WASHINGTON - Another major Supreme Court decision on campaign finance could come as early as next week. In McCutcheon v. Federal Elections Commission, Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon said his First Amendment rights are violated when he cannot give a $2,600 donation to as many parties and candidates for federal office as he pleases. Many groups working to get money out of politics hope the high court rules against McCutcheon.

Others, such as Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the libertarian Cato Institute, favor an end to all restrictions on political donations.

Trevor Burrus is a research fellow with the Cato Center for Constitutional Studies. He explained Cato's position on the issue.

"I do not think the danger of protecting the voice of the little guy is something the federal government, or any government, should be involved in. It's not a First Amendment concern that there are people out there who speak louder than other people and have more influence," Burrus said.

He contended that all of the time that politicians must devote to fundraising keeps them from doing their job. Therefore, he would like to see an end to all limits on donations to candidates, parties and political action committees, he said.

Efficient as it might be for a very few donors to fund much larger portions of campaigns, Emma Boorboor, democracy associate, U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG), said the current overall limit is "plenty" already - in fact, it is almost double the median family income.

"Absent this limit, one wealthy donor would be permitted to contribute more than $3.5 million to a single party's candidates and party committees in one election cycle," Boorboor warned.

Support is building to keep limits in place, she said, from labor, faith, environmental and other groups.

"The more that special interests and corporations are able to spend money to influence the outcome of elections, the harder it's going to be to make progress on the issues that people really care about," Boorboor said.

These groups also would like to see the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United overturned. That ruling said corporations and unions are "people" under the law, and therefore money they spend on elections is a form of protected free speech.




get more stories like this via email

Early voting for the Wisconsin Supreme Court race starts next week and, although the seat is technically nonpartisan, both candidates have clear political alignments and backers that are being heavily scrutinized. The topic prompted some of the sparks in last night's heated debate.

Republican billionaire Elon Musk has poured millions into backing Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel in the April Supreme Court race. Musk's company Tesla is suing the state for denying its request for dealers licenses - a case that could reach the high court.

University of Wisconsin-Madison mass communications professor Michael Wagner said the state's rule about justices making their own decisions about when to recuse themselves from cases makes the election outcome that much more consequential.

"It's in a presidential swing state, it's on a swing court," said Wagner, "and the cases that are going to come before the court are going to be cases where the donors in the election, most notably Elon Musk, have a clear interest and a clear path they want the winning judge to take."

Judge Susan Crawford of Dane County has been called out for receiving campaign money from Democratic billionaire George Soros and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker. Spending on this race is expected to top the historic $56 million spent on the last state Supreme Court race.

Millions have been spent on ads to sway undecided voters. A recent Marquette University poll found many say they still don't know enough about each candidate. Wagner said he doesn't think they'll have a dramatic impact on the election outcome, and predicted party allegiance will drive most voters. But he notes some of the ads egregiously misrepresent the candidates - such as a Schimel campaign ad that featured the wrong Susan Crawford - which speaks to today's contentious political climate.

"We live in this environment where it's just easier to take the shortcut that feels good in the moment," he said, "even if it's not true, even if it isn't good for the long-term 'project' of living together and governing together as citizens."

The April 1 election is already in the national spotlight, as it will determine the political influence of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Early voting begins next Tuesday.

Nearly 1,000 political scientists from across the U.S., including Montana, have signed a statement expressing how they feel the Trump administration's actions are threatening American democracy.

The letter, signed by experts at colleges and universities in both red and blue states, highlights six specific concerns. They include the administration's actions to cancel spending approved by Congress.

Montana State University Professor of Political Science Sara Rushing noted that while cutting expenses may be a good business strategy, democracy is not a business.

That's why, she said, there are checks and balances.

"We have these procedures and practices built in to slow things down, build consensus, abide by processes, and make sure that things are fair and transparent," said Rushing. "Efficiency has never been the preeminent value of democracy."

She encouraged her fellow political scientists not to strike a tone of neutrality because, as she put it, democratic procedures and stakes "shouldn't be up for debate."

In defense of its actions, the White House says it's ensuring all federal agencies are accountable to the American people, as required by the Constitution.

More than 29% of Montana's land base is public land managed by federal agencies.

Montanans who previously worked for those agencies were some of the first to be directly affected by federal cuts, after an initial round of firings in mid-February.

Rushing said she worries the government's commitment to efficiency will "break" the systems that protect public lands.

"So, you can break Yellowstone and make it function terribly," said Rushing, "and then you can make an argument for privatizing it and running it like a business. And that would be a massive loss - not just to Montanans, but to Americans as a whole."

According to a 2024 University of Montana survey, 95% of Montanans said they visited national public lands in the past year, and about half of those said they paid more than ten visits.

Support for this reporting was provided by Carnegie Corporation of New York.




get more stories like this via email

Nearly 1,000 political scientists from across the U.S. have signed a letter, saying American democracy is under threat based on the early actions of the new Trump administration. A North Dakota expert is among those speaking out. Those who added their names to the statement work for colleges and universities in both "red" and "blue" states. They highlight six specific areas of concern, including the administration acting unilaterally to cancel spending approved by Congress. They say moves like that undermine checks and balances.

Mark Jendrysik, a political science professor based in North Dakota, says he personally feels the nation is in a "constitutional crisis."

"The presidency is attempting to basically render Congress superfluous to almost every important decision, and the most important decision, which is how money is raised and spent," hew said.

He added that Congress, currently under Republican control, seems too willing to surrender that power and said this has been a crisis building for decades, with the executive branch trying to seize more control. In defending certain actions, the White House says it's ensuring that all federal agencies are accountable to the American people, as required by the Constitution.

But Jendrysik, who isn't speaking on behalf of the University of North Dakota where he teaches, says the arguments he's seen from the Trump administration don't hold up. He says he realizes some people choose not to pay attention to what's happening, but he thinks both Congress and citizens should be worried, too.

"Someone else smarter than me [once] said, 'When citizens stop saying "the public affairs aren't my concern," then the republic is lost,'" he continued.

The authors behind the statement say Trump fairly won last fall's election, but add that his
victory doesn't grant him the right to overturn the nation's constitutional and legal order. Other political observers say longtime dysfunction in Congress in addressing the nation's problems has allowed too many voters to consistently view the legislative branch as ineffective, giving rise to an administration willing to push legal and ethical boundaries.


get more stories like this via email