Montana Election-Spending Ban Faces Federal Lawsuit
Montana’s Initiative 194 passed with 65% of the vote and 34% opposed, with 97% counted as of November 5. The measure restricts entities including corporations, unions and nonprofits from spending money or providing anything of value to support or oppose electoral outcomes. It is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027, unless a court intervenes.
Several groups filed suit in federal court on November 3, seeking to block enforcement. The plaintiffs include Montana family-policy organizations, the Frontier Action Fund, the Montana Republican Party’s central committee and the Frontier Institute. Defendants are Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen and Montana’s attorney general, Austin Knudsen.
The complaint argues that the measure violates First Amendment protections for speech, association, assembly, petition and the press. It says the restrictions would limit groups’ ability to advocate for candidates and ballot measures, and argues that unclear terms could leave organizations uncertain about what spending is prohibited. The Montana GOP says the law would reduce funds available for independent expenditures supporting candidates.
The initiative’s supporters say it uses a different legal approach from directly overturning the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. Jeff Mangan, head of the Transparent Election Initiative, which led the effort, said supporters expected a lawsuit and were prepared to defend the measure. The proposal was helped along by Tom Moore, who works as a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress; he argues that states can define the powers granted to corporations.
The case challenges a measure modeled on a similar Hawaii law that is also in litigation. Moore said the question of whether states can withhold corporations’ authority to spend in politics could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, a process that may take months or years.
Montana Voters’ Election Reform Faces Corporate-Speech Challenge
Montanans voted 65% to 34% for Initiative 194, a measure aimed at curbing the political spending power of corporations and other entities. Now several organizations, among them the Montana GOP’s central committee, are asking a federal court to block it before it takes effect on January 1, 2027.
The suit casts the law as a First Amendment violation, arguing that organizations will be prevented from communicating about candidates and ballot measures. The complaint also says unclear language could leave groups unsure which activity is forbidden, and that the Montana GOP will lose funds for independent expenditures.
But the measure’s supporters argue that voters have a right to constrain the political influence of entities created under state law. Initiative leader Jeff Mangan said the campaign anticipated a legal challenge and is ready to defend the law. Tom Moore, who helped develop the approach, says states can determine what powers corporations receive.
The dispute turns on whether the First Amendment requires states to give corporations the power to spend in politics. The lawsuit invokes the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, while supporters say Initiative 194 takes a distinct legal route rather than trying to overturn that decision. A similar Hawaii law is already in litigation, and the Montana case could take months or years to resolve.
Montana’s Corporate-Spending Ban Draws First Amendment Lawsuit
Montana voters approved Initiative 194 by a 65% to 34% margin, but the ballot result has not settled whether the state can bar corporations, unions and nonprofits from political spending. A coalition that includes the Montana Republican State Central Committee has sued, arguing the measure silences organizations and violates the First Amendment.
The plaintiffs say the law would restrict their ability to speak about candidates and ballot measures, while vague provisions could make it difficult to know what spending is prohibited. The Montana GOP says it relies on contributions from corporations and other entities for independent expenditures supporting candidates.
The legal challenge places the initiative against the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, which recognized First Amendment protection for corporate political speech. Supporters argue that states can instead define the legal powers corporations receive. That argument, however, does not erase the plaintiffs’ central concern: a state-imposed spending prohibition can sharply limit organizations’ ability to participate in political debate.
The law is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027, unless the court blocks it. Jeff Mangan, who led the initiative effort, says supporters expected the lawsuit and are ready to defend the measure. A similar Hawaii law is also being challenged, and the Montana dispute could take months or years to reach a final resolution.
