Montana voters back the "Montana Plan," a direct challenge to corporate election spending

What Montanans just passed

Voters in Montana signed off on Initiative 194, widely dubbed the "Montana Plan," with roughly 65% support. It takes effect Jan. 1 in a state where ballot initiatives can create law, though the Republican-controlled legislature can still amend or repeal it. Backers say they will return the issue to voters in 2028 if that happens.

The law attacks the problem from the corporate code, not speech rules. It would remove the state-conferred authority for corporations, trade associations, labor unions and nonprofit organizations - including those based outside Montana - to spend money to influence elections in the state. The carveouts are for individuals, political committees, government bodies, and news, commentary and editorial content that qualifies as bona fide media.

Enforcement hits where companies care most: their state privileges. Entities that violate the law could lose limited liability and other Montana-granted benefits until they return the impermissible funds and meet specified conditions. Limited liability generally protects owners from being personally on the hook for company debts.

In effect, the policy aims to shut off corporate-funded attack ads, stop industry groups from bankrolling referendum drives, and bar politically active nonprofits from spending their own treasuries to sway voters in Montana.

The strategy and the money behind it

The playbook is novel: acknowledge that corporations enjoy constitutional protections, but assert that the states that create and regulate them control their powers. Tom Moore - who previously served at the Federal Election Commission and now holds a senior fellowship at the Center for American Progress - helped design the plan and said, "If a single state can successfully deny corporate power over elections, it proves that Citizens United wasn't the final word on democracy, and we will continue battling."

The backdrop is a flood of political money. OpenSecrets reports that by September 2026, corporations had steered over $600 million in disclosed contributions to outside groups in federal races, up from $13 million in 2010. That tally does not include money routed through donor-shielding nonprofits. Nationwide, political ad spending hit a record $11.87 billion this cycle, split roughly evenly between the parties, according to AdImpact.

There is also a twist: corporate America helped fund the push. State filings indicate that Samantha Walton - married to Walmart heir Lukas Walton - contributed $722,300 to groups supporting the initiative, and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman chipped in $150,000. Transparent Election Initiative, the organizing nonprofit, operates as a dark-money style organization that generally is not required to disclose its donors.

Backers say the deterrent is simple. "The argument of the people supporting the initiative is, in theory, trying to be pretty simple. Keep your campaign cash out of Montana, or you run the risk of putting your shareholders' personal balance sheets on the line," said Kal Munis, a Montana State University politics professor.

One thing the law will not do: stop big-ticket individuals. Consider Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, the largest known individual donor of the 2026 cycle, who has, per a CNBC analysis, given at least $474 million in political contributions. He could still spend his personal fortune in Montana, though his companies would face the new restrictions.

Regulatory shifts remind investors that adaptable strategies and smarter tools matter. We're hosting our first ever investor livestream on 11/17 to show you how to use ChatGPT and Claude to invest like a pro, hosted by Briefs Finance CEO Jaspreet Singh. Save your seat.

The legal fight ahead

Citizens United in 2010 opened the door for corporations to spend unlimited sums on independent political advocacy, so long as they do not coordinate with a campaign. The Montana Plan tries a different door: if speech cannot be curbed directly, can a state curtail the corporate powers it grants to stop corporate political spending within its borders?

Critics call that an end run. "Why allow a media corporation to speak out, while denying a non-profit association of citizens the right to organize around clean water or lower taxes?" said Brad Smith, head of the Institute for Free Speech and a former FEC chairman. "Billionaires will find loopholes. All this really does is silence Montana's small- and medium-sized businesses."

Scholars see a rough road. "Shifting the prohibition 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 right through it because the clear intent remains to bypass Citizens United. It seems like a legal sleight of hand."

The first test is already live in Hawaii, where lawmakers passed a similar statute in May. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is suing to block it. Smith's Institute for Free Speech serves as counsel in a separate challenge brought by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

The national ACLU has also argued in a court brief that the Hawaii law violates the First Amendment. Montana is the first state to adopt the strategy by a statewide vote.

Specialists in election law and campaign finance who spoke with CNBC said the clash may ultimately arrive at a Supreme Court with a 6-3 conservative majority that has consistently eased campaign finance restrictions - most recently in June, when the Court invalidated caps on parties' spending coordinated with candidates. Montana also knows this terrain: voters there banned corporate campaign spending in 1912 after copper barons corrupted state politics, only for the Supreme Court to invalidate the law in 2012 under Citizens United.

Supporters say the case is a clean frame for the justices. "The way we look at it, this is states' rights vs Citizens United," Moore said. "That's the pitch once and if it makes it to the Supreme Court they're going to need to decide between one of their two favorite legal theories and things to fall back on."

Why this matters for your portfolio

If Montana's approach stands, it could become a copy-and-paste template in more than 30 states now exploring similar measures. That would alter how companies, trade groups and nonprofits participate in state and local politics, while leaving room for wealthy individuals to keep spending.

If courts strike it down or if Montana's GOP legislature rewrites it, the status quo returns. Proponents have already pledged to bring it back to the ballot in 2028 if lawmakers undo it.

Savvy investors look for reliable advantages as markets and rules evolve. On 11/17, our CEO Jaspreet Singh goes live for our first ever investor livestream on how to use ChatGPT and Claude to invest like a pro. Register to join him.