Group releases text of proposed Montana Constitutional amendment to curb dark money

Aug. 1, 2025 Updated Fri., Aug. 1, 2025 at 7:17 p.m.

By Darrell Ehrlick Daily Montanan

Montana’s battle against dark money in politics stretches back more than a century, when the state was humiliated because of a bribery scandal that saw wealthy copper king William Andrews Clark elected to the U.S. Senate. This week, Montana added to that history by beginning the constitutional initiative process aimed at challenging dark money, corporate spending and the Citizens United ruling.

Leaders who have signed on the measure admit: They have a steep hill to climb. Citizens United, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, said that the power to spend money in elections is tantamount to free speech and so most attempts to thwart or limit it have run afoul of the U.S. Constitution and the nation’s highest courts.

The wording of the new initiative, however, seeks to limit the amount of money corporations can spend – not through traditional campaign laws or limitations, but rather by limiting corporate charters.

The new and untested method would leverage the state’s inherent power to regulate corporates through the charter process. The language of the proposed state constitutional amendment would prohibit corporations from making political contributions, except in specific circumstances. Meanwhile, individuals would be free to spend on candidates and causes.

The idea, said Jeff Mangan, a former Montana Commissioner of Political Practices, is conservative in nature: The state has the power to put limits on the corporations it charters to do business in the state; this one would simply not allow them the power to participate in elections directly, while still leaving a path for political action committees.

The key, Mangan said, is about transparency. He said the current system allows private corporations to be established and collect money, but to keep those donors and the amounts hidden from public view. Those corporations, which can consist with as few as one donor, can give to candidates and causes under the corporation name, although the people supporting that corporation and the amount of money donated are unknown, leading to the term “dark money.”

The change in Montana law would simply not grant the corporations the power to give to candidates or causes, but would allow individuals to give, but those donations would be tracked.

The proposed legislation is the first-of-its-kind and takes a different approach to the problem of campaign finance in spending. For example, last year’s U.S. Senate race in Montana, which saw Republican Tim Sheehy beat incumbent Democrat Jon Tester, had more than $275 million spent in a state of roughly 1.2 million people.

“Basically, the only difference is that corporations won’t be able to spend in our elections,” Mangan said.

The specifics of the proposed constitutional amendment would carve out exceptions for organizations like political parties and even media organizations whose coverage could possibly run afoul of the amendment’s language.

“If a person wants to spend money, then they have to put their name on it. It’s full disclosure. That’s what this is all about,” Mangan said.

Constance Van Kley, an assistant professor at the University of Montana law school, said it’s unknown whether this idea will get around the Citizens United ruling, as well as clear the First Amendment, but she said it nonetheless attempts a new solution.

“There’s nothing that I am aware of that squarely forecloses it, though,” Van Kley said.

She teaches constitutional law in Missoula and said that since the United States Supreme Court has said that money equals political speech, and political speech is the most protected part of free speech. Many campaign finance laws have been evaluated in terms of whether they restrict, prohibit or curtail free speech. Van Kley said this initiative is different and limits corporations using the power states have inherently in their power to issue a charter.

“The question that has not been decided to my knowledge is whether this can get by the First Amendment,” she said.

Mangan told the Daily Montanan it eliminates the vaguely named organizations, which often become nothing more than shields to hide where the money is coming from.

“This is not limiting anyone’s speech. They have the right to do whatever they want with their money, they just have to put their name to it,” Mangan said. “But it has to come from individuals. And, I think the individuals – the rank-and-file folks – they are tired of the money in politics and they’re just waiting for someone to do something about it.”

He said because of the Citizens United decision and its connection to free speech and the First Amendment, many believe the solution to the dark money in politics is insurmountable.

“Many citizens are just resigned. You know: It is what it is,” Mangan said. “People are born, but corporations are created with rights by a piece of paper and pen. That means that states can change corporate rules the same way. States have always had the right to change charters.”

Mangan said he expects opposition from corporations who like putting money into campaigns to protect their business interests. People who work for companies or corporations, however, may not like or support their employer’s political decisions. This initiative, Mangan said, would stop that.

Van Kley said that this measure is different because not many politicians have been actively fighting against the Citizens United ruling because the decision has meant a tidal wave of money pouring into both parties, despite the public being opposed to the ruling. Van Kley said the movement to change campaign financing has not had state legislatures and politicians chipping away at it like the countless challenges to other issues, like abortion, which finally chiseled it away enough to lead to the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. She said that makes this particularly constitutional initiative a challenge to predict because so much of it has not been explored by the courts.

“Especially in Citizens United, most people have thought that the only pushback to it would be by an amendment (to the U.S. Constitution) because it involves freedom of speech,” Van Kley said. “Is it the first step to rethinking First Amendment and campaign finance law?

The initiative has several major hurdles to clear before it would even get in front of the voters. The language must first be approved and checked with the Attorney General’s Office. Then initiative supporters must collect signatures throughout the state, a daunting task because of the requirements. The initiative will take about 63,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot, so Mangan said they’ll likely need to aim for double that amount just to ensure those signatures can all be verified.

“We trying to get things back to the way they were,” he said. “We tell them right up front, we’ll be transparent with our donors for anyone who ask. Montanans shouldn’t have to do this.

“It shouldn’t cost this much. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat or Republican, it just doesn’t make sense.”

Van Kley also sees this initiative as a bit of history repeating itself.

“Montana and Alaska,” she said. “They have been the places that have had incredibly rich natural resource and not a lot of people, which has made them victims of extraordinary political corruption, historically.”

THE MONTANA PLAN PROPOSED BALLOT STATEMENT

{div class=”text-gray-700 text-lg leading-relaxed space-y-4”}CI ____ would amend Article XIII of the Montana Constitution to redefine the powers of artificial “persons,” including corporations. It defines their powers as only those the constitution expressly grants and provides that artificial persons have no power to spend money or anything of value on elections or ballot issues. It affirms that the people of Montana never intended for artificial persons to have the power to spend on elections or ballot issues. CI ____ provides that actions beyond those expressly granted powers are void. The initiative permits political committees to be granted the power to spend on elections and ballot issues. It allows enforcement through forfeiture of state-conferred privileges. The initiative includes a clause that ensures that valid portions of the initiative remain effective even if other parts are invalidated.{/div}

{h4}THE COMPLETE TEXT OF CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE NO. (CI-){/h4}

{div class=”text-gray-700 text-xl leading-relaxed space-y-4”}BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

NEW SECTION. Section 1. Article XIII of The Constitution of the State of Montana is amended by adding a new section 8 that reads:{div class=”ml-4 space-y-4”}Section 8. Powers of Artificial Persons.

(1) Artificial Persons exist only by grant of the state and shall have no powers or privileges except those this constitution expressly provides.{div class=”ml-4”}(2) (a) The legislature may by statute create Artificial Persons consistent with subsection (1).

(b) The people never did, and do not, intend the powers of Artificial Persons to include Election Activity or Ballot-Issue Activity. This section retracts all Artificial Persons’ powers and re-grants only those powers that the people deem necessary or convenient to carry out an Artificial Person’s lawful business or charitable purposes, as described in (3)(e). Powers related to Election Activity or Ballot-Issue Activity shall not be deemed necessary or convenient to those purposes.{/div}(3) Definitions.{div class=”ml-4 space-y-3”}{div}(a) “Artificial Person” means every entity whose existence or limited-liability shield is conferred by Montana law, including, without limitation:{div class=”ml-6 space-y-1”}(i) business corporations;

(ii) nonprofit corporations (public-benefit, mutual-benefit, religious);

(iii) limited-liability companies;

(iv) unincorporated associations, limited-liability partnerships, statutory trusts, professional corporations, cooperatives, and any successor form;

(v) Foreign Entities that are authorized to transact business, are otherwise transacting business, or hold property in Montana. Any Foreign Entity that directly or indirectly undertakes, finances, or directs Election Activity or Ballot-Issue Activity in the state of Montana is conclusively deemed to be transacting business in this state.{/div}{/div}(b) “Election Activity” means paying, contributing, or expending money or anything of value to support or oppose a candidate, political party, or political committee.

(d) Election Activity and Ballot-Issue Activity do not include any bona fide news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, or of any print, online, or digital newspaper, magazine, blog, or other periodical publication, unless such broadcasting, print, online, or digital facilities are owned or controlled by a political party, political committee, or candidate.

(e) “Artificial Person Powers” means powers necessary or convenient to carry out lawful business or charitable purposes, excluding any power to directly or indirectly engage in Election Activity or Ballot-Issue Activity.

(f) “Charter Privilege” means any benefit to Artificial Persons that exists only because the state of Montana confers it, such as, without limitation, limited liability, perpetual duration, succession in its corporate name, and tax credits and abatements.

(g) “Foreign Entity” means an Artificial Person organized or existing under the laws of any jurisdiction other than the state of Montana.{/div}{div}(4) Total Revocation of Previous Power Grants.{div class=”ml-4 space-y-3”}(a) The creation and continued existence of an Artificial Person is not a right but a conditional grant of legal status by the state and remains subject to complete withdrawal at any time. All powers previously granted to any Artificial Person under Montana law are revoked in their entirety. No Artificial Person operating under the jurisdiction of this state shall possess any power unless specifically granted by this constitution. No provision of this constitution grants or recognizes any power of an Artificial Person to engage in Election Activity or Ballot-Issue Activity, except as provided in (5)©.

(b) Transitional Safe Harbor. Nothing in (4)(a) shall be construed to invalidate, impair, or modify any existing contract, debt instrument, security, or other legal obligation validly entered into before the effective date of [this act]; provided, however, that nothing herein authorizes any Election Activity or Ballot Issue Activity after the effective date.{/div}{/div}{div}(5) Selective Re-Grant of Artificial Person Powers.{div class=”ml-4 space-y-3”}(a) Each Artificial Person possesses the powers defined in (3)(e), unless its organizational documents limit the exercise of such powers, and no powers beyond those expressly granted. No provision of this constitution grants or recognizes any power of an Artificial Person to engage in Election Activity or Ballot-Issue Activity, except as provided in (5)©.

(b) Any language in articles of incorporation, organization, association, or other organizational documents purporting to directly or indirectly confer Election-Activity authority or Ballot-Issue-Activity authority to Artificial Persons is void.

© Political committees registered under Montana or federal law are entities created for the purpose of engaging in Election Activity and Ballot-Issue Activity. Such committees may be granted the power to engage in those activities provided that they exist solely for that purpose and claim no Charter Privilege other than limited liability. This constitution does not grant any other Artificial Person the power to engage in Election Activity or Ballot-Issue Activity.

(d) No Charter Privilege shall be construed to authorize Election Activity or Ballot-Issue Activity. An Artificial Person that exercises Election-Activity authority or Ballot-Issue-Activity authority, unless expressly permitted to do so under (5)©, initially forfeits all Charter Privileges as a matter of law. The legislature shall, during its first regular session following the effective date of [this act], enact procedures that allow reinstatement upon full disgorgement, certification of compliance, and payment of civil penalties.{/div}{/div}(6) Ultra Vires Actions. Any Election Activity or Ballot-Issue Activity conducted by an Artificial Person is ultra vires and void. Such conduct results in the forfeiture of Charter Privileges as provided in (5)(d) and shall also be subject to civil action by a member, shareholder, or the attorney general for injunctive relief, disgorgement, and confirmation or enforcement of the forfeiture. The legislature shall, during its first regular session following the effective date of [this act], enact procedures for such civil actions.

(7) Severability. If any provision of [this act], or its application to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remaining provisions and applications that are severable shall remain in effect. In such event, no prior grant of corporate powers shall be revived or reinstated, nor shall any court construe [this act] to authorize broader powers than are expressly conferred in [this act].{/div}

{/div}