Opinion ID: 6498151
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mont. Admin. R. 44.11.603(2)(g)

Text: Butcher and Bergstrom’s sole argument on appeal is that the exemption contained in § 44.11.603(2)(g) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to them. They formulate the issue on appeal as follows: 1 We went on to hold that Montana violated the church’s First Amendment rights to free speech by requiring it to report its member’s use of the church photocopier. Canyon Ferry, 556 F.3d at 1034. 42 BUTCHER V. KNUDSEN When a campaign-finance law exempts from disclosure “expenses associated with volunteer services or efforts,” but application of that exemption “depend[s] on the circumstances,” and those “circumstances” are not defined with any degree of clarity, is the law unconstitutionally vague? Butcher and Bergstrom argue that they had no way of knowing whether expenses for “the cost of gas, parking[,] and meals” were expenses “associated with volunteer services,” and had no way of knowing whether they were covered by Montana’s registration and reporting requirements. They do not argue that the definition of “the cost of gas, parking, and meals” is unconstitutionally vague. Rather, they argue that they are not a “political committee” under Montana law, but are, instead, “volunteers.” They argue that if the term “volunteer services” does not include their activities, it is unconstitutionally vague as to them. In my view, this is a fairly straightforward case. Both the Commissioner and the district court got it right. As relevant here, a “[p]olitical committee” is defined under Montana law as “a combination of two or more individuals . . . who . . . makes an expenditure . . . to support or oppose a candidate[.]” Mont. Code Ann. § 13-1- 101(32)(a)(i). “A political committee is not formed when a combination of two or more individuals . . . makes . . . an independent expenditure of $250 or less.” Id. § 13-1- 101(32)(d). Butcher and Bergstrom are two individuals. They combined to support or oppose candidates in Republican primary elections. They made expenditures of more than $250 in this endeavor. Butcher and Bergstrom were therefore a “political committee” under Montana law. BUTCHER V. KNUDSEN 43 Butcher and Bergstrom contend that they were not a political committee, but were, rather, merely “volunteers.” They are correct that “volunteers,” even if acting together, do not become a “political committee” by virtue of making expenditures of more than $250. The Montana statute provides that expenditures by volunteers do not transform volunteers into a political committee: “The term [expenditure] does not mean . . . services provided without compensation by individuals volunteering a portion or all of their time on behalf of a candidate or political committee.” Id. § 13-1-101(19)(b)(i) (emphasis added) (incorporating by reference § 13-1-101(9)(b)(i)). Administrative Rule 44.11.603(2)(g), specifying that volunteers’ expenditures for gas, parking, and meals are not expenditures by a “political committee,” implements the Montana statute. Butcher and Bergstrom did not act as “volunteers” within the meaning of § 13-1-101(19)(b)(i). By their own admission, they did not incur their travel costs as volunteers “on behalf of a . . . political committee.” Id. Nor did they do so as volunteers on behalf of a particular candidate. Rather, they encouraged Republican groups in Montana to vote for or against various Republican candidates based on their past voting patterns in the Montana legislature. Butcher and Bergstrom are not political naifs. They are sophisticated political actors. They acted in a concerted and sustained manner to bring accurate and relevant political information to interested political groups. In short, they engaged in valuable and protected First Amendment activity. But they did not do so as “volunteers” within the meaning of Montana election law. Rather, they did so as a “political committee.” I respectfully dissent.