Skip to footer
Omagh Courthouse (01), January 2010
Photo: Illustrative image — Photo: Ardfern, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

world

Montana Voters Approve Ban on Corporate Political Spending, Setting Up Court Fight

Montana voters approve a ballot measure barring corporate political spending, setting up a court fight.

Updated 1 min read

Key points

  • Initiative 194, the Montana Plan, was approved by roughly 65% of voters in the state.
  • The measure is set to become state law on Jan. 1 and would bar corporations, unions and nonprofits from spending on elections.
  • Proponents have pledged to take the fight back to voters in 2028 if the legislature amends or repeals it.

Why it matters. If the strategy survives a constitutional challenge, it could provide a blueprint for restricting corporate political spending in other states, where similar measures are being explored in more than 30 states.

Montana voters on Tuesday approved Initiative 194 with roughly 65% support, stripping corporations, unions and nonprofits of power to spend money on state elections. The measure takes effect as state law on Jan. 1, though the Republican-controlled legislature could amend or repeal it, and proponents have pledged to return to voters in 2028. Corporate contributions to outside federal election groups rose from $13 million in 2010 to more than $600 million by September 2026, according to OpenSecrets.

Latest updates

Montana Voters Approve Ban on Corporate Political Spending, Setting Up Court Fight

Montana voters approved a measure that restricts corporate political spending, using a strategy that has not been tried widely. The initiative is designed to limit how much companies can spend to influence elections in the state. Its supporters are relying on it to challenge the 2010 Citizens United ruling, in which the Supreme Court held that corporations and unions can spend unlimited sums on political advocacy. Because the measure directly conflicts with that precedent, it is expected to face a constitutional challenge in the courts. Legal observers expect the dispute could ultimately reach the Supreme Court. The outcome could shape how states are able to regulate money in elections.

Sources