No One Best Fix, Part 3 Dark Money Continued – Montana as a Test Case, Not a Template

No One Best Fix — 3

Montana as a Test Case, Not a Template

Most people outside of Montana don’t think about Montana much — and that’s exactly the point.

Montana matters here not because it has all the answers, but because it raises a question many places are quietly facing:

What happens when a community tries to limit outside influence structurally instead of just complaining about it?

To ground that question in reality, here are two useful references:

• Official proposed ballot text and description (Montana Secretary of State) — this is the government’s own page listing what the initiative says it would do. Montana Proposed 2026 Ballot Issues Page (Official Text & Summary)

• Plain-language summary of the initiative statement — a concise version of what the amendment would change. Group Releases Text of Proposed Montana Constitutional Amendment to Curb Dark Money (Summary)

With those in hand, you can always look at the source language while reading this section.

What the initiative would do

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.

The Montana proposal — often referred to as the Montana Plan or the Transparent Election Initiative — is fundamentally different from traditional campaign finance reforms.

Instead of regulating spending directly, it would change the basic definition of what corporations and similar entities (“artificial persons”) are allowed to do in elections. In effect, it would:

• Amend the state constitution to say corporations and other artificial entities have only the powers the constitution explicitly grants them.

• Specifically ensure that corporations have no authority to spend money or anything of value on elections or ballot issues.

• Leave open the possibility for political committees (not corporations) to spend money on elections.

• Include enforcement provisions and severability clauses to protect parts of the law if others are ruled invalid. Montana Secretary of State+1

This isn’t the typical approach of saying “limit X amount” or “disclose Y.” It says, in essence:

If the state never gave a corporate entity the power to spend in politics in the first place, then it can’t do so now. Harvard Law Corporate Governance Forum

That’s why proponents describe it as a doctrine-based challenge to the framework established by Citizens United — not a straightforward campaign finance rule. Harvard Law Corporate Governance Forum

Why this matters structurally

There are four big implications worth noting:

1. It reframes power, not just spending.
Instead of capping or reporting spending, it redefines who gets that power at all. That’s a deeper structural shift in how the political system treats corporations. Harvard Law Corporate Governance Forum

2. It acts at the level where consequences are visible.
When outside groups spend in small races or ballot campaigns, local voters often never see the circuit of influence. This initiative aims to shorten that circuit — even if imperfectly. Truthout

3. It shows how local contexts shape responses to national problems.
Dark money isn’t a national phenomenon only — it’s a distributed one, especially in low-attention environments like state and local elections. Montana’s approach reflects that reality. NonStop Local Montana

4. It illustrates why there’s “no one best fix.”
You’ll notice this proposal doesn’t:

• Ban all political spending by wealthy individuals

• Eliminate all influence from outside actors

• End lobbying

• And, according to some critics, may raise free speech or legal concerns if adopted wholesale Montana Free Press

What it does is test a structural lever that hasn’t been widely tried before: the state’s sovereign authority to grant or withhold corporate powers.

What’s happening with the initiative now

As of late 2025:

• The Montana Attorney General has ruled the proposed initiative legally insufficient, arguing it combines multiple constitutional changes into one item and may affect more than a single subject. Montana Free Press

• The organizers are planning to challenge that ruling and pursue placement on the 2026 ballot. Montana Free Press

This process — review, challenge, signature gathering — is itself part of what makes Montana a useful test case. It isn’t a finished story yet.

---

How to think about this

When you look at the initiative text and the summary together with your understanding of dark money and influence, here’s the clean takeaway:

• Montana isn’t offering a pre-packaged solution.

• It’s testing whether changing who can spend at all alters the dynamics of influence.

• The state’s unique legal authority provides a laboratory for ideas that might be adapted elsewhere in different forms.

In other words:
Montana’s initiative isn’t the answer — it’s an experiment. Good data from experimentation — success or failure — gives other states something concrete to think with.