Citizens United Backs Matt Rosendale
Helena – Citizens United, the controversial organization that made dark money the law of the land, is backing Matt Rosendale.
In an op-ed Monday, David Bossie, President of Citizens United, named Rosendale among four candidates who had his organization’s backing.
The Supreme Court’s unpopular 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission paved the way for super PACs and unleashed unprecedented amounts of special interest money being spent on elections.
Matt Rosendale, meanwhile, has said the Citizens United decision was a “positive” decision, and opposed limiting corporate spending after the decision. Rosendale also voted against legislation to require dark money groups to disclose their donors.
Support for Rosendale from Citizens United is no surprise, considering Washington special interests are beginning to coalesce around Rosendale, who has a record in the state legislature of fighting against more disclosure of dark money by special interest groups.
“Citizens United endorsing Matt Rosendale is sad, but unfortunately not surprising,” said Chris Meagher, spokesman for the Montana Democratic Party. “More than a year before the 2018 election, outside special interest groups have already began flooding Montana with dark money, and Matt Rosendale has unfortunately given this dark money his seal of approval.”
MATT ROSENDALE SAID CITIZENS UNITED WAS A “POSITIVE” DECISION BECAUSE IT REMOVED “ARBITRARY LIMITS” ON GROUPS
Matt Rosendale: Citizens United And McCutcheon Decisions Were “Positive” Because They Removed “Arbitrary Limits” On Groups. “The Gazette asked Montana candidates for U.S. House: Will the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on campaign finance law in McCutcheon and Citizens United have a mostly positive or mostly negative effect on your congressional race?...Matt Rosendale: Republican I think the most important thing to focus on is the Supreme Court’s decision to protect freedom of speech. It is absolutely vital to protect the right of individuals, and groups of individuals, who share the same concerns to support or oppose any issue that they desire. To set arbitrary limits on these groups, or individuals, does in fact infringe on their right to free speech. As to whether this will have a mostly negative or mostly positive effect on this race, I believe that protecting the rights of our citizens is always a good thing and to the end, that is what we as elected officials have been charged with. So yes, that is positive.” [Billings Gazette,5/14/14]
MATT ROSENDALE OPPOSED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT LIMITING CORPORATE POLITICAL SPENDING FOLLOWING THE SUPREME COURT’S CITIZENS UNITED DECISION
Matt Rosendale Opposed A Constitutional Amendment Limiting Political Spending After The Supreme Court’s Campaign Finance Decisions. “Here’s where Rosendale stands on some other issues:…— Campaign finance changes. He opposes Congress proposing a constitutional amendment to limit corporate and union political spending after U.S. Supreme Court decisions. ‘I think that freedom of speech is just that and groups have the right to support or oppose issues that are going to affect them as well as individuals do,’ he said.” [Billings Gazette, 4/22/14]
MATT ROSENDALE VOTED AGAINST REQUIRING DARK MONEY GROUPS DISCLOSE THEIR DONORS AND EXPENDITURES
Matt Rosendale Voted Against The Montana Disclose Act, Requiring Dark Money Groups Participating In Elections To Disclose Their Donors And Campaign Expenditures. On April 15, 2015, Matt Rosendale voted against concurring in SB 289 on the third reading. KRTV reported: “Just a few signatures and its official. Senate Bill 289, the Montana Disclose Act, became law at the hand of Governor Steve Bullock on Wednesday. The Disclose Act requires any independent group that puts money into an election campaign to reveal how the money is being used and where it's coming from. The measure increases how often election activity reporting is required. Bullock said SB 289 bill is about creating transparency and getting rid of dark money, which he said corrupts elections.” The measure was approved by a vote of 30-20 and signed into law. [KRTV,4/22/15; Vote 1560, SB 289, 4/15/15]
2013: Matt Rosendale Voted Against The Bipartisan TRACE Act, Which Would Require Anonymous Dark Money Political Groups To Disclose Their Donors. On March 26, 2013, Matt Rosendale voted against SB 375 on the third reading. TheMissoulian reported: “The Senate, in a vote Monday that exposed the split among Republicans, endorsed an overhaul of Montana’s campaign finance law to require anonymous ‘dark money’ political groups to disclose their donors. After a nearly three-hour debate, the Senate voted 29-21 in favor of Senate Bill 375 by Sen. Jim Peterson, R-Buffalo. It faces a final Senate vote before moving to the House. A combination of nine Republicans and 20 Democrats voted for the bill, while 20 Republicans, including the party’s leaders, and one Democrat opposed it. A similar coalition on Friday successfully blasted the bill from the Senate Judiciary Committee where it had stalled. Peterson has worked with Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock on what they call the TRACE Act, which stands for Transparency, Reporting and Accountability in Campaigns and Elections Act.” The measure was passed by a vote of 29-21. [Vote 1148, SB 375, 3/27/13; Missoulian,3/26/13]
- Republican Senator Jim Peterson: TRACE Act Was “All About Following The Money…We’re Trying To Level The Playing Field.” “After a nearly three-hour debate, the Senate voted 29-21 in favor of Senate Bill 375 by Sen. Jim Peterson, R-Buffalo. It faces a final Senate vote before moving to the House…Peterson has worked with Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock on what they call the TRACE Act, which stands for Transparency, Reporting and Accountability in Campaigns and Elections Act. They and other advocates of the bill called it a major campaign reform bill that’s desperately needed in a state in recent years where candidates have faced an onslaught of anonymous attack mailings from groups affiliated with American Tradition Partnership and others. A documentary by the PBS television show ‘Frontline’ exposed some of the attack mailings sent here. ‘I feel like this bill is all about following the money,’ Peterson said. ‘We’re trying to level the playing field.’” [Missoulian, 3/26/13]