Montana voters will decide in November whether to prohibit corporations, unions, nonprofits and other "artificial persons" from spending money in elections through a citizen-initiated statute known as I-194.

The measure would bar such entities from contributing to candidates, political parties or ballot measure campaigns. Entities that violate the ban would forfeit corporate charter privileges, including limited liability protections, and could regain them only after disgorging funds spent politically and meeting other conditions.

Supporters argue the proposal leverages state authority over corporate charters to sidestep the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, which protected independent political expenditures by corporations and unions as free speech. The measure applies to any entity doing business in or holding property in Montana, regardless of where it is chartered.

Bipartisan figures have backed the effort, including former Republican Gov. Marc Racicot. The state Republican Party and various business organizations oppose it. Critics contend the initiative infringes on constitutional speech protections and could face immediate legal challenges if approved.

Spending by outside groups in Montana elections has risen sharply since Citizens United. Independent expenditures grew from $33,000 in 2008 to $162 million in 2024, according to data compiled by the Transparent Election Initiative, the group behind the measure.

Nationally, corporate contributions to outside political groups exceeded $600 million in the current cycle, per OpenSecrets tracking. The initiative would take effect January 1, 2027, if passed by a simple majority.

The proposal follows earlier attempts by the same organizers that encountered legal hurdles, including rejections by the attorney general and court rulings on single-subject requirements. Montana's Supreme Court cleared a related constitutional version earlier this year.

If approved, Montana would become the first state to enact such a prohibition, though similar ideas have surfaced in roughly 32 other states. The measure's own funding has drawn scrutiny over the use of a nonprofit structure that limited donor disclosure during signature gathering.