In the fifteen years since Citizens United v. FEC dismantled long-standing restrictions on corporate spending in politics, few states have managed to push back with a legally durable strategy. But Montana, the same state that once defied corporate domination during the copper baron era, is again leading an insurgent effort to reclaim control over its corporations with reforms meant to curb corporate influence in elections.
Top Three Takeaways from the Article:
Montana’s Legal Strategy: The Montana Plan redefines the powers granted to corporations under state law, excluding the ability to spend money on elections or ballot initiatives.
State-Level Authority: States have long-standing constitutional authority to regulate, alter, or revoke corporate powers — an authority that predates federal corporate law.
Growing Reform Movement: Other states, such as Oregon, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Minnesota, are studying similar measures to limit corporate influence and reduce dark money in politics.
The initiative, known as the Montana Plan, builds on a simple yet powerful legal foundation: corporate power originates from the states, not from the federal government. Every state in the U.S. has long included provisions in its corporate charter laws establishing that:
- States grant corporations their powers and may alter or revoke them at any time.
- Out-of-state corporations may not exercise powers within a state that are denied to domestic corporations.
- Any change in corporate law applies equally to existing and future corporations.
These principles, which date back to the 1820s, have been consistently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, even in the most business-friendly eras. They provide the legal backbone for states to define what a corporation is and is not empowered to do.
The Montana Plan: Redefining Corporate Powers
The Montana Plan, developed in collaboration with the Center for American Progress and local reform groups, takes advantage of this rarely invoked state authority. The proposal doesn’t directly “ban” political spending by corporations, which would likely face immediate federal challenge, but instead redefines the general powers granted to corporations under Montana law.
Under the plan, corporations would still have broad authority to operate commercially, but the powers granted by their state charter would explicitly exclude the ability to spend money on elections or ballot initiatives.
By adjusting what powers are granted at the outset, the state effectively removes the presumption that corporate political spending is a “right” derived from personhood or free speech — the core reasoning behind Citizens United.
State-Based Reforms Gaining Interest
Montana’s approach has drawn interest from reform advocates in states including New Hampshire, Oregon, Colorado, and Minnesota, each of which has explored variations on the same legal concept: using state corporate law to restrict political spending rather than trying to amend the federal Constitution.
- Oregon’s legislature has considered similar language, targeting “electioneering expenditures” as activities beyond the scope of corporate charters.
- New Hampshire lawmakers have revived 19th-century provisions granting the state the right to “revoke any corporate power inconsistent with public welfare.”
- Colorado reformers are studying how to tie corporate political spending limits to their state’s transparency and anti-corruption statutes.
- Minnesota, meanwhile, is pursuing a “public purpose” clause that would bar corporations from engaging in activities not directly related to their business operations.
Legal experts note that this strategy aligns with the historical understanding that corporations are creations of state law, not independent entities with constitutional rights equivalent to those of citizens.
A 21st-Century Correction to a 19th-Century Problem
The logic is straightforward: if corporations derive their power from the state, the state can define the boundaries of that power. In the early 20th century, Montana used this very principle to combat mining monopolies and political corruption. A century later, the same legal tools could help unwind the dominance of dark money in elections.
Advocates argue that this approach doesn’t violate Citizens United; it sidesteps it.
The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision recognized corporations’ right to spend money on elections only to the extent that they already possess the legal capacity to do so. If a state chooses not to grant that capacity in its corporate charters, there’s no right to invoke.
A Return to Democratic Accountability
Supporters of the Montana Plan say the goal isn’t to punish corporations but to restore accountability to elected officials and transparency to campaigns. By removing the financial megaphone from corporate entities, the reform would return political persuasion to people, not balance sheets.
As one Montana lawmaker put it during the bill’s introduction: “We’re not saying corporations can’t speak. We’re saying they can’t buy a louder microphone than the rest of us.”
If Montana succeeds, other states could follow its blueprint, testing whether the path to undoing Citizens United lies not in Washington, D.C., but in the quiet power of state legislatures, where corporate personhood was first invented, and where it might yet be redefined.