nonetheless would hold that MPC’s actions were not fairly attributable to the State of Montana. The Supreme Court has held that there may be “some countervailing reason against attributing activity to the government,” even if facts suggest significant government involvement in private action. Brentwood Acad., 531 U.S. at 295-96, 121 S.Ct. 924. Here, MPC’s lobbying was an exercise of its lawful First Amendment right to petition the government, and that is a countervailing reason against attributing MPC’s activity to the State of Montana. The Supreme Court has stressed the importance of citizens’ exercising their First Amendment right to petition the government: In a representative democracy such as this, [the legislative and executive] branches of Mont. 167, 832 P.2d 1210, 1214 (1992) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). So MPC cannot violate the
holding in accordance with wellestablished constitutional principles that the montana constitutions privacy right protects against state action only holding that article x  2 of the california constitution dictates the basic principles defining water rights that no one can have a protectible interest in the unreasonable use of water and that holders of water rights must use water reasonably and beneficially holding that montana constitutions equal protection clause protects against arbitrary and discriminate state action  holding that the montana constitution protects water rights against unreasonable state action  holding that in the absence of an adequate state remedy one whose constitutional rights are violated has a direct claim against the state under the state constitution