The Montana Plan: A New Way to Push Back Against Citizens United

When the Supreme Court handed down Citizens United v. FEC in 2010, it reshaped American politics in ways most of us are still grappling with. I’ve written before about how the ruling opened the door to unlimited corporate spending in elections and changed the political landscape for the worse. And I’ve explored how it fueled the rise of dark-money groups that operate with little accountability. Those two posts laid out the core problem: when corporate money floods elections, public power starts drifting toward private interests.

Now Montana—a place with a long memory of what unchecked corporate power can do—is trying something new. The state is preparing a ballot initiative for 2026 that could become the most important test of campaign-finance reform in years. People are calling it “The Montana Plan,” and depending on how things play out, it may offer a path that other states can use to weaken the impact of Citizens United without waiting on Congress or the Supreme Court.

This post walks through what the Montana Plan does, why it matters, and what it could mean beyond Montana’s borders.

A Quick Refresher: What Citizens United Changed

In Citizens United, the Court ruled that corporations and unions have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited money on “independent expenditures” supporting or opposing political candidates. The logic rested on the idea that restricting a corporation’s spending restricts its “speech.” The practical result has been a surge in outside spending—much of it funneled through super PACs and dark-money groups where donors can remain anonymous.

If you’ve followed the changes in campaign finance over the past decade, you know the pattern: more big money, less transparency, and more influence for well-funded interests. That background is essential for understanding Montana’s new approach.

Montana’s Long History of Fighting Corporate Influence

Montana isn’t new to this fight. In the early 1900s, the state was dominated by mining companies that effectively bought elections. In response, Montanans passed the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, which banned corporate political spending. That law stood for nearly a century—until the Supreme Court struck it down in 2012, saying Citizens United applies to all states.

So Montana has been here before. The difference is that this time, reformers aren’t trying to set contribution limits or disclosure rules. They’re attacking the problem at the structural level.

What the Montana Plan Actually Does

At the center of the Montana Plan is a simple but powerful idea: states have broad authority to define what powers corporations have. Corporations exist because states charter them. If a state chooses, it can narrow or expand the powers that come with that charter.

The Montana Plan uses that authority in a new way.

The initiative would amend the state constitution—or the rules governing corporate charters—to say that corporations operating in Montana do not have the power to spend money to influence elections. Not “not allowed,” not “restricted,” but simply: Election spending is not one of the powers granted to corporate entities in this state.

Here’s why that matters. Under Citizens United, corporations may have a constitutional right to spend money in elections. But a right is only meaningful if the corporation has the power to exercise it. If Montana says, “Corporations we charter don’t have that power,” then there’s nothing for the First Amendment to protect.

Reformers describe this as “taking the engine out of the car.” The Supreme Court may say corporations can drive, but if the state removes the engine, there’s nothing to drive with.

Polls show the idea has strong support in Montana—more than 70 percent, including many Republicans and independents. And because states usually apply the same limits on domestic corporations to foreign or out-of-state corporations doing business there, the rule could have broad reach.

How This Could Neutralize Citizens United in Montana

The key distinction here is between rights and powers.

Citizens United says corporations have a First Amendment right to make independent political expenditures.

But Montana is saying:

“You may have the right, but under our corporate law, you don’t have the power.”

That difference matters because the First Amendment generally protects people—and corporations—from government restrictions on actions they are otherwise legally permitted to take. If a state says a corporation literally doesn’t have the authority to spend money on politics, then restricting that nonexistent authority isn’t the same thing as regulating speech.

If the Montana Plan survives legal scrutiny, it would create a state where corporations are simply not political actors by design. It would not overturn Citizens United, but it would make the ruling largely irrelevant in that state.

What Happens If It Passes

Inside Montana

If voters approve the initiative in 2026:

• Corporate independent expenditures in Montana elections could drop sharply.

• Dark-money groups tied to corporate funding streams may lose influence.

• Candidates may rely more on grassroots fundraising and individual donors.

• Election messaging may become less dominated by outside spending.

The state would effectively become a test case for what politics without corporate election spending looks like.

Beyond Montana

If the plan works—and especially if it holds up in court—it could spread.

Other states, especially those with ballot-initiative systems, could adopt similar reforms. Reform advocates have already begun discussing where this might go next: Colorado, Oregon, New York, and even some Midwest states with strong anti-corruption traditions.

Over time, that could create a patchwork of states where corporate political spending is curtailed, shifting the balance of influence in state-level elections and possibly altering national political dynamics.

And because reform at the federal level remains stalled, state-level action may be the only path forward for the foreseeable future.

Challenges and Legal Headwinds

None of this will happen without resistance.

• Corporations and political groups will almost certainly sue, arguing that the initiative violates the First Amendment or interferes with interstate commerce.

• Election-spending groups are likely to pour money into Montana to oppose the ballot measure.

• Some dark-money organizations may try to restructure in ways that avoid classification as corporations.

• Courts may ultimately rule that states can’t restrict corporate powers in this way—though the legal theory behind the initiative is strong enough to merit serious consideration.

There’s also the practical question of enforcement. Defining which entities count as “corporations doing business in the state” matters. So does tracking how money flows through intermediaries. But these are administrative challenges, not deal-breakers.

Why This Matters for Democracy

For the past fifteen years, critics of Citizens United have been stuck in a cycle of frustration: Congress won’t act, the Court won’t reverse itself, and wealthy interests continue to dominate political spending.

The Montana Plan breaks that pattern. Instead of begging the Supreme Court to change its mind, it asks a more fundamental question:

What powers do we want corporations to have in our democracy?

By focusing on corporate charters rather than campaign-finance regulations, the initiative goes beneath the symptoms and aims at the underlying structure. It’s a reminder that corporations are creations of public law, not independent political actors with inherent authority.

If you believe, as I do, that democracy works best when the influence of money is balanced by transparency, accountability, and public voice, then this approach is worth watching closely.

What to Watch Next

Here are the key things I’ll be tracking:

• Whether the Montana attorney general approves the initiative for the 2026 ballot

• Signature-gathering efforts and public-opinion shifts

• Early lawsuits and legal opinions on the state’s authority over corporate powers

• Interest from other states exploring similar reforms

• How national dark-money groups respond

Montana may be about to run the country’s most important experiment in reducing corporate influence on elections. If it succeeds, other states might follow—and that could change the landscape far more than anything happening in Washington right now.

Texas GOP Pushes Mid-Cycle Redistricting Power Grab

In Texas, we believe in fair play. Whether it’s football, business, or elections, the rules should apply equally to everyone—and once the game starts, you don’t get to move the goalposts. But that’s exactly what some politicians in Austin are trying to do with our voting maps.

They want to redraw the maps for Texas congressional and legislative districts in the middle of the decade—something that’s never been done before in our state without a court order. This isn’t just unusual. It’s wrong. And it should be illegal.

What’s Going On?

After every U.S. Census—once every ten years—states update their district maps to reflect population changes. Texas did that in 2021. The new maps were drawn by the Republican majority in the Legislature. At the time, they defended those maps in court by saying they were based on politics—not race—because using race as the main factor in redistricting is illegal.

Now, just a few years later, those same leaders are changing their story. They claim the maps were racially flawed after all—and that’s why they need to be redrawn now, mid-decade.

But let’s be clear: this isn’t about fixing a racial injustice. It’s a political power grab.

Why This Matters

Mid-cycle redistricting has never been part of the Texas tradition. Once the maps are drawn, they’re supposed to stay in place until the next census—unless a court steps in to fix a legal violation. That’s what keeps the system fair and stable.

If we let politicians redraw the maps whenever they feel like they might lose power, then elections stop being about voters choosing leaders—and start being about leaders choosing voters.

Even worse, the communities being targeted in this proposal are diverse, growing areas, especially in cities and suburbs. This plan would dilute the voices of voters of color and make it harder for everyday Texans to hold their leaders accountable.

It’s a Bad Precedent—and a Legal Sham

Here’s the kicker: if the maps really were racially biased, then they never should’ve been approved in the first place. But Republicans swore in court that race wasn’t a factor. Now they want to use race as an excuse to change the rules midstream.

That kind of flip-flop doesn’t pass the smell test—and it doesn’t match what the law intends. The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect communities of color from being silenced—not be twisted into a tool to take away their representation.

This kind of manipulation should not be allowed in any state—especially not Texas, where we pride ourselves on independence, fairness, and doing things the right way.

What We Can Do About It

We can’t let this stand. If Texas becomes the first state to rewrite its maps mid-decade for political reasons, others will follow. The damage to our democracy will be deep—and lasting.

Here’s what you can do right now:

• Contact your Texas state lawmakers. Tell them you oppose mid-cycle redistricting.

• Support the Texas Democrats fighting this injustice. Visit RiggedRedistricting.com to donate, sign petitions, and stay informed.

• Share this post with your friends, family, and neighbors—especially if they live in Texas.

• Push for reform. It’s time to end gerrymandering for good. We need independent redistricting commissions and strong federal laws like the Freedom to Vote Act to protect our elections.

The Bottom Line

Texans may not agree on everything—but we know cheating when we see it.

Redrawing the maps mid-cycle isn’t just bad policy. It’s a betrayal of the Texas values we all share: honesty, fairness, and respect for the rules.

Let’s hold the line. Let’s protect the vote. And let’s remind those in power: In Texas, we don’t rig the game—we play it fair.