It’s election season, and you’ve probably seen attack ads:
[Ad audio] "Kurt Alme refused to prosecute over 70% of the sex crimes brought before him …"
They’re attacking candidates on both sides of the political aisle.
[Ad audio] "Forstag's clients paid nearly a quarter-million dollars for him to push radical policy, like allowing sex changes for children …"
Former state Commissioner of Political Practices Jeff Mangan says those ads are a symptom of record spending in Montana elections.
“So far this year in this 2026 midterm election, close to $600 million has been spent in corporate money in our elections,” Mangan says.
That stat comes from Open Secrets, a nonprofit that tracks political spending.
Mangan is behind the Montana Plan, or ballot initiative 194.
It would ban corporations from funding campaigns and political action committees. The ban includes unions and political nonprofits commonly called dark money groups because it can be impossible to track who’s bankrolling them.
Only real people could spend on elections under the Montana Plan. That means a voter could look up who donated to a political action committee funding attack ads rather than seeing a long list of nonprofits.
That makes Montana’s political system more transparent, says Mangan.
“I think we will see more candidates are beholden to voters than they are fundraisers.”
Montana’s Republican Party opposes the measure, saying it would silence small Montana businesses that have a vested interest in the outcome of state elections. The party didn’t provide MTPR with a comment by deadline.
The Montana GOP also argues the Montana Plan flies in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling from 2010.
The legal theory behind the initiative argues that states can use their authority over businesses and nonprofits to ban them from political spending.
But the Supreme Court for decades has ruled that businesses can spend on elections, says University of Montana law professor Constance Van Kley.
“Corporations can engage in political speech and that money is speech when it comes to politics," she says.
Rulings before Citizens United said government could restrict that spending, so individual donors would still have the ability to influence elections.
“What Citizens United did differently is it said that government does not have the ability to interfere with that speech just because it’s trying to level the playing field,” Van Kley says.
That opened the door for businesses and other groups to spend as much as they wanted.
The Montana Plan is an attempt to sidestep Citizens United. There are similar efforts around the country. That includes in Hawaii where lawmakers passed dark money legislation, which is now tied up in the courts.
Legal challenges to the Montana Plan are also likely if it passes. Van Kley says the Supreme Court could take up this issue as it plays out across the country, “if you have inconsistent decisions or if what the lower court said was inconsistent with what the U.S. Supreme Court thought the right answer was.”
Even if these efforts pass legal muster, it’s unclear how much of an impact they’ll have on the amount of money flowing into state races.
Mangan says his ballot measure will significantly reduce money in Montana politics. He also thinks it’ll deter big donors because their names will now be attached to that money.
“They’re not going to want to be attached to these foul, negative, toxic ads that we've seen permeating our airwaves and our mailboxes for the last 15 years," Mangan says.
Brendan Glavin is director of insights with Open Secrets, which tracks political spending. He says that might be true for some wealthy donors. But …
“Money is not going to dry up. People want to spend on elections, so people are going to find a way to make that happen.”
Glavin notes there are plenty of millionaires and billionaires that are perfectly happy to have their name attached to their political spending.
Montana voters will decide whether or not to pass the initiative on November 3.
