•  
  •  
 

First Page

79

Document Type

Article

Abstract

In its Western Tradition Partnership decision, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the constitutionality of state campaign finance restrictions should be reviewed with particular reference to the political history and traditions of the state enacting the regulation. In so holding, the Montana Court recognized that the states have different political cultures and that these different political cultures can lead to very different regulatory concerns. On this basis, the Montana Court concluded that a type of campaign finance restriction that may be unconstitutional when applied to national elections or to elections in one state might be constitutionally permissible when applied to elections in another. The United States Supreme Court did not take this argument seriously. It should have. The political cultures of the states are different, and applying a one-size-fits-all prescription to the constitutionality of campaign finance rules undercuts both this reality and sound principles and protections of federalism.

Included in

Election Law Commons

Share

COinS
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.