Montana says no to corporate personhood

In all the hoopla over the Iowa Caucus -- who's up, who's down, who's out -- a story from Montana has slipped under the radar.

The Montana Supreme Court closed out 2011 by restoring a 100-year-old ban on direct spending by corporations in political campaigns.

The ban came under fire after the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which grants first amendment rights of free speech to corporations:

The Montana Supreme Court argued there are plenty of ways for corporations to engage in politics, without funneling anonymous money into the process.

"The evidence submitted by the state in the district court similarly demonstrates that corporations, through their political committees organized under Montana law, are and have been a substantial presence and active participants in Montana politics," the court wrote. "The many lobbyists and political committees who participate in each session of the Montana Legislature bear witness. Under the undisputed facts here, the political committee is an easily implemented and effective alternative to direct corporate spending for engaging in political speech."

The decision sets up a potential test case for the Citizens United decision. Given how much money influences election results this question is only going to become more crucial.

The Iowa Caucus marks the first primary since the Citizens United decision, and the flood of money is already rolling in. Romney's narrow win in Iowa comes after pro-Romney super PACs outspent his campaign by a 2-to-1 margin and vastly outspent other candidates.

Romney's campaign isn't the only one benefitting from the well of anonymous money. Spending leading up to Iowa hit $12 million, with two-thirds of the money coming from super PACs. Unlike donations to candidates, donations to super PACs are not limited or identified; a significant portion of the money is unable to be traced.

Montana was one of many states that had a law restricting corporate campaign spending prior to the Citizens United decision, but while other states worked to alter or repeal their bans, Montana defended its ban. The decision will likely force the Supreme Court to take the case, lest other states follow suit.

“If the Montana decision were allowed to stand, it essentially would completely overrule Citizens United, because effectively, every state could make that [same] claim,” [former FEC chairman Brad] Smith said. Assuming that the Montana ruling is appealed, as predicted, the Supreme Court could face the question of whether to revisit Citizens United as early as this spring.