied; separate fines authorized by the Commissioner’s discretion. | Penalty provision held not unconstitutionally vague; separate fines permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson v. Mont. Pub. Serv. Commn., 2012 MT 32 (Mont. 2012) (administrative standing; PSC not a court; standing governed by statute)
- Baxter Homeowners Assn. Inc. v. Angel, 2013 MT 83 (Mont. 2013) (standing standards for administrative proceedings)
- Mont. Power Co. v. Mont. PSC, 2001 MT 102 (Mont. 2001) (interpretive guidance of executive agency on statute meaning)
- Bitterroot River Protective Assn. v. Bitterroot Conserv. Dist., 2008 MT 377 (Mont. 2008) (avoid absurd constitutional interpretations in statutory construction)
- Mont. Sports Shooting Assn. v. State, 2008 MT 190 (Mont. 2008) (avoid unconstitutional interpretations in statutory construction)