The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked last week’s ruling by a federal judge in Helena stating that Montana’s laws limiting campaign contributions are unconstitutional. How long the stay will remain in place, however, is uncertain.

In a short Oct. 3 ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Lovell said the state’s contribution limits “prevent candidates from ‘amassing the resources necessary for effective campaign advocacy,’” quoting from the plaintiffs. Lovell also said he would issue complete and extensive findings of facts on his ruling at a later date.

The Montana Attorney General’s Office immediately asked Lovell to place a hold on his decision, and the next day Lovell gave the plaintiffs in the case until Oct. 8 to respond to the Attorney General’s request.

Lovell made it known on Oct. 9 that he was sticking with his initial ruling.

“Much has been made of whether striking Montana’s contribution limits is good policy and good for Montana voters,” Lovel wrote. “This case, though, is not about policy. It is about following the law that the United States Supreme Court set out.”

Late that same day, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its stay blocking Lovell’s ruling until he provided a fuller explanation behind his reasoning. The stay comes nearly a month before Election Day.

Lovel responded with a 38-page conclusion early the next day on Oct. 10 that backed up his earlier ruling. He also suggested that the Montana Legislature would have a “clean canvas” to work with in fashioning new and higher spending limits that would be constitutional.

As of Oct. 11, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did not respond to Lovell’s response, so the current state laws limiting campaign contributions remains in effect.

Lovell has already issued a number of rulings on campaign regulation in light of the landmark 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United. Lovell ruled that Montana cannot ban corporations from contributing to political committees that make independent expenditures, and that state laws requiring attack ads disclose voting records and banning knowingly false statements in attack ads are unconstitutional.

Montana law had limited individual contributions to a candidate to $160 for a state House candidate and $630 for a gubernatorial candidate. The laws had also limited aggregate donations from political parties. A gubernatorial candidate could not accept more than $22,600 from all political party committees.

Plaintiffs in the case included Doug Lair of American Tradition Partnership, formerly Western Tradition Partnership, a conservative group now based in Washington, D.C., that is fighting Montana election officials to withhold the names of its donors.

Other plaintiffs included Montana Right To Life, Sweet Grass Council for Community Integrity, Lake County Republican Central Committee, Beaverhead County Republican Central Committee, Jake Oil LLC, Champion Painting Inc. and three individuals, including Steve Dogiakos and John Milanovich.

Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock, who is also the Democratic candidate for Montana governor this year, issued a statement on the appellate court’s stay.

“This stay is important to all Montanans, many of whom contribute as much as they can afford, which is often $25 or $50,” Bullocks said. “Those contributions — and those voters — still mean something here, and that’s the way it should stay. Montana’s citizen democracy is too important to be put up for auction to the highest bidder.”