Montana votes to ban corporate election spending

Montana votes to restrict corporate spending

Roughly sixty-five percent of Montana voters approved Initiative 194, the Montana Plan, on Tuesday. The measure aims to curb corporate political spending in a state President Donald Trump won by nearly twenty points in two…

The Citizens United challenge

The Supreme Court's two thousand ten Citizens United ruling allows corporations to spend unlimited money on elections if they do not coordinate with candidates. Montana's new law directly challenges that framework.

How the Montana Plan works

Initiative 194 strips corporations, trade associations, labor unions and nonprofits of the legal power to spend money influencing elections in Montana. Violators risk losing state-granted corporate privileges like limited liability.

The legal theory behind it

Supporters argue corporations derive their legal existence from states, so states should have power to restrict their political spending. Tom Moore, a former Federal Election Commission official, helped develop the Montana Plan.

“If a single state can successfully deny corporate power over elections, it proves that Citizens United wasn't the final word on democracy, and we will continue battling.”

Corporate money in elections surged

Known corporate contributions to outside groups in federal elections surged from thirteen million dollars in two thousand ten to more than six hundred million dollars by September two thousand twenty-six, according to OpenSecrets.

The irony of wealthy backers

The Montana Plan received high-dollar support from corporate America. Samantha Walton, wife of Walmart heir Lukas Walton, gave seven hundred twenty-two thousand three hundred dollars to groups backing the plan.

Billionaires can still spend freely

The law exempts individuals, so billionaires like Elon Musk can still spend unlimited personal money on elections.Musk gave at least four hundred seventy-four million dollars in two thousand twenty-six, the largest known individual donor amount.

Critics say it violates the First Amendment

Opponents argue the Montana Plan is an unconstitutional end run around Citizens United. Brad Smith, who leads the Institute for Free Speech, warns it silences local trade groups and nonprofits alongside corporate giants.

“Why allow a media corporation to speak out, while denying a non-profit association of citizens the right to organize around clean water or lower taxes?”

Hawaii already tried this approach

Hawaii enacted a similar law in May. It now faces legal challenges from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Institute for Free Speech and the national ACLU, which argues it violates the First Amendment.

Legal experts expect Supreme Court review

The Supreme Court's six-three conservative majority has repeatedly loosened campaign finance restrictions. Michael Kang, a Northwestern law professor, said courts will see the Montana Plan as a legal sleight of hand to bypass Citizens United.

“Shifting the prohibition into the corporate code is a distinction without a difference.”

Montana's history with corporate bans

In nineteen twelve, Montana voters banned corporate campaign spending after copper barons bribed lawmakers. The law stood for a century before the Supreme Court struck it down in two thousand twelve under Citizens United.

What happens next

The law takes effect January first. Montana's Republican-controlled legislature could amend or repeal it, but proponents have pledged to take the fight back to voters in twenty twenty-eight if that happens.