Former Commissioner of Political Practices opposes Motl's confirmation

As a former Commissioner of Political Practices, I respectfully object to the confirmation of current Commissioner Jon Motl. Please consider the following:

The statutes and laws under jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Political Practices (COPP), while written carefully and with specificity, leave broad discretion with the commissioner. During my tenure, I did my very best to clarify requirements for candidates, committees and other independent organizations, including political parties. My emphasis was on facilitation of compliance for those who are by law required to report campaign contributions and lobbying expenses while shining a light, for the benefit of the public, on influences exerted on elected officials and lobbyists.

Many candidates are confused by the language of statutes and rules governing their campaign activities. With few exceptions, most candidates were willing and eager to comply. For the few who intentionally tried to game the system, our investigations, decisions and subsequent fines were issued with an even hand, irrespective of political party. I applied the same judiciousness to activities of others within my jurisdiction-lobbyist and public employees.

Under Mr. Motl’s direction, the culture of the office of COPP has changed. His approach to handling of complaints is, often times, heavy-handed. For example, I would not have considered trying to remove an elected official from office due to an interpretation of a violation focused on the reporting of mailing cost separately from total contractual obligations that were reported.

Additionally, I am concerned with the law of the land as issued by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. It is the law we must follow. Yet, a strict interpretation and enforcement of Montana statutes has great potential to run afoul of the court’s ruling.

Moving forward toward the next significant election cycle in 2016, the effects of the ruling allowing corporate contributions is filled with complex decisions and interpretations, i.e. the question of coordination between a committee or individual making the contributions and the candidate or the candidate’s committee. Another aspect of the decision is issue advocacy. Will interested people continue to be able to express their opinions on issues of the day as long as they don’t expressly advocate for or against a candidate?

Sunlight is imperative. I don’t want our elected officials to be bought and paid for. That said, I have seen the damage to a campaign when, for political gain, charges are made —both official and in campaign literature. It is the public that needs to be aware of the interest and who will benefit. A punitive system fraught with pitfalls has a chilling effect on potential candidates. Do we want to discourage qualified people to file for the opportunity to serve in elected office?

The public is not well served by a commissioner whose goal is to strictly interpret and enforce laws, which come close to limiting our free speech as guaranteed by the bill of rights. The public is not well served by a commissioner whose interpretation and punitive enforcement might discourage qualified people entering the political arena. Our citizens legislature is one we should be able to count on for the best representation possible.

I hope you will take my concerns under consideration. An appointee with a focus on facilitating compliance might be the agent to improve confidence Montanans need in their elections.

Ed Argenbright served as the Superintendent of Public Instruction from 1980-1988 and as Montana’s Commissioner of Political Practices from 1993-1999.