Montana voters bar nonprofits and corporations from spending on elections, with 65% voting yes

Montana voters on Tuesday approved Initiative 194, which bars nonprofits, corporations, unions and other "artificial persons" from spending money to influence elections, by 302,141 votes to 159,455, or 65.5% to 34.5%, according to unofficial Secretary of State results.

When we checked the state's results page on the morning of November 5, it showed 727 of 728 precincts fully reported and had last been updated at 7:15 a.m. Mountain time. I-194 is the clearest ballot result this year on how nonprofits may take part in elections. It was also one of three statewide measures on the November 3 ballot that, by our count, directly touch the civic role of charities, congregations and other nonprofits.

Which measures on the November 3 ballot touched nonprofits?

By our count, three, and they went different ways. We read through the statewide measures on the November 3 ballot and kept those whose text names nonprofits or religious organizations, or that rewrite the disclosure rules for groups that put money into campaigns. We left out tax and health measures, which reach nonprofits mostly through public budgets, and all local measures. The figures below come from the official or reported sources named, at the times shown. Only Montana's count is close to complete.

The Alaska totals are our own. We added up the yes and no votes on every precinct row and every district-level absentee, early-voting and questioned-ballot row in the Division of Elections' results file, which was last modified at 7:24 p.m. Eastern time on November 4. Alaska keeps counting absentee and questioned ballots after Election Day, and the division's calendar showed its review of questioned ballots beginning on November 5, so the 7,580-vote gap can still change. The Wisconsin figure is the yes share published by MultiState; JTA reported that 52% voted no. Neither source we opened gave vote counts.

What does Montana's I-194 do?

It removes the power of "artificial persons" to spend money or anything of value to influence an election, and limits their powers to those granted by statute. The ballot statement, rewritten by Attorney General Austin Knudsen and approved by a unanimous Montana Supreme Court in June, says artificial persons "include non-profits, trusts, partnerships, corporations, trade associations, labor unions, or unincorporated associations," including entities from elsewhere that do business in Montana.

The penalty is steep. A violation revokes the entity's legal status, which "may only be reinstated subject to terms and conditions imposed by the Legislature," the statement says. The ban does not apply to "bona fide news, commentary, or editorial content" or to political committees. Individuals can still give to campaigns in their own names, the Daily Montanan reported.

For charities, the change is concrete. Federal tax law already bars a 501(c)(3) from supporting or opposing candidates, but it treats work for or against a ballot measure as lobbying, which a charity may do within limits, as we explained in Yes, a charity can lobby. I-194 reaches any spending to influence a vote of the electorate, which on its face covers ballot measures as well as candidates. In our reading, a Montana food bank or land trust that today puts modest sums into a local bond or initiative campaign would lose that option. We have not seen state guidance on how the law will apply to 501(c)(3)s or to 501(c)(4) social welfare groups, and no court has yet ruled on the measure's limits.

Why did Montana try this again?

Because its earlier ban was struck down. Montana banned corporate spending in elections in 1912, the Daily Montanan reported. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporate political speech is protected, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the state's law anyway. On June 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision in a short unsigned opinion, American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, saying "there can be no serious doubt" that Citizens United applied to Montana.

I-194's backers took a different route. Instead of limiting speech directly, the measure redefines the powers the state grants to the entities it charters or lets do business there. "We've never given up the authority as a state to determine what powers corporations have," Jeff Mangan, founder of the Transparent Election Initiative, which sponsored the measure, and a former Montana Commissioner of Political Practices, told the Daily Montanan.

The timeline below shows how long the question has run. The day counts are our own arithmetic.

What do supporters and opponents say?

Opponents say it will not survive in court and will hurt business; supporters say it restores a level field. The Montana Chamber of Commerce and the Montana Mining Association opposed I-194, and the state Republican Party added its opposition to the party platform, the Daily Montanan reported. Todd O'Hair, the Chamber's president and CEO, argued that it would make it harder for businesses to band together on regulations or candidates while doing nothing to stop a wealthy individual from funding a candidate, and said that "the business community will not be able to defend itself."

A coalition of business groups, including the Chamber, the Mining Association and the Montana Petroleum Association, had argued in court that the measure restricts protected political speech and is unconstitutionally vague. The Montana Supreme Court dismissed that challenge in April because the measure had not yet qualified for the ballot, so it did not decide those questions. They remain open now that it has passed.

Russell Cleveland, the Transparent Election Initiative's executive director of partnerships, told the Daily Montanan, "You have to start at the source, which typically starts with campaigning and campaign finance." He argued the measure evens the field between small businesses and large corporations.

What happened in Alaska and Wisconsin?

In both states, the side that would have changed the rules was behind. Alaska's Ballot Measure 2 would end the state's open primaries and ranked-choice general elections and repeal the campaign-finance rules voters adopted in 2020. The state's official ballot summary says it would "remove limits and disclosure rules under current law, including for digital ads, out-of-state donations, undisclosed donations, and the true source of donations." In our view, the true-source rules matter most to nonprofits, because they govern what must be disclosed about the money behind donations that pass through an organization.

By our sum of the division's November 4 file, No led 51.9% to 48.1%. A similar repeal failed in 2024 by 664 votes, 50.1% to 49.9%, in the unofficial final count the Juneau Empire reported. This year's measure was sponsored by Ken McCarty, Judy Eledge and Bernadette Wilson, according to the Division of Elections.

Wisconsin voters rejected a constitutional amendment that would have barred the state from ordering "the closure of or forbid gatherings in places of worship" during a declared emergency, including a public health emergency. The measure grew out of COVID-19 orders that limited large gatherings. The Wisconsin Family Council, which backed it, said it would ensure "that your local church is never treated as 'non-essential' by the government again," JTA reported. The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin opposed it as a public health threat and argued that current law does not stop worship, which can take place at home during an emergency.

What should nonprofit boards take from these results?

In our view, three things. First, Montana nonprofits that have funded ballot measure campaigns, or plan to, should get legal advice well before the next cycle, since the reach of I-194 will be settled by the Legislature, regulators and probably the courts, not by the ballot statement alone. Second, Alaska's count is not finished, so groups active in Alaska elections should keep following current disclosure rules until results are certified. Third, none of these votes changes federal law. The Johnson Amendment still bars every 501(c)(3), in every state, from backing candidates, as we set out in our Election Day guide, and some states also restrict private money for election offices.