Lawsuit Challenges Montana Anti-Dark Money Initiative Days After Voters Approve It
The Frontier Institute, Montana GOP and other plaintiffs say I-194 violates the First Amendment, while the initiative’s backers say they are confident in its legal footing
By Mariah Thomas
Less than 48 hours after it passed with nearly two-thirds of the vote, a ballot initiative aiming to remove dark money from Montana drew a legal challenge, setting up a question as to whether it is constitutional.
The Washington-based Institute for Free Speech filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in the District of Montana on behalf of the Frontier Institute and its advocacy arm, the newly created Frontier Action Fund. Other plaintiffs include the Montana Family Institute, Montana Family Foundation and the Montana GOP, which opposed the initiative during the election cycle. It was filed against Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen and Attorney General Austin Knudsen, who have the duty of enforcing the new law.
At issue is the enforcement of Initiative 194, otherwise known as The Montana Plan. It limited “artificial persons” from contributing “anything of value” to candidates, political parties and state ballot issues. Since it passed Tuesday, the law is set to go into effect Jan. 1, 2027.
Coming as part of a national effort led by the nonprofit group Transparent Election Initiative, I-194’s goal is to limit dark money’s influence in elections. Many have heralded it as a novel approach to overturning the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which opened the door to corporate spending in politics by ruling that spending constituted free speech.
The plaintiffs in their legal filing argue the issue violates their First Amendment rights to free speech, association, assembly, petition and extends the argument to state I-194 also violates freedom of the press. It also argues the law is “unconstitutionally overbroad” and that its definitions are vague, making it unclear exactly which actions are prohibited.
The organizations involved raised concerns that by conducting their typical work — including activities such as legislative scorecards, analysis of laws’ impacts, making independent expenditures on behalf of candidates and advocating for or against ballot measures — under the new law, they risk receiving penalties that would threaten the existence of their organizations if their speech supports or opposes candidates or ballot measures.
Frontier Institute President and CEO Kendall Cotton emphasized that point in a Thursday press release.
“Our mission is to keep Montanans free by promoting sound public policy and educating the public about the most important issues facing our state. I-194 severely harms our ability to do that,” Cotton said. “We shouldn’t have to choose between speaking about the merits of a ballot measure or a property tax levy and protecting our organization’s ability to operate. Montanans deserve to hear from local businesses and nonprofits like ours that understand this state and have a stake in its future.”
The filing’s argument follows the same logic applied by the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce, which came out against I-194 alongside the Billings Chamber and Montana Chamber earlier this year. Lorraine Clarno, the president of Kalispell’s chamber, said she worried I-194’s passage would kneecap her organization, along with other businesses and nonprofits, from sharing information about or supporting local measures. Clarno in August cited Kalispell’s 2025 high school levy as an example of a local measure she worried I-194’s passage would prevent the chamber from supporting or sharing information about.
Backers of the initiative, on the other hand, have pushed back on those concerns. They say I-194 would prevent large corporations’ outsized influence on elections and allow small business owners to advocate as individuals more effectively. And they’ve pointed to Montana’s history with dark money, which included the Corrupt Practices Act of 1912. That act, which was on the books in Montana for a century before the Supreme Court overturned it, banned corporations from using treasury funds to influence state candidate elections.
Those behind I-194 have also long expected the ballot measure to receive legal challenges. In a Thursday press release, Transparent Election Initiative founder Jeff Mangan said the group remains “confident in the legal foundation of this initiative and ready for the fight ahead.”
Matthew Cochenour, the legal counsel for the campaign, also portrayed confidence in the legal theory supporting I-194 Thursday.
“A long line of state and federal court cases recognize that corporations are artificial entities that exist as a matter of state law,” Cochenour said in the release. “Further, the law is clear that states may grant, revoke, or alter the powers of corporations. I-194 operates within this framework to hold that corporations are not granted powers to spend funds to support or oppose candidates, political parties, or ballot issues.”