Former U.S. Secretary of Transportation and 2020 presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg speaks in support of a proposed ballot initiative known as the “Montana Plan” that would eliminate corporate funding from Montana politics at the Mother Lode Theater in Butte, Montana, May 17, 2026.
Janie Osbourne | Getty Images
Imagine a company wants to spend $10 million to defeat a political candidate. A landmark 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling said they can spend as much as they want as long as they don’t coordinate with a candidate’s campaign.
On Tuesday, Montana voted to change that.
In the state that President Donald Trump won by nearly 20 points in 2024, about 65% of Montanans voted to approve Initiative 194, or the “Montana Plan,” which includes a novel legal strategy to rein in corporate political spending. If states cannot restrict political speech under Citizens United, could they instead strip corporations of their ability to spend money in elections?
The votes were split almost evenly between the two parties, as political advertising reached a record $11.87 billion across the country during this election cycle, according to media tracking firm AdImpact.
The voter-approved measure is scheduled to become state law in Montana on January 1, giving voters the power to enact legislation on the ballot. Montana’s Republican-controlled Legislature could amend or repeal the bill, but proponents have vowed to take the fight to voters again in 2028.
Now, Montana is gearing up for a constitutional debate that could reach the nation’s highest court. If the strategy survives, it could provide a replicable blueprint for limiting corporate political spending across the country. Similar measures are being considered in more than 30 states.
“If a single state succeeds in denying corporate power over elections, it proves that Citizens United was not the final word on democracy, and we will keep fighting,” said Tom Moore, a former Federal Election Commission official and now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who helped develop the Montana plan.
President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally at Majestic Valley Arena on October 14, 2026 in Kalispell, Montana.
Alex Wong | Getty Images
legal system
The Montana plan hinges on a legal distinction. Corporations may have constitutional rights, but those powers come from the state.
Under Initiative 194, Montana would strip corporations, trade associations, labor unions, and nonprofit organizations (even those headquartered elsewhere) of their legal authority to spend money to influence elections in the state.
In practice, that should mean no corporate-funded attack ads, no industry groups funding referendum campaigns, no politically active nonprofits spending their own money to sway Montana voters.
Violators risk losing state-granted corporate privileges, such as limited liability, which generally protects shareholders from personal liability for corporate debts, until all improperly spent funds are forfeited and legal conditions are met.
“The arguments of proponents of this initiative are trying to make it very simple in theory: If we don’t keep campaign funds out of Montana, we risk jeopardizing the personal balance sheets of our shareholders,” said Cal Muniz, a political science professor at Montana State University and an expert on state politics.
The financial interests extend far beyond Montana. Known corporate contributions to outside groups in federal elections have soared from $13 million in 2010 to more than $600 million by September 2026, according to OpenSecret, a nonpartisan nonprofit that tracks such spending. This does not include funds raised through nonprofit organizations that hide donors.
But there is an irony to the Montana plan. It had big-ticket backers from big American corporations.
Samantha Walton, wife of Walmart heir Lucas Walton, donated $722,300 to groups supporting the plan, and Reid Hoffman, a co-founder of LinkedIn and a major Democratic donor, gave $150,000, according to state campaign finance data. The nonprofit organization behind the campaign, the Transparent Election Initiative, is itself a type of underground finance group that is not normally required to disclose its donors.
And the new law doesn’t exactly exclude billionaires from politics. Excludes individuals, political committees, government agencies, and genuine news, commentary, and editorial content.
consider tesla and space x CEO Elon Musk is the largest known individual donor in the 2026 election, with at least $474 million in political contributions, according to a CNBC analysis of campaign finance records. Mr. Musk may continue to spend millions of his personal fortune trying to influence elections in Montana. But his company will face new restrictions.
Moore argued that because corporations derive their legal existence from states, those states should have the power to limit political spending.
People gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington as the Supreme Court announces a series of decisions as the term ends on June 25, 2026.
Mehmet Ethel | Anadolu | Getty Images
Supreme Court justice showdown
Opponents call the Montana plan an unconstitutional end-run around Citizens United. If states cannot directly prohibit protected political speech, they argue, they cannot accomplish the same thing by threatening the legal privileges of corporations.
And critics warn that the restrictions will extend beyond large corporations and silence local industry groups, labor unions and community groups on school bonds, tax measures and other local ballot issues.
“Why do we allow media companies to speak out while denying the rights of nonprofit civil society groups to organize around clean water and tax cuts?” said Brad Smith, director of the Free Speech Institute and former FEC chairman. “Billionaires will find loopholes. This will really only silence small businesses in Montana.”
The first legal test is already underway in Hawaii, where lawmakers enacted similar legislation in May. Montana would be the first state to adopt this strategy through a statewide vote.
Hawaii’s law faces strong legal opposition. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is suing to block it, and the Free Speech Institute is representing the Hawaii Grassroots Institute in a separate challenge. The national ACLU weighed in as well, arguing in court briefs that the law violates the First Amendment.
Legal and campaign finance experts told CNBC the dispute could eventually reach the Supreme Court. The court’s 6-3 conservative majority has repeatedly eased campaign finance restrictions. Just in June, the justices worked with candidates to remove limits on political party spending.
“Incorporating a prohibition into the corporate code is a distinction without a difference,” said Michael Kang, a professor at Northwestern Pritzker Law School who studies campaign finance. “The courts will see right through it because there remains a clear intent to circumvent Citizens United. This looks like a legal sleight of hand.”
Montana has lost this battle before. In 1912, voters banned corporate campaign spending after the Copper King bribed legislators and controlled state politics. The law lasted for a century until the Supreme Court struck down it in 2012 under Citizens United.
“The way we see it, this is states’ rights versus Citizens United,” said Moore of the Center for American Progress. “That’s a one-time argument, and if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, they’re going to have to choose one of their two favorite legal theories, or choose which one to rely on.”
