A panel this afternoon discussed local activism to fix the Supreme Court’s decision to grant corporation’s huge power to influence elections—and the outsized impact that corporate money can have on state- and local-level campaigns with small budgets.
Jeffrey Clements, and attorney who helped found the advocacy group Free Speech for the People , brought up the case of Montana, whose nearly hundred-year-old ban on corporate campaign contributions and expenditures is being challenged  in court in the wake of Citizens United. In 2008, the average winning state senate candidate in the state spent just $17,000 . An infusion of corporate cash into the state's elections would have a dramatic impact, Clements argued.
Massachusetts State Senator Jamie Eldridge , a member of the YEO Network, came to the issue with an interesting perspective—he is the only “Clean Elections” candidate to have ever won office in Massachusetts (he first ran for a seat in the state House of Representatives one year  in which Massachusetts had a Clean Elections public financing program).
“When I first ran, I was entirely publicly financed,” he said, “I didn’t have to raise money and could go door-to-door talking to voters about what they cared about.”
State elections with unlimited contributions from corporations and individuals aren’t uncharted territory—six states  currently have no contribution limits at all—but it will be interesting to see how campaigns in states like Montana change if the rules that candidates have been playing by for decades disappear.