Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General, 271 P.3d 1

Background

Plaintiffs Western Tradition Partnership (WTP), Champion Painting, and Montana Shooting Sports Foundation (MSSF) sued the Montana AG and the Commissioner of Political Practices over §13-35-227(1), MCA, prohibiting corporate political expenditures for or against candidates.
District Court found §13-35-227(1) unconstitutional, granted plaintiffs summary judgment, and enjoined enforcement.
State appealed the summary judgment; plaintiffs cross-appealed from denial of attorney fees.
Court held Citizens United applies but Montana has a compelling interest in preserving electoral integrity and judicial independence, and the statute is narrowly tailored.
Statute can be implemented with disclosure and separate segregated funds; the case involves Montana history and context, including concerns about corporate influence on elections.
Concluding, the Court reverses the District Court and grants summary judgment for the State on §13-35-227(1).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §13-35-227(1) violates the First Amendment as applied to corporate independent expenditures	WTP, MSSA, Champion argue the ban suppresses corporate speech	State contends the law serves a compelling, narrowly tailored interest	Section 13-35-227(1) is constitutional under strict scrutiny
Whether Montana’s PAC/voluntary-contribution workaround preserves speech	PAC alternative would still restrict corporate speech	PACs are permissible but do not adequately substitute for direct expenditures	Statute remains narrowly tailored and permissible with PAC disclosure framework
Whether Montana has a compelling state interest to justify restrictions on corporate speech	Montana history shows corruption risks, unique conditions	Citizens United rejected broad justifications for bans; compelling interest exists here	Montana has compelling interests in electoral integrity and judicial impartiality supporting the statute
Whether the restriction is narrowly tailored to achieve Montana’s objectives	Restrictions sweep too broadly against corporate speech	Disclosures and structured bans satisfy tailoring requirements	Yes; §13-35-227(1) narrowly furthers interests with limited impact on MSSF and Champion
Whether the statute's impact on the judiciary justifies restrictions on corporate speech	Caperton/White concerns about judicial integrity require limits on corporate influence	Citizens United forecloses broad bans; disclosure suffices	Statute upheld to protect judicial integrity and public confidence

Key Cases Cited

Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (U.S. 2010) (corporate independent expenditures are protected; disclosure allowed)
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (limits on contributions permitted; independent expenditures not to be curtailed by broad bans)
Wis. Right to Life v. FEC, 551 U.S. 449 (U.S. 2007) (struck down certain restrictions but endorsed disclosure regime under scrutiny)
Caperton v. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (U.S. 2009) (judicial integrity; recusal as remedy; limits on influence in judiciary)
Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (U.S. 1990) (antidistortion rationale; acknowledged political spending influence concerns)
Bellotti v. Massachusetts, 435 U.S. 765 (U.S. 1978) ( First Amendment and corporate speech; cannot ban political speech based on corporate identity)
First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (U.S. 1978) (reaffirmed open marketplace of ideas; corporate speech protection)
White v. Minnesota, White, 536 U.S. 765 (U.S. 2002) (recusal and judicial elections context informing speech protections)