Learn more about the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics, how we got here, and what it would mean to ban corporate money in elections.
This story was originally published by OpenSecrets
Voters in Montana will have the opportunity this fall to ban corporate political spending and dark money in federal, state and local elections. The proposal takes direct aim at the landmark Citizens United ruling that opened the door to unlimited corporate involvement in elections and a flood of undisclosed political contributions.
The so-called Montana Plan, designed by the Transparent Election Initiative, opposes the ability of “artificial” entities to spend on politics. It would ban corporations from “spend[ing] money or anything of value on elections or ballot issues,” according to the TEI’s ballot statement. The proposed amendment to the state Constitution was filed with the Montana Secretary of State’s office on Aug. 1. If the amendment passes review and signature gathering early next year, it is expected to appear on the ballot in 2026 and potentially take effect Jan. 1, 2027.
If passed by a simple majority vote in the state, the Montana Plan would prohibit companies from using money to influence politics by targeting Montana’s corporate chartering authority, to revoke limited liability or tax advantages “if an entity oversteps its authority” by trying to use monetary influence to sway politics in the state, according to TEI.
The Montana Plan would also fully ban dark money from state politics by disallowing 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporations from funneling donations from anonymous donors.
“We can’t overrule the Supreme Court, but we can change the law to say exactly which powers we do mean to hand out, and make sure that political spending isn’t one of them,” TEI noted in its Montana Constitutional Initiative.
The 2010 Citizens United ruling declared corporate spending is protected free speech and struck down limitations on “independent” political spending (money spent to support or oppose a candidate but not directly donated to, or coordinated with, a campaign committee) that had been established by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. That ruling was followed later that year by SpeechNow vs. FEC, in which a federal appeals court removed caps on donations to political action committees as long as those PACs do not contribute to, or coordinate with, candidate committees. That led to the creation of super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited sums of money on elections. Super PACs can accept contributions from organizations that do not disclose donors – contributions known as dark money.
OpenSecrets has tracked super PACs’ growing influence since the term was coined in 2010, following the rapidly growing web of dark money. During the 2024 election cycle, super PACs raised over $5 billion, with $1.9 billion coming from dark money sources, the Brennan Center for Justice estimated.
Future Forward, the leading Democratic super PAC and the top spender in 2024, spent more than $509.5 million to influence the election. More than 40 percent of its receipts, $230.8 million, came from its dark money affiliate, the Future Forward USA Action.
Make America Great Again Inc, another influential super PAC active during the 2024 election, spent more than $410.5 million in 2024. Approximately two-thirds of the money raised by super PACs supported right-leaning efforts.
Super PACs have been the vehicle in which hundreds of millions of dollars have been funneled into corporate contributions. For example, Coinbase spent over $76.5 million on the 2024 election.
Since Citizens United, laws banning corporate or union political contributions have been struck down in more than a dozen states. Montana is the second state to consider a serious challenge to the system.
Voters in Maine overwhelmingly voted for reform in November 2024, limiting individual contributions to super PACs to $5,000. The referendum drew heavy opposition from two conservative PACs in the state that receive most or all outside money from donations exceeding $5,000. The two groups lodged a federal lawsuit against the ruling, alleging infringements on freedom of political speech.
The effort in Montana takes a different approach. The proposed amendment to the state Constitution redefines what is considered legitimate business activity and acceptable corporate donations by limiting corporate charters. The organization behind the effort, TEI, hopes to demystify the origin of political contributions and limit the ability to give large donations only to non-anonymous individuals in an effort to create a more transparent political environment as well as inspire other states to follow suit.
This article was originally published by OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. View the original article.
