House approves bill to allow political parties to contribute to judicial campaigns after heated debate
January 14, 2025 | 2025 Legislature MT, Montana
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Representative Brian Millett brought House Bill 39 to the floor on second reading, proposing repeal of the statutory ban that currently prevents political parties from contributing to judicial candidates.
The bill would repeal the provision that reads, in the sponsor's words, that “a political party may not contribute to a judicial candidate.” Millett said repealing the statute would allow political parties "to financially support judicial candidates directly, out in the open, transparently, and with accountability." He told colleagues the practical effect would be limited by existing contribution limits overseen by the commissioner on political practices, citing example maximum aggregates for statewide and district judicial contests.
Supporters framed the change as a transparency measure. “This will allow political parties to directly donate to a judicial candidate or a judge. That way, we can find out where the money's coming from,” Millett said. Representative Michael Mitchell said the change merely brings into the open money that currently flows through political action committees and other intermediaries: “This is already happening. ... Let's bring more transparency into the process.”
Opponents said the change would threaten the appearance of judicial impartiality. Representative Monica Edwards said she opposed the bill because Montanans remain concerned about the role of money and partisanship in recent elections: “HB 39 attacks the impartiality of our judiciary system,” she said. Representative Leila Griffiths, a former staff attorney to a district court judge, raised the Montana Rules of Judicial Conduct, citing Canon 4.1, and argued that the code already limits partisan activity by judicial candidates and that party contributions risk constitutional or ethical conflict.
After debate the House recorded 57 votes in favor and 43 opposed; the motion to recommend HB 39 due pass on second reading carried. The bill passed second reading and will proceed to the next stage of consideration.
Votes and formal actions recorded in the transcript show only the second-reading outcome; no final enactment was recorded in this session excerpt.
The bill would repeal the provision that reads, in the sponsor's words, that “a political party may not contribute to a judicial candidate.” Millett said repealing the statute would allow political parties "to financially support judicial candidates directly, out in the open, transparently, and with accountability." He told colleagues the practical effect would be limited by existing contribution limits overseen by the commissioner on political practices, citing example maximum aggregates for statewide and district judicial contests.
Supporters framed the change as a transparency measure. “This will allow political parties to directly donate to a judicial candidate or a judge. That way, we can find out where the money's coming from,” Millett said. Representative Michael Mitchell said the change merely brings into the open money that currently flows through political action committees and other intermediaries: “This is already happening. ... Let's bring more transparency into the process.”
Opponents said the change would threaten the appearance of judicial impartiality. Representative Monica Edwards said she opposed the bill because Montanans remain concerned about the role of money and partisanship in recent elections: “HB 39 attacks the impartiality of our judiciary system,” she said. Representative Leila Griffiths, a former staff attorney to a district court judge, raised the Montana Rules of Judicial Conduct, citing Canon 4.1, and argued that the code already limits partisan activity by judicial candidates and that party contributions risk constitutional or ethical conflict.
After debate the House recorded 57 votes in favor and 43 opposed; the motion to recommend HB 39 due pass on second reading carried. The bill passed second reading and will proceed to the next stage of consideration.
Votes and formal actions recorded in the transcript show only the second-reading outcome; no final enactment was recorded in this session excerpt.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
