Over the past twenty years, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has made some extremely controversial decisions. After 16 years, one of its most infamous and hotly debated rulings may find itself limited by new state laws.
On November 3, 2026, Montana voters heading to the polls for the midterm elections will have a little something extra on their ballots, giving them an opportunity to negate some of the effects of SCOTUS’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruling. If passed, Initiative-194 (I-194), also known as “The Montana Plan Act,” will redefine the powers state law grants to business entities, including corporations, trade associations, and nonprofits, with a focus on eliminating the state-granted political spending power of these “artificial persons,” whose independent political spending Citizens United held to be constitutionally protected. Arguing that artificial persons don’t possess “natural rights” and are instead given conditional grants of legal status by the state, I-194 stipulates that interpreting general grants of corporate powers to include political spending power “does not reflect the will of the people” and thus requires legal redefinition and explicit limits.
Montana’s attempt to create a corporate power reset regarding spending on political speech follows in the footsteps of Hawaii’s Senate Bill 2471, also known as Act 11. Passed in May 2026 and set to take effect in July 2027, Act 11 already faces two constitutional challenges in court. If voters approve I-194, it will likely face its own challenge in either a district court or the Montana Supreme Court.
What Citizens United Changed
If you’ve ever wondered why Super PACs can accept unlimited donations from corporations and individuals and spend that money independently to support or oppose candidates, look to Citizens United and the related decision in SpeechNow.org v. FEC. The 5-4 decision struck down restrictions on corporate independent political expenditures, overruling Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and part of McConnell v. FEC. Rather than issuing a narrow ruling on the specific case before it (whether Citizens United could distribute a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton through cable video-on-demand within 30 days of a primary election), the majority found that the federal prohibition on corporate independent expenditures was an “outright ban on speech.”
By ruling that government restrictions on independent political spending by entities such as corporations and trade unions violated the First Amendment right to free speech, Citizens United opened the spigot to corporate money being used for independent political spending. Almost two decades later, Hawaii and Montana are trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
Under I-194, “artificial person powers” assigned to businesses and other entities are defined as those “necessary or convenient to carry out lawful business, charitable, cooperative, or organizational purposes as provided by Montana law.” The definition explicitly excludes political spending power, which may “not be deemed necessary or convenient under any circumstances.” Political spending includes expending money or anything of value to support or oppose the outcome of a vote of the electorate. I-194 does preserve the lawful activities of political committees organized under state or federal law and does not apply to individuals acting solely in their individual capacity.
The proposed law also takes a hard line on potential violations. Transgressors can have their state-granted corporate charter privileges revoked, which could mean losing the ability to operate in Montana. Forfeited charter privileges may be reinstated through state procedures after full disgorgement, certification of future compliance, and satisfaction of any additional state conditions. A separate nonrevival clause provides that powers, privileges, or capacities withdrawn or not extended by the Act may not be restored by operation of law or judicial construction. I-194 also includes a severability clause that, if part of the law is struck down or declared invalid, would keep the other parts of the Act in effect.
If passed, the Montana Plan Act would become effective on January 1, 2027. Whether it can take effect on that date will depend on the many lawsuits and preliminary injunction requests it will undoubtedly face.
Legal Challenges Ahead
In perhaps a preview of what Montana can expect if I-194 is approved, Hawaii’s Act 11 faces multiple legal challenges. The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii filed suit in June 2026, alleging that the law both violates free speech and is “unconstitutionally vague.” Another complaint was filed in September, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which, despite the name, is not a federal agency but a nonprofit) claiming Hawaii violates First Amendment rights by trying to police corporations formed in other states.
Montana has already lost one Supreme Court fight over corporate election spending. In American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock (2012), the Court struck down Montana’s corporate expenditure ban, holding that Citizens United applied to state law. I-194 attempts a different approach by redefining corporate powers rather than imposing a conventional campaign finance prohibition, but courts would still have to decide whether that distinction matters in its First Amendment analysis.
I-194 limits forfeiture to charter privileges conferred by Montana law, not privileges conferred by other jurisdictions. However, like Hawaii’s law, it expressly applies its political-spending restrictions to entities formed outside the state. The section giving the secretary of state authority to adopt rules and procedures to implement and enforce I-194 also risks accusations of unconstitutional vagueness. Whether the legal disputes will be settled before the 2028 election season begins is anybody’s guess.
