Anti-Dark Money Group Challenges Montana AG, Defends Ballot Initiative to Curb Corporate Political Power
The ballot issue aims to overturn the 2010 Citizens United decision by redefining the powers of corporations in the state’s constitution
By Mariah Thomas
The Transparent Election Initiative, a nonprofit proposing a ballot issue for 2026 aimed at undoing the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, filed a lawsuit Monday against Montana’s attorney general. The suit aims to overturn Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s finding that the ballot initiative was legally insufficient.
The Transparent Election Initiative’s ballot issue, dubbed “The Montana Plan,” would add a new section to Article XIII of the state’s constitution “to define the powers of artificial persons, including corporations, as only those the constitution expressly grants and provide that artificial persons have no power to spend money or anything of value on elections or ballot issues.”
Jeff Mangan, the founder of the Transparent Election Initiative and the state’s former Commissioner of Political Practices, told a crowd at a Kalispell presentation Oct. 27 that The Montana Plan would change the powers the state grants to corporations. Doing so, Mangan said, would potentially provide a legal basis to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision.
That decision opened the door for corporations to more-heavily contribute to political campaigns, along with giving rise to super PACs, or political action committees, that hold major influence in politics. It also was used as the basis for the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down a century-old Montana law, the Corrupt Practices Act, in 2012.
“Attorney General Knudsen will continue to ensure constitutional initiatives are legally sufficient and Montanans know exactly what they’re voting for when they cast their ballot,” said Chase Scheuer, a spokesperson for the attorney general’s office. “Our arguments regarding TEI’s lawsuit will be outlined in future court filings, for now, reference our legal sufficiency.”
The attorney general’s legal sufficiency review on the proposed ballot issue found the measure violated Montana’s separate-vote principle. That principle requires ballot measures to focus on a single issue, rather than rolling several issues into one measure.
Knudsen also found that the measure would cause “material harm” to business interests. He wrote the measure would prohibit businesses from appearing on legislative and regulatory measures, and that the measure would require the state’s Commissioner of Political Practices to hire an additional employee to enforce the measure.
“And, if litigated, COPP believes Ballot Measure No. 4’s litigation will cost taxpayers between $50,000 and $500,000 to defend — based on past challenges to similar issues,” Knudsen’s review stated.
The lawsuit the Transparent Election Initiative filed asks the Supreme Court to direct the attorney general to “either approve TEI’s ballot statement or prepare and forward a ballot statement to the Secretary of State within five days” and to “strike the Attorney General’s fiscal statement, which he lacked authority to prepare, and the statement of material harm based on its inaccuracies.” The attorney general’s office has until Nov. 17 to respond to the lawsuit, per court filings.
In an interview with the Beacon Tuesday morning, Mangan said the lawsuit is “just part of the process,” and the group is doing what it can to ensure the Montana Plan makes it onto the ballot. Mangan said he’s preparing to start collecting signatures, should the lawsuit be decided in the group’s favor.
“We’re confident in our counsel, confident in our courts and we look forward to working through the process,” Mangan said.
Mangan said in Kalispell Oct. 27 that $500,000 would be a small price to pay to undo the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The group anticipates that, should the issue make it to the 2026 ballot and receive voters’ approval, it would face legal pushback.
The Transparent Election Initiative’s lawsuit against the attorney general joins a slate of other lawsuits filed against Knudsen mid-October over a trio of ballot issues aiming to keep judicial races in Montana nonpartisan. Two of those lawsuits challenged rewrites to the ballot language from Knudsen; a third challenged a finding of legal insufficiency.