Commissioner: Planned Parenthood Advocates violated Montana campaign laws

Billings Gazette ^ | December 11, 2014 | Tom Lutey

[Morgana]

Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana violated state law in its campaign against a Billings Republican in the 2014 elections, the state Commissioner of Political Practices has ruled.

Commissioner Jonathan Motl, in an opinion issued Monday, said Planned Parenthood Advocates failed to notify GOP legislative candidate Tonya Shellnutt of attack ads targeting her in the last 10 days before the Nov. 4 election. State law requires that candidates receive notice of attacks launched during the election cycle’s last 10 days so they can respond.

Planned Parenthood Advocates acknowledged to Motl that its attack against Shellnutt didn’t comply with state law, then self-reported committing the same violation against Missoula Republican Dick Haines.

Planned Parenthood Advocates is the political arm of Planned Parenthood, a provider of women’s health services, including abortion. Planned Parenthood Advocates also disclosed to Motl campaign finance reporting violations.

“Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana recognizes and takes responsibility for our failure to inform Ms. Shellnutt of our opposition mailer within the 10-day time frame as required by Montana law,” said spokeswoman Jill Baker, in a written statement. “This was an oversight and an unintentional mistake.”

The group apologized for the violation.

While glad for the ruling, Shellnutt said it was too late to make a difference.

“I didn’t get a chance to rebut their claims,” Shellnutt said. “You take all the people who voted for me and those that didn’t, and they didn’t get an opportunity to hear a rebuttal either. That’s a disservice.”

[SSS Two]

I’m no fan of Planned Parenthood, but the organization does have free speech rights. The law PP admitted violating is a stupid law.

[lepton]

Nothing in what was described limits PPs speech, only their ability to slip in something without rebuttal. I do see how it can affect those who might want to remain anonymous, but not really an applicable concern in this case.

[SSS Two]

Nothing in what was described limits PPs speech

Huh?

PP is in trouble for making political statements against a candidate for public office. PP is in trouble for exercising its First Amendment rights. Understand, lepton, that this law *restricts* PP's ability to make political statements. Seriously. That is the entire purpose of the law.

"Thou shalt not make political statements unless ...." I don't care what follows the "....", the mere fact that the law restricts political speech makes it a dangerous law.

[lepton]

They aren’t in trouble for making the statements. They are in trouble for trying to sneak in stuff timed in a manner so it can’t be rebutted regardless of its truth, and hidden, against the artificial construct of a timed event (an election date).

[SSS Two]

If PP hadn't made the political statements, it wouldn't be in trouble. This matter has huge 1st Amendment implications. The whole purpose of the law is to restrict political speech within 10 days of an election. I would argue that election season is precisely the time that political speech should be most robust.

Re: "artificial construct of a timed event" ... Recall that the Citizens United case involved the release of a political film (political speech) named "Hillary: The Movie". McCain-Feingold prohibited such speech within 30 days of a political primary. The Supreme Court found that Citizens United was protected by the 1st Amendment.

lepton, I'm a big supporter of the 1st Amendment. Any restrictions to speech -- particularly political speech -- are problematic for me.