Montana to Vote on First-in-Nation Corporate Spending Ban

Montana voters will decide in November whether to make their state the first in the nation to bar corporations from spending money on elections, through a ballot initiative that tests a novel legal strategy rather than directly challenging the 2010 Citizens United ruling.

Initiative 194, known as the "Montana Plan," would prohibit all "artificial persons" — including corporations, unions and 501(c)(4) nonprofits — from political spending. It would not prevent wealthy individuals from spending freely, but they would no longer be able to do so anonymously.

The measure works around Citizens United by targeting corporate powers rather than corporate rights. Corporate powers are granted by state governments, which have the authority to redefine or revoke them. The Supreme Court's 2010 decision held that corporations and unions have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited money on elections independent of individual campaigns, giving rise to super PACs and dark money groups.

Known corporate contributions to federal outside political groups rose from $13 million in 2010 to more than $600 million so far this year, according to OpenSecrets. In Montana, independent political expenditures rose from $33,000 in 2008 to $162 million in 2024, according to the Transparent Election Initiative, based on OpenSecrets data.

"No one knows how much corporate spending is pouring into elections," said Craig Holman, a longtime campaign finance expert at Public Citizen.

The initiative has been championed by populist Democrat Sam Forstag in his run for the U.S. House of Representatives and former Republican Governor Marc Racicot, though the state Republican party and some business groups are opposed. The Montana Chamber of Commerce filed an unsuccessful lawsuit to keep the initiative off the ballot, and its president, Todd O'Hair, said he views I-194 as plainly unconstitutional.

Legal experts are split. Loyola University law professor Justin Levitt called the initiative "bold and unusual," saying it could force the Supreme Court to weigh the free-speech rights it granted corporations in 2010 against decades of legal precedent upholding states' power to define what corporations are permitted to do. Richard Hasen, a UCLA law professor, is more skeptical, calling it "an end run" around Citizens United that is likely to be rejected by the court's conservative majority.

That the measure made the ballot in a deeply conservative state that President Donald Trump won by nearly 20 points in 2024 may seem surprising. But distrust of corporate power runs deep in Montana, where mining barons known as the Copper Kings bribed their way through the state legislature and bought a U.S. Senate seat in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Montana voters responded in 1912 by passing the Corrupt Practices Act, also by ballot initiative, banning corporate election spending. The law held until it was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012.

"People in Montana have used the power of the ballot to take back power for well over 100 years," said Brenda Wahler, a fourth-generation Montanan and historian.

A Brennan Center for Justice survey this year found 79% of Americans across parties would support a constitutional amendment to restore limits on political spending. Versions of I-194 are active or under consideration in some 32 states, either as potential ballot initiatives or pending legislation, according to Tom Moore, a lawyer with the Center for American Progress and the legal architect of the movement. Hawaii's legislature passed a similar law earlier this year.

"Americans are losing the belief that they have any influence over our politics," Moore said.

Steve Hadnagy, a self-described conservative libertarian in Butte, said he plans to vote yes on I-194 to prevent corporate money flowing in from out of state. "They're dumping millions of dollars into elections here, setting up the candidates they want in power who will do what they ask," he said. "I think people want to do something about it."