HELENA, MT (Legal Newsline) - An out-of-state political action committee has filed a federal complaint against Montana’s commissioner of political practices (COPP), alleging that confusing and arbitrary reporting guidelines covering political expenditures infringes on the group’s constitutional rights of free expression.
Edward Greim, an attorney with Graves Garrett LLC representing the Michigan-based Convention of States Political Fund (CSPF), said the political action committee has done everything it can to comply with COPP’s nonresident disclosure requirements, but finally “had enough” and filed the complaint in U.S. District Court on July 22. The defendant is Commissioner of Political Practices Jeffrey Mangan, a former Democratic lawmaker from Great Falls.
“We were in talks with them about what they needed and all of a sudden they said we were in violation of the law,” Greim told Legal Newsline.
The threatened fine, he added, was "hundreds of thousands of dollars; an outrageous amount. Missouri would fine someone $1,000 and settle for $500.”
Greim said that COPP initially agreed that CSPF could file its spending reports following a Michigan timeline. The office then changed its opinion, claiming at one point that CSPF was based in Washington, D.C., and must follow a different reporting timeline. According to Greim, COPP also kept digging for more information even after CSPF had turned over everything it had.
“We gave them everything they could possibly want,” Greim said.
The dispute stems from a May 20 campaign practices complaint filed by Florence resident Von Dailey against first-time candidate Wayne Rusk of Stevensville, running in the Republican primary in House District 88. The complaint said that “included political advertisement for Wayne Rusk was paid for by the Convention of States Political Fund but does not include a political address or a treasurer.”
CSPF also backed state Sen. Jason Ellsworth (R-Hamilton) and state Rep. Ross Fitzgerald (R-Fairfield) in their June 7 primary runs. All three candidates won their races.
The lawsuit alleges that COPP’s reporting requirements are so vague that they raise concerns under both the First and 14th Amendments, risk chilling free speech, and raise due process concern of fair notice and arbitrary enforcement.
The complaint also claims vague laws “stand in basic opposition to the rule of law."
“In evaluating whether a regulation is unconstitutionally vague, courts ask whether it fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement,” the complaint states.
“They are used to raking in the money this way,” Greim said. “They expect most people are going to roll over and pay the fine.”