Copper Kings | Should Nonprofits Have a Voice?

From I Believe · 10:41

Show by Joel K. Douglas

Copper made Montana, and Montana made Copper Kings. 1899. The Montana legislature elected William A. Clark to the United States Senate. A copper fortune helped him get there. Payments to legislators who would cast the votes helped things along. In 1899, Americans didn’t elect their senators directly. Their representatives did that, and Clark’s agents had gone to the people who could give him the seat.The scandal followed him to Washington. A Senate committee investigated, heard evidence of bribery, and unanimously concluded that Clark was not entitled to his seat. He resigned in May 1900 before the full Senate could vote. Clark group were Montana’s Copper Kings. Battles over mining wealth spilled into politics and the courts. Montanans grew suspicious of the money.In October 1903, Amalgamated Copper was one party to a bitter court fight. They shut down its Montana operations and put thousands of people out of work. The Governor called a special legislative session. Lawmakers passed the Fair Trial Bill, changing the rules for replacing judges. Powerful owners created crisis for workers, their families, and the state.Montanans remembered. In 1906 they gave citizens a way to make law without waiting for legislators. In 1912, voters passed the Corrupt Practices Act. Corporations would no longer contribute money to candidates or spend money to help elect or defeat them. More than three-quarters of voters supported it.Montana made Copper Kings, and they would break them.So. One hundred and some odd years pass.On November 3, Montana voters approved another measure aimed at corporate political spending. Curious. Research took the stage back to the Copper Kings, but to a question much closer to the groups we know today: Do we intend to stop nonprofits from advertising on behalf of issues and candidates, too?We hear proposals to remove “corporate money” from elections and imagine oil companies, banks, technology firms, and mining conglomerates. What about groups that defend public schools, protect wildlife, oppose abortion, support abortion rights, defend gun ownership, or promote religious freedom? Before going further, we need to be clear. This issue is directly connected to Citizens United. The organization behind that case was itself a nonprofit. It made a film critical of Hillary Clinton and wanted to distribute it through cable television during the 2008 presidential primary season. Federal election law restricted that use of corporate money. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not prohibit independent election spending simply because the speaker was a corporation.This decision became known as Citizens United.In other words, even though a corporation couldn’t directly give money to a candidate, it could run political ads on their behalf.But it has to be independent. They pay for its own message without coordinating it with the candidate’s campaign. The corporation might buy an advertisement urging voters to support a candidate or defeat one. Different from handing money to the candidate. The ban on direct corporate payments to candidates stayed in place.Montana’s law and Citizens United came to a head.Montana tried to preserve its restriction by pointing to its own history. In 2012, the Supreme Court rejected that argument and applied Citizens United to Montana. And…corporations started running political ads over the airwaves in Montana.Not to be outdone, Montana chose a different approach. Voters approved Initiative 194, the Montana Plan, with about 65 percent of the vote in the November 5 count. Supporters argue that Montana doesn’t have to give an organization the legal capacity to spend on elections merely because the state allows it to exist.Leading up to the election were ads talking about getting corporate money out of politics.That sounds like something we can all get behind. Hidden in plain sight were other groups that would be banned. The official ballots had the details. Nonprofits, trade associations, partnerships, trusts. Worth noticing is our own reaction to the phrase “corporate money.” A mining company and a nonprofit defending religious liberty may both be corporations. There may be reasons to ban nonprofits. If a law prohibited commercial corporations from buying election advertisements but exempted every nonprofit, a company could just make a nonprofit affiliate to carry its message. But people also form nonprofits to achieve goals they can’t accomplish alone. They pool money, hire someone who understands an issue, conduct research, and try to persuade their neighbors. A small donation that could not buy much advertising by itself can help pay for a shared message. An organization can give ordinary people a voice. Of course it can also give a wealthy donor a much larger voice. Montana’s law already faces a legal challenge. Let’s say it stands. Some might see it as a way to overturn Citizens United.Let’s Suppose this became our national approach. This fall in the state…

More episodes of I Believe

More episodes

PodSearch is a free, independent podcast search engine. Read about PodSearch, the privacy policy or contact us.