Wisconsin shifts left, montana defies citizens united

The political landscape is undergoing a subtle but significant realignment this week, with developments in Wisconsin and Montana signaling potential shifts in judicial power and campaign finance regulations. While typically reserved for our Thursday analysis, these developments demand immediate attention—a glimmer of hope amidst a complex political climate.

Wisconsin supreme court: a liberal surge?

Republicans in Wisconsin are bracing for a potentially seismic shift in the state's Supreme Court, as challenger Chris Taylor appears poised to unseat the conservative favorite, Maria Lazar. Recent polling indicates a substantial lead for Taylor, coupled with a fundraising advantage of roughly five to one. This isn't merely a change in personnel; it represents a potential swing from a 4-3 conservative majority to a 5-2 liberal one—a dramatic transformation in a state long considered a battleground.

The echoes of Governor Scott Walker’s legacy, once a symbol of conservative power in Wisconsin, now seem to reverberate with a sense of decline. Decades of aggressively gerrymandered district maps are slowly being dismantled, and the state's Republican Party finds itself struggling to regain its footing. Lazar's self-description as an “independent” is telling, a strategic maneuver in a state increasingly receptive to progressive policies, particularly regarding abortion rights. Taylor's clear stance on the 1849 criminal abortion ban—stating she would not have implemented it—resonates with a significant portion of the electorate.

Montana's bold challenge to citizens united

But the story doesn't end in Wisconsin. Montana, a state with a deep-seated history of campaign finance reform born from the excesses of the Gilded Age, has delivered a powerful blow to the legacy of Citizens United v. FEC. The 2010 Supreme Court decision, which equated money with speech, effectively dismantled decades of Montana’s stringent regulations aimed at curbing the influence of corporate interests in Politics.

Now, Montanans are fighting back. Last week, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously that reviewing the constitutionality of an initiative is “disfavored,” upholding the right of citizens to utilize the initiative process. This decision cleared the way for organizers to gather signatures for the Transparent Election Initiative (I-194), also known as Ballot Issue 10, which aims to prohibit corporations from spending money on political candidates or ballot measures.

The Montana Plan, as it’s being called, is a remarkably creative workaround. Rather than attempting to limit corporate spending through traditional campaign finance laws, it directly challenges the corporate charter itself, leveraging the state’s inherent power to regulate businesses operating within its borders. The proposed constitutional amendment would specifically prohibit corporations from making political contributions, while preserving the right of individuals to engage in political action. As Jeff Mangan, a former Montana Commissioner of Political Practices, aptly observed, the approach is fundamentally conservative—a state asserting its right to regulate the entities that operate within its jurisdiction. The implications of this challenge—a direct confrontation with Citizens United—are far-reaching, suggesting a growing resistance to the unchecked influence of corporate money in American elections.

The road back from Citizens United is long, but Montana's bold move offers a tangible demonstration of how states can push back against federal overreach and reclaim control over their own electoral processes. The state’s willingness to confront the issue head-on presents a compelling model for other states seeking to protect the integrity of their democratic institutions.