During this election cycle, you will likely be asked to sign petitions to place various proposals on the November ballot. Before signing, it is important to understand exactly what you are supporting. That is especially true for I-194, a proposed ballot initiative aimed at restricting “dark money” in elections.
I-194, known as The Montana Plan, is designed to sharply limit the role of corporations, nonprofits, LLCs, trade associations, and other “artificial persons” in Montana elections. Supporters argue it would reduce dark money in politics by preventing Montana entities, and possibly some out-of-state organizations, from contributing to or spending money on state and local campaigns. But even if this five-page law passes, major loopholes and legal problems would remain.
One of the biggest loopholes is that the proposal targets organizations, not individuals. Wealthy business owners, executives, and nonprofit leaders could still spend large sums of money personally, simply shifting political influence from corporate accounts to billionaire donors rather than reducing money in politics.
Another concern involves PACs and political committees. Depending on how courts interpret the law, organizations could still influence elections indirectly through layered committees or pass-through funding arrangements that hide the original source of the money, much like dark-money systems currently operate.
Out-of-state groups could also restructure themselves to avoid Montana’s definitions. National organizations may create affiliated entities, use contractors, or avoid technically “doing business” in Montana while still influencing public opinion and elections here.
The distinction between direct campaigning and issue advocacy creates another major loophole. Even if an organization cannot explicitly say “Vote for Candidate X,” it may still spend heavily on advertising campaigns criticizing policies, shaping public opinion, or mobilizing voters around political issues tied to an election.
Federal elections present another limitation. Montana may regulate state and local races more easily than federal campaigns for Congress or the presidency, which are governed largely by federal law and constitutional protections. Organizations could still spend heavily on federal races that influence Montana voters indirectly.
I-194 is also vulnerable politically because it is a statutory initiative rather than a constitutional amendment. Future legislatures could weaken, narrow, or partially repeal the law.
Finally, the measure would almost certainly face years of expensive litigation centered on Citizens United and First Amendment protections for political speech. Courts could strike down parts of the law while leaving others intact, creating confusion and weak enforcement. Defending I-194 could cost Montana taxpayers millions of dollars, with a strong possibility that the law would ultimately be ruled partially or wholly unconstitutional.
At first blush, I-194 may sound like a good solution, but as the saying goes, “The devil is in the details.”
Hellbound and Down 
You must be logged in to post a comment.