Assume a company wants to spend 10 million dollars to defeat a political candidate. According to the landmark Citizens United ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010, as long as they do not coordinate with the candidate's campaign team, they are free to spend whatever amount they wish.
On Tuesday, Montana voters decided to change this situation.
In this state, Trump won in 2024 with a margin of nearly 20 percentage points. Approximately 65% of Montana voters voted in favor of Proposition 194 – the “Montana Plan” – which adopts a new legal strategy to curb corporate political spending. If states cannot restrict political speech under the Citizens United legislation, could they then consider taking away corporations’ power to spend money on elections?
This vote took place after national political advertising spending reached a record $11.87 billion during this electoral cycle. According to data from the media tracking agency AdImpact, this expenditure was roughly evenly distributed between the two parties.
The measure, which was approved by voters, is expected to become state law on January 1 next year. Montana allows voters to enact laws through ballot initiatives. The state's Republican-controlled legislature can amend or repeal this measure, but if that does happen, supporters have pledged to put the issue back to the voters in 2028.
Today, Montana is on the verge of a constitutional showdown that could potentially reach the U.S. Supreme Court. If this strategy is maintained, it could provide a replicable blueprint for restricting corporate political spending across the United States. More than 30 other states are already considering similar measures.
"If a single state is able to successfully strip corporations of their influence over elections, it will prove that Citizens United is not the ultimate conclusion of democracy. We will continue to fight," said Tom Moore, who once served as an official with the United States Federal Election Commission, is currently a senior researcher at the Center for American Progress, and helped formulate the 'Montana Plan'."
How does this law function?
The core of the "Montana Plan" lies in a legal distinction: businesses may possess constitutional rights, but their authority originates from the individual states.
According to Proposal No. 194, Montana will strip corporations, industry associations, unions, and non-profit organizations—including those headquartered in other states—of their legal right to spend money to influence elections within the state.
In practice, this means that there will no longer be corporate-funded aggressive advertising, no more industry associations providing funding for referendum campaigns, and no more non-profit organizations actively involved in politics using their own funds to influence voters in Montana.
Violators may lose corporate privileges granted by the state, such as limited liability protection. Limited liability typically protects shareholders from personal liability for company debts until all improperly spent funds are returned and legal conditions are met.
Carl Munies, a professor of political science at Montana State University and an expert in the state's politics, said: "The argument put forward by those who support this proposal is actually quite simple in theory. Keep your campaign funds outside of Montana; otherwise, you could put the personal assets of your donors at risk."
The financial impacts are not limited to Montana alone. OpenSecrets is a nonpartisan, non-profit organization that tracks such expenditures. Its data shows that known corporate donations flowing to external groups during federal elections soared from 13 million dollars in 2010 to over 600 million dollars in September 2026. This does not include funds that were transferred through non-profit organizations, thereby concealing the identities of the donors.
But there is also an irony to the “Montana Plan”: it has received support from high-profile donors in the business community.
State campaign finance data shows that Samantha Walton, wife of Walmart heir Lucas Walton, donated $722,300 to groups supporting the proposal, while LinkedIn co-founder and major Democratic donor Reid Hoffman donated $150,000. The organizing non-profit entity of this movement, Transparent Election Initiative, is itself a type of “dark money” group that generally does not need to disclose donors.
Moreover, this new law will not actually drive billionaires out of politics. It exempts individuals, political committees, government entities, as well as genuine news, commentary, and editorial content.
Taking Tesla and Elon Musk, the CEO of SpaceX, as an example. According to the analysis of campaign financial records by CNBC, he is the individual who has donated the most money in the 2026 elections, having invested at least $474 million in political donations. Musk can still use millions of dollars from his personal wealth to influence the elections in Montana. However, his company will face new restrictions.
Moore believes that since the laws governing corporations originate from various states, it is also within the authority of each state to regulate their political expenditures.
The Supreme Court Controversy
Opponents argue that the 'Montana Plan' is unconstitutionally bypassing Citizens United. If states cannot directly prohibit protected political speech, they believe that the same goal cannot be achieved by threatening the legal privileges of businesses either.
Critics also warn that the impact of these restrictions will not only fall on large corporations, but will also silence local industry groups, unions, and community organizations on school bonds, tax measures, and other local voting issues.
"Why is it allowed for a media company to speak out, but a citizen's non-profit association organized around issues such as clean water or tax reduction is deprived of that right?" said Brad Smith, head of the American Institute for Free Speech and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission. "Billionaires will always find loopholes. In fact, this will only silence small and medium-sized businesses in Montana."
The first legal test has already begun in Hawaii. The state's legislators passed a similar law in May. Montana is the first state to adopt this strategy through a statewide vote.
Hawaiian law is facing strong legal opposition. The American Chamber of Commerce has filed a lawsuit in an attempt to block the law, while the Smith Institute for Freedom of Speech in the United States is representing the Hawaiian Grassroots Research Institute in another challenge. The National Civil Liberties Union of America has also gotten involved, arguing in court briefings that the law violates the First Amendment.
Legal and campaign finance experts told CNBC that this dispute may ultimately end up in the Supreme Court. The court's conservative majority, which votes 6 to 3, has repeatedly relaxed campaign finance restrictions. As recently as June this year, the justices overruled the restrictions on coordinated spending by political parties and candidates.
“Moving the ban to the corporate code is just a change of form, not a real solution,” said Michael Kang, a professor at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law who studies campaign finance. “The courts will see through it immediately, because the clear intention is still to circumvent Citizens United. This seems like a legal trick.”
Montana has also lost this battle in the past. In 1912, voters banned corporate campaign spending at a time when copper mine tycoons bribed legislators and dominated state politics. This law lasted for a century until it was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2012 based on Citizens United. This time, the threat may also come from within the state: the Republican-controlled legislature of Montana may weaken or repeal this new law.
“In our view, this is a clash between state rights and Citizens United,” Moore said. “That’s our position; once it reaches the Supreme Court, they will have to make a choice between their two favorite legal theories, and then we’ll see how things develop.”
