Less than 48 hours after the Montana Supreme Court stopped a first-of-its-kind constitutional measure that would prohibit corporations from spending money on political candidates or ballot issues, the Transparent Election Initiative in Montana resubmitted a revised proposal that its leaders said honored the court’s ruling and simplified the motion.
The organization also submitted a similar measure for a statutory initiative, which wasn’t originally part of what the group calls “The Montana Plan,” but will be done to ensure Montanans can vote on the concept in the November election.
A constitutional ballot initiative that receives a majority of votes would change the Montana Constitution while an initiative would modify state statute. Montana voters can propose and vote on laws except those which appropriate money, a power reserved only to the Legislature.
Transparent Election Initiative leader Jeff Mangan, who was formerly the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices, said he still prefers the constitutional initiative because it would establish the concept in the highest law in the state. However, because the time for signature gathering is narrowing, the initiative process that would amend state law is also an alternative he wants to keep available, because the threshold is lower.
On Tuesday, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the original proposal submitted by TEI violated a constitutional rule that limits a ballot initiative to a single-subject. A unanimous Supreme Court said that the measure contained several provisions that could be seen as reaching into more than just money in politics and corporate spending powers.
Mangan told the Daily Montanan on Thursday, after the newly reformulated documents were submitted to the Montana Secretary of State, that he took the court’s advice to heart and simplified the measure.
Previously, the initiative curtailed corporate spending in politics by revoking corporations’ powers granted by the state, then reinstating them, but excluding the power to spend on political campaigns.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, a Republican, had successfully argued to the state’s highest court that the provision contained more than a single-subject — an argument with which the court agreed.
Now, the summary text of the measures makes clear that artificial persons and corporations do not have “political spending power.” Meanwhile, it says that political committees and “natural persons” can still spend money on politics. It also specifies that if a state-chartered business would spend politically, those corporations could lose limited liability status and be subject to punishment.
Mangan said this modification helps simplify the measure, clarifying that corporations cannot spend money on politics without risking losing the power to do business in Montana or fines.
Montana has been a historical leader in trying to curb the power of corporations and their ability to spend money in elections for more than a century. Lawmakers, voters and courts wrestled with the issue before the passage of the Corrupt Practices Act in 1912, which began a history of chasing corporate money from Treasure State politics. Montana’s efforts also were key in the controversial “Citizens United” ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which said that corporations were artificial persons and entitled to spend money on political campaigns because that act is an expression of free speech and association. Montana argued that its law that stated corporations were not people, I-166, was legal and necessary given the state’s history — an argument that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected in a split decision.
The Transparent Election Initiative is taking a new, different tact: It’s targeting corporations through their charters. Because companies and corporations must be granted charters, or legal status by the state, they must comply with state laws regarding how business is conducted. This measure would limit those corporate rights to operate and bar political spending.
Mangan told the Daily Montanan that his previous attempt to craft ballot language may have been a case of wanting to “cross every T and dot every I” to ensure it was complete and would pass muster, but the effort may have been too complicated. Instead, the new proposals simplify and condense the aims, he said.
The organization also submitted a statutory initiative along with the constitutional issue to the state. He said that’s because of the time it will likely take for the review process at the Secretary of State’s Office as well as a required review at the Montana Attorney General’s Office. Those processes, and any legal challenges that follow, will continue to shorten the window for signature collecting. Both initiative and constitutional ballot would need to have enough signatures submitted to the state by June 19 in order to make the November election.
For constitutional ballots, Montana requires “the petition must be signed by at least 10% of the qualified electors in the state at large, including at 10% in each of at least two-fifths (40) of the legislative districts,” according to Montana law.
For statutory initiatives, Montana requires a lower threshold: “At least 5% of the qualified electors in each of at least one-third of the legislative representative districts (34) and the total number of signers must be at least 5% of the total qualified electors of the state.”
“Everywhere I go around the state, people just want their elections back,” Mangan said. “Montanans deserve a fair shot at voting on whether corporations should be allowed to dominate our political process. Today’s filings provide a pathway.”
Montana saw a record amount of money flow into its politics in 2024, as the race between former U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, a Democrat, and freshman U.S. Sen. Tim Sheehy, a Republican, topped nearly $170 million alone.