A voter-approved effort to limit corporate political spending in Montana is already facing a legal challenge, even as nearly two-thirds of voters backed the measure. The Montana Republican State Central Committee and four other organizations filed a lawsuit on election night to block Initiative 194, arguing that the restrictions violate the First Amendment. The move has sparked backlash from critics who say Montana voters made their position clear at the ballot box.
Initiative 194, also known as the Montana Plan, passed with approximately 65 percent of the vote in the November 3 election. The measure seeks to prevent corporations, nonprofits, and other artificial entities from contributing to political campaigns by using the state’s authority to regulate businesses and organizations.
The legal challenge came almost immediately. The lawsuit was filed on election night, shortly before the Associated Press officially called the race for Initiative 194.
The Montana Republican State Central Committee joined the Frontier Institute, Frontier Action Fund, Montana Family Foundation, and Montana Family Institute in challenging the initiative. The groups argue that the restrictions violate the First Amendment and could interfere with their ability to express political opinions, publish research, and advocate for policy proposals.
The Republican committee also argued that the new law could affect its regular newsletter. Frontier Institute President Kendall Cotton acknowledged concerns about political spending but maintained that the initiative goes too far and could threaten organizations that simply express opinions about local ballot measures and tax proposals.
The Institute for Free Speech, which represents the plaintiffs, argues that Montana is attempting to get around constitutional protections established by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling. The groups say the measure could prevent nonprofits and other organizations from spending money on political advocacy, even when they are not working directly with a candidate’s campaign.
That decision allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on independent political expenditures, as long as they do not coordinate with candidates or their campaigns. Supporters of Initiative 194, however, argue that the measure provides a way to limit corporate influence in elections.
Supporters of the Montana Plan say the lawsuit came as no surprise. Organizers told Montana Free Press that they expected a legal challenge from the beginning and remain confident the measure can withstand it. They argue that the lawsuit is another attempt to stop a change that voters overwhelmingly supported.
Americans React to Lawsuit
The lawsuit sparked criticism online, with several social media users arguing that limiting corporate money in elections should be a bipartisan issue. “The party that has to sue to keep corporate money IN politics is owned by the corporations. Americans are finally waking up to reality,” one commenter wrote.
“This needs to happen all over the Country,” another user suggested regarding the ban on corporate money entering politics. Others also questioned why corporations should even have the same political influence as individual voters. “The way it was and should be. People vote. Corporations don’t,” one person argued.
Another added, “This is not a republican vs democrats thing. Most of the state agreed and voted for this.” However, opponents argue that the measure could extend beyond major corporations, potentially affecting labor unions, nonprofits, and smaller organizations advocating for local causes. Opponents argue the restrictions could extend beyond major corporations, potentially affecting labor unions, nonprofits, and smaller organizations advocating for local causes. Whether Montana can enforce those restrictions without violating the First Amendment is now at the center of the legal fight.
Montana isn’t the only state testing ways to limit corporate political spending. Hawaii enacted a similar law earlier this year, and it is also facing legal challenges. For now, Montana’s measure is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2027, unless a court intervenes. Voters approved the restrictions by a wide margin, but whether the law can survive the constitutional challenge is now up to the courts.
