A Response to the Montana Chamber: A Historical Reminder

Do not index

In late May, the Montana Chamber promoted an op-ed urging people to oppose The Montana Plan I-194. This is one of two responses from TEI and The Montana Plan I-194.

Montana Chamber - The Montana Plan - A Historical Reminder

Montanans have a long tradition of insisting that elections belong to voters, not to corporations or anonymous billionaires, and The Montana Plan continues that tradition rather than suggesting harm to Montana businesses. The core issue is not whether businesses may participate in civic life, but whether corporations should be allowed to use state-granted privileges to dominate elections or hide political spending from voters.

Montana’s historic standard - The Corrupt Practice Act of 1912

In 1912, Montana voters placed the Corrupt Practices Act on the ballot and passed it by roughly 75 percent, responding directly to the well-known corruption of the Copper Kings era and the political power of major corporate interests. That law barred corporations from using treasury funds to influence state elections and reflected the same Progressive Era principle advanced nationally by President Theodore Roosevelt, who strongly supported keeping corporate money out of politics.

For a century, Montana stood as a model for the idea that business entities may operate, invest, and profit in the state without being allowed to buy elections. When the U.S. Supreme Court applied Citizens United to Montana in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock in 2012, the Court struck down Montana’s longstanding protection, but it did not erase the values that led citizens to adopt it in the first place.

What Montanans said in 2012 - I-166

Following Citizens United, Montana voters again made their position unmistakably clear by overwhelmingly approving Initiative 166 in 2012. I-166 declared, as Montana policy, that corporations are not people and that elected officials should support measures to overturn Citizens United and restore the ability to prohibit corporate election spending.

That vote showed the same broad public sentiment seen in 1912: Montanans do not want corporate money to control elections. Whatever critics may say now, the electorate has repeatedly endorsed the principle that self-government requires strong safeguards against concentrated economic power in politics.

What The Montana Plan changes

The Montana Plan does not depend on pretending that today’s constitutional landscape is unchanged; it responds to that landscape with a different legal mechanism. The Montana Plan I-194 would use Montana’s authority over the powers it grants to corporations, making clear that corporations formed under Montana law, or operating here under Montana’s permission, do not receive the power to spend money in elections. That is an important distinction.

The Montana Plan is not aimed at silencing citizens. It is aimed at defining the limits of state-created corporate privileges and preventing those privileges from being used as political weapons. Businesses would still be free to grow, hire, invest, and advocate on public issues through lawful and transparent means; what would end is the use of the corporate form as a vehicle for election spending.

Transparency and Dark Money

Critics often point to billionaire spending as though it were a future risk, but Montana voters already know that billionaire money and corporate money flow through elections today, often anonymously. Much of that spending is routed through nonprofits, shell entities, and other structures that obscure the real source of influence from the public, commonly known as 'dark money'.

The Montana Plan addresses that problem directly by ending corporate election spending with a transparency principle that applies across the board. Whether a citizen gives one dollar or a billionaire spends a fortune, Montana voters should be able to see who is trying to influence their vote. That is not anti-business; it is pro-accountability and pro-democracy.

Why this supports fair competition

Montana’s original Corrupt Practices Act was never an attack on commerce. It was an anti-corruption measure designed to protect both public institutions and legitimate businesses from domination by the largest political spenders. That principle still matters, because local businesses cannot realistically compete in the political arena with multinational corporations or ultra-wealthy donors capable of saturating campaigns with money.

Removing corporate & anonymous election spending from the equation helps restore a fairer playing field. Businesses should succeed because they offer better goods, services, wages, or community value, not because they can secure political favoritism through campaign expenditures hidden from public view.

In closing

The real issue is simple: Montanans have already spoken on this question more than once. In 1912, they adopted the Corrupt Practices Act by an overwhelming margin to stop corporate corruption in politics, and in 2012 they overwhelmingly approved I-166 to reaffirm that corporations are not people and that elected leaders should work to restore those protections. The Chamber would simply hope you will toss 100 years of our Legacy.

The Montana Plan follows that same democratic tradition. It offers a lawful modern framework to ensure that election spending is transparent, accountable, and visible to Montana voters—whether the money comes from an ordinary citizen or from those trying to influence the outcome from behind a curtain.

The Transparent Election Initiative

The Montana Plan I-194

Jeff Mangan, Founder

The Montana Plan for Main Street | Supporting Montana Small Businesses

The Montana Plan levels the playing field for Montana's Main Street small businesses by ending corporate dominance in our politics.