Former U.S. Transportation Secretary and 2020 presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg speaks in support of a proposed ballot initiative, known as the “Montana Plan,” that would exclude corporate money from Montana politics, at the Mother Lode Theater in Butte, Montana, on May 17, 2026.
Janie Osborne | Getty Images
Imagine a company wants to spend $10 million to defeat a political candidate. Under the Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 Citizens United ruling, the government can spend as much as it wants as long as it does not coordinate with the candidate’s campaign.
On Tuesday, Montana voted to change that.
In a state where President Donald Trump won by nearly 20 points in 2024, about 65% of Montanans voted to approve Initiative 194 – the “Montana Plan” – which adopts a new legal strategy aimed at curbing corporate political spending. If states can’t restrict political speech under Citizens United, can they instead strip corporations of the power to spend money on elections?
The vote follows a record $11.87 billion in political advertising nationally this election cycle, split evenly between the two parties, according to media tracking firm AdImpact.
The voter-approved measure is expected to become state law in Montana on Jan. 1, where voters will be able to legislate through ballot initiatives. Montana’s Republican-controlled Legislature could amend or repeal it, although supporters have pledged that if that happens they will bring the fight back to voters in 2028.
Montana is now poised for a constitutional showdown that could reach the nation’s highest court. If the strategy survives, it could provide a replicable model for restricting corporate political spending across the country. Similar measures are being considered in more than 30 states.
“If even one state can deny corporate power over elections, it proves that Citizens United does not have the final say on democracy, and we will continue to fight,” said Tom Moore, a former Federal Election Commission official and current senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who helped develop the Montana plan.
President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Majestic Valley Arena in Kalispell, Montana October 14, 2026.
Alex Wong | Getty Images
How the law works
The Montana plan relies on a legal distinction: Corporations may have constitutional rights, but their powers come from the states.
Under Initiative 194, Montana would strip businesses, trade associations, unions and nonprofits, including those headquartered elsewhere, of the legal authority to spend money to influence elections in the state.
In practice, this should mean no corporate-funded offensive ads, no trade associations funding referendum campaigns, and no politically active nonprofits spending their own funds to influence Montana voters.
Violators risk losing privileges granted to corporations by the state, such as limited liability, which generally protects shareholders from personal liability for company debts, until all misspent funds are returned and legal requirements are met.
“The argument from people supporting the initiative is, in theory, trying to be pretty simple. Keep your campaign money out of Montana, or you run the risk of putting your shareholders’ personal balance sheets at stake,” said Kal Munis, a politics professor at Montana State University and an expert on state politics.
The financial challenges extend well beyond Montana. Known corporate contributions to outside groups in federal elections have increased from $13 million in 2010 to more than $600 million in September 2026, according to OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that tracks such spending. This excludes money funneled through nonprofits that conceal their donors.
But there is an irony in the Montana plan. He benefited from significant financial support from major American companies.
State campaign finance data shows that Samantha Walton, wife of Walmart heir Lukas Walton, gave $722,300 to groups supporting the plan, while LinkedIn co-founder and Democratic megadonor Reid Hoffman contributed $150,000. The campaign’s nonprofit, Transparent Election Initiative, is itself a type of dark money group that is generally not required to disclose its donors.
And the new law wouldn’t exactly remove billionaires from politics. It exempts individuals, political committees, government entities, and authentic news, commentary, and editorial content.
Consider Tesla And EspaceX CEO Elon Musk the largest known individual donor to the 2026 election, with at least $474 million in political donations, according to a CNBC analysis of campaign finance records. Musk could still spend millions of his personal fortune to influence Montana’s elections. However, its businesses would face the new restrictions.
Moore argued that since corporations derive their legal existence from states, states should have the power to restrict their political spending.
People gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, as the court issues a series of rulings nearing the end of its term on June 25, 2026.
Mehmet Eser | Anadolu | Getty Images
The standoff before the Supreme Court
Opponents call the Montana plan an unconstitutional end to Citizens United. If states can’t directly ban protected political speech, they argue, they can’t accomplish the same thing by threatening corporations’ legal privileges.
And critics warn that the restrictions would extend beyond corporate giants, silencing local business groups, unions and community organizations on school bonds, tax measures and other local election issues.
“Why allow a media company to express itself, while denying a non-profit citizen association the right to organize around drinking water or reduce taxes?” said Brad Smith, who directs the Free Speech Institute and is a former FEC chairman. “The billionaires will find loopholes. All this really does is silence Montana’s small and medium-sized businesses.”
The first legal test is already underway in Hawaii, where lawmakers enacted a similar law in May. Montana is the first state to adopt this strategy through a statewide vote.
The Hawaiian law faces formidable legal opposition. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sued to block it, and the Free Speech Institute is representing Hawaii’s Grassroot Institute in a separate challenge. The national ACLU also weighed in, arguing in a court brief that the law violates the First Amendment.
Legal and campaign finance experts told CNBC that the dispute could eventually reach the Supreme Court, whose 6-3 conservative majority has repeatedly loosened campaign finance restrictions. Just in June, judges struck down political party spending limits in coordination with candidates.
“Moving the ban into the corporate code is a distinction without a difference,” said Michael Kang, a professor at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law who studies campaign finance. “The courts will see through this because the clear intent remains to circumvent Citizens United. This looks like legal sleight of hand.”
Montana has already lost this fight. In 1912, voters banned corporate campaign spending after copper barons bribed lawmakers and dominated state politics. The law remained in effect for a century before the Supreme Court struck it down in 2012 under the auspices of Citizens United.
“From our perspective, this is states’ rights versus citizens united,” said Moore, of the Center for American Progress. “This is the topic once and if it gets to the Supreme Court, they will have to choose between one of their two favorite legal theories and what to rely on.”
Gn usa
