More than 15 years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United ruling fundamentally altered the campaign finance landscape, Montana voters will decide in November whether to become the first state to prohibit corporations from spending money on elections through a ballot initiative known as Initiative 194, or the “Montana Plan.” This effort represents a novel legal approach that seeks to bypass the 2010 ruling by focusing on state-level corporate powers rather than challenging corporate rights directly.
Initiative 194 would bar all “artificial persons,” including corporations, unions, and certain nonprofit organizations, from making political expenditures in Montana, even if those entities are not incorporated in the state. While wealthy individuals would still be permitted to spend money on elections, the proposal aims to increase transparency by preventing anonymous contributions.
The movement is led by the Transparent Election Initiative, headed by Jeff Mangan, Montana’s former commissioner of political practices. Mangan argued that the influx of corporate money has contributed to a political environment where elected officials prioritize fundraising over constituents’ interests. “When that’s their priority, somebody gets pushed aside, and it’s generally the voters,” he said. The initiative’s legal strategy relies on the state’s authority to define or revoke corporate powers, rather than attempting to overturn Citizens United, which protects corporations’ First Amendment rights to spend unlimited amounts in elections.
Montana’s political spending landscape has shifted dramatically since Citizens United. Independent expenditures in the state rose from $33,000 in 2008 to $162 million in 2024, according to data from the Transparent Election Initiative. Nationally, corporate spending on outside political groups increased from $13 million in 2010 to more than $600 million this year, fueled largely by super PACs and nonprofit groups that can spend “dark money” without disclosing donors.
The issue resonates with a broad swath of Americans, as public distrust in money’s influence over politics remains high. A recent survey by a justice-focused research center indicated that nearly 80% of Americans across party lines would support a constitutional amendment to restore limits on campaign spending.
Supporters of the initiative come from various political backgrounds. Sam Forstag, a Democrat seeking election to the U.S. House of Representatives, has endorsed I-194, as has former Republican Governor Marc Racicot. Local residents, such as Steve Hadnagy, a conservative libertarian from Butte, Montana, have expressed concern about out-of-state corporate money shaping election outcomes and have pledged to vote in favor of the measure.
Opposition primarily comes from Montana’s business community. The Montana Chamber of Commerce and other business groups argue that the initiative is unconstitutional and have sought to block it from the ballot through legal challenges. Lorraine Clarno, CEO of the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce, emphasized that business contributions play a role in informing the public about various ballot measures and services. Todd O’Hair, president of the state chamber, maintains the initiative infringes on constitutional rights.
Similar campaigns have begun in other states, with Hawaii’s legislature passing related legislation earlier this year. Experts suggest that Montana’s vote could set a precedent, potentially triggering another legal battle over the role of corporate money in U.S. elections.