The Montana state flag flies alongside the American flag.
HELENA, Mont. – A recently approved ballot initiative that strips corporations’ ability to participate in Montana’s political process violates the First Amendment, a federal lawsuit says.
The state’s Republican State Central Committee and other groups challenged the so-called “Montana Plan” in federal court on Nov. 3, citing concerns raised before Election Day that by labeling businesses as “artificial persons” unable to spend money on candidates and issues, “I-194 harms everyone.”
“It silences organizations, preventing them from sharing information essential to their purposes,” says the lawsuit, also filed by the Frontier Institute and the Montana Family Institute.
“It denies the individuals constituting these groups – especially those not in the majority or not already exercising public instruments of power – the ability to pool their resources, and thus the ability to influence policy.
“And it harms the public, ‘restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.’”
The group Transparent Election Initiative introduced the Montana Plan to keep “dark money” out of politics. It is an effort to overturn the effects of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, a 2010 ruling that affirmed the free-speech rights of companies during elections.
Voters in Montana this month overwhelmingly approved BI-194 on Election Day, deciding that companies should be considered artificial persons under state law. That prohibits them from expending money or anything of value to influence the outcome of a vote of the electorate.
Groups like the Montana Mining Association and the Montana Chamber of Commerce fought the initiative, saying it violates the free speech rights of corporations, as it would prohibit them from spending money or “anything of value” on political matters.
Before the election, the Chamber warned that family-owned businesses like farms and ranches would no longer be able to participate in the political process. A restaurant couldn’t support measures to improve public safety, it said, while out-of-state individuals like California billionaires pushing their agendas on Montana could.
The plaintiffs in the legal challenge say they would be at risk for penalties under the Montana Plan. The Frontier Institute has historically worked against a property tax rate – the 6-mill levy - that the legislature sends to voters every 10 years.
The Montana GOP claims that it will be short on contributions to aid its support for Republican candidates as a result of the Montana Plan. The lawsuit restrains a “single class of speech,” the suit says, while providing exemptions for other groups.
“That anyone can organize for expressive purposes of course means that unpopular views get amplified as well,” the suit says. “But the First Amendment guarantees that lawmakers cannot pick and choose who gets to speak. Nor can lawmakers condition access to any legal benefit on forfeiting the fundamental right of free political speech.”
The case, filed by the Institute for Free Speech and Bozeman attorney Albert Jones of Valley Law, is assigned to Judge William Mercer. He is a former federal prosecutor and state lawmaker who was appointed to federal judge by President Trump last year.
