L.Ed.2d 477 (1974) (“The mere fact that a business is subject to state regulation does not by itself convert its action into that of the State for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor does the fact that the regulation is extensive and detailed, as in the case of most utilities, do so.”) (citation omitted). Fourth, the State of Montana has not delegated a “public function” to MPC. MPC’s petitioning of the government is a quintessential private function. See E. R.R. Presidents Conf. v. Noerr, 365 U.S. 127, 137, 81 S.Ct. 523, 5 L.Ed.2d 464 (1961). We hold that MPC’s efforts to influence lawmakers through lobbying were private acts not fairly attributable to the State of Montana. See First Nat’l. Bank of Omaha v. Marquette Nat’l. Bank of Minneapolis, 636 F.2d 195, 198 (8th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). MPC’s lobbying activities thus could not have
holding without discussion that a banks lobbying activities designed to obtain the passage of a minnesota statute were not state action holding that a florida statute requiring a foreign corporation to obtain a certificate of authority prior to transacting business in the state was preempted as it applied to national banks holding that dismissal of prior action in louisiana federal court on the grounds of the statute of limitations bar subsequent action filed in minnesota federal district court holding that termination of an employee for refusing employees request to engage in political lobbying activities violates clear mandate of public policy under pennsylvania law holding that independent contractor claiming termination of contract because of lobbying and other political activities not protected by first amendment