Frontier Institute Lawsuit Challenges Montana Campaign Spending Measure

Montana Voters Pass I-194 by Wide Margin

Just a day and a half after Montana voters headed to the polls, a freshly approved ballot measure designed to restrict political spending has already been hauled into court, KTVH reported.

Almost two-thirds of voters backed Initiative 194 in the election, throwing their weight behind a proposal intended to stop corporations from spending money in state campaigns. Yet supporters of the measure, also known as “the Montana Plan,” acknowledged even before the ballots were cast that the policy would immediately encounter legal resistance.

Frontier Institute and GOP File Lawsuit on Thursday

That resistance arrived on Thursday morning, courtesy of a lawsuit filed by the Frontier Institute, the Montana Family Foundation, and the Montana Republican Party.

Lawsuit challenges political spending measure I-194, days after voters approve it

“The real problematic parts of this proposal are that it’s actively taking away the ability of groups like ours, local businesses and other nonprofits, from even being able to speak about proposals that matter to Montana,” said Kendall Cotton, president and CEO of the Frontier Institute, a free-market think tank, and its affiliated 501(c)(4) nonprofit, the Frontier Action Fund.

Challenging the Legal Theory Behind Citizens United Sidestep

The core mechanism of I-194 seeks to sidestep the landmark federal Citizens United ruling. The measure aims to redefine the powers of corporations, nonprofits, and other artificial entities simply by excluding them from making campaign expenditures, operating on the legal theory that states retain the authority to set the operational boundaries of such entities.

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs, sourced from the national organization the Institute for Free Speech, argue that these organizations possess a constitutionally protected right to engage in political speech. They contend that the state-level initiative forces groups to forfeit that fundamental right merely to operate within Montana.

Institute Pursues Parallel Hawaii Challenge to Silence Law

“This is the government conditioning the rights of businesses and organizations to exist on their compliance with silence about elections,” Cotton said. “If we kind of take that further in its logical conclusion, what is the government going to condition legal status on next?”

The Institute for Free Speech is concurrently pursuing a similar legal challenge in Hawaii against a parallel law passed earlier this year by the Hawaii State Legislature.

Transparent Election Initiative Defends the Montana Plan

Meanwhile, the Transparent Election Initiative, the group responsible for introducing I-194, issued a statement on Thursday maintaining that they anticipated legal pushback from the outset and remain confident in their foundational legal framework.

“This lawsuit is part of a much larger legal campaign to try and silence the will of the people,” said Jeff Mangan, founder and president of the Transparent Election Initiative.

There will be hearings, decisions and appeals along the way, but no single ruling will determine the future of this movement. Every state that adopts this approach creates another opportunity to make the case. We believe when the courts fully weigh the merits, the legal arguments for the Montana Plan and similar initiatives will prevail.