HELENA, Mont. (Legal Newsline) - Montana's challenged election reporting requirements were appropriately used, a federal judge has ruled in a challenge brought by a conservative group accused of violating them.
Judge Donald Molloy on Oct. 6 decided those rules were properly applied to Convention of States Political Fund, which filed suit earlier this year after it was accused by Montana officials of violating campaign reporting and disclosure laws around the June 7 primary.
CSPF supported three legislative candidates but, as a nonresident of Montana, was required to make certain disclosures.
One option would be for CSPF to submit reports in the same manner and subject to the same deadlines used in its home state if the reports fully disclose how money was raised and spent in Montana.
Or CSPF could have met the reporting requirements of a resident Montana political action committee. The group had much back-and-forth with Montana after a complaint noted a flyer didn't list its address or treasurer.
Ultimately, a state elections commissioner found CSPF failed to file a statement of organization within five days of its first expenditure and is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and not in Michigan, and thus had failed to abide by D.C. reporting requirements.
Later, Commissioner of Political Practices Jeff Mangan's conceded CSPF isn't headquartered in D.C., and CSPF filed its Michigan report. However, the reports did not comport with Montana's monthly reporting requirements, Molloy wrote.
CSPF challenged the COPP's rule-making authority - "Plaintiff claims it is the Commissioner's interpretation of the applicable deadlines, as stated in phone calls by two different staff persons responding to Plaintiff's questions, that causes consternation," Molloy wrote.
But Molloy wrote Montana's deadlines are appropriate for its election cycle.
"Here, for example, Plaintiff made an expenditure supporting a candidate prior to the June primary," he wrote. "Under Montana's deadlines, that expenditure would be disclosed prior to that primary vote.
"Under Michigan's deadline, however, that disclosure was not made until a month and a half after the primary election hadd already occurred. Thus, the public was not informed of the circumstances surrounding the candidates and their support during the relevant time period.
"And, more generally, political committees could consciously avoid disclosure by forming in states with less stringent disclosure deadlines than Montana. Both results undermine the very purpose of Montana's campaign disclosure laws."