'Anti-dark money' ballot initiative group sues Montana Attorney General over recent ruling

A new ballot issue group aiming to rid Montana’s elections of “dark money” filed a petition with the state supreme court earlier this week after Republican Montana Attorney General Knudsen’s office ruled that their proposed constitutional initiative did not meet legal standards.

To get a constitutional question before voters, the initiative must be deemed legally sufficient and pass a language review with the attorney general’s office. The Deputy Solicitor General Brent Mead rejected the initiative, writing that the proposal contains too many changes to state law to be put forth to voters as a singular initiative.

Transparent Election Initiative (TEI), supported by Montana political figures such as former Democratic Sen. Jon Tester and former Republican Gov. Marc Racicot, is the new group trying to put a constitutional initiative on Montanans’ 2026 ballots that aims to keep corporate and undisclosed donor money out of the state's political campaigns. Montana’s former Commissioner of Political Practices Jeff Mangan is leading the effort.

It’s being called a “first-in-the-nation” approach to undo a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That decision, commonly referred to as Citizens United, ultimately led to a massive uptick in political spending from wealthy individuals, corporations and unions. Those expenditures include “dark money,” as it allows organizations that do not have to disclose their donors to dole out political donations.

TEI’s lawsuit, which also lists Republican Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen as a respondent, is the latest in a string of legal fights between ballot initiative groups and Knudsen’s office. Last month, two ballot issue groups aimed at preserving the nonpartisan status of judicial candidates sued Knudsen’s office after it made changes to ballot language proposed by one of those groups. And during the 2024 election cycle, two other ballot initiative groups — including the successful one that amended the explicit right to pre-fetal viability abortions into the Montana constitution — also sued the state, and ultimately prevailed in court.

Ballot initiative groups accuse Montana AG of political maneuvering in review process

Getting entangled in a court case inevitably delays the ability for a ballot initiative group to begin collecting signatures across the state, the main hurdle before these groups can put their proposal before voters.

“Attorney General Knudsen will continue to ensure constitutional initiatives are legally sufficient and Montanans know exactly what they’re voting for when they cast their ballot,” Chase Scheuer, a spokesperson for Knudsen, wrote in response to TEI’s petition with the high court.

At the heart of TEI’s proposal is the argument that a business is an “artificial person,” not the same as a person or individual donor, and they can therefore bar businesses from spending money in politics.

In response, Mead referenced a recent majority opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court that says speakers don't "shed their First Amendment protections by employing the corporate form to disseminate their speech."

And in Citizens United, the justices in the majority concluded that corporations have a First Amendment right to political speech.

Mead also argued that TEI’s proposed initiative includes too many changes to the state’s constitution, and therefore violates the “separate vote requirement.”

The separate vote requirement for constitutional initiatives prohibits a proposal that makes two or more “substantive” changes to the Montana Constitution that are not closely related. The requirement exists to ensure residents understand what they’re voting on and to prevent combining multiple measures that may not pass individually.

In their lawsuit, TEI writes that the attorney general’s interpretation is incorrect, in part because every provision of their ballot question is “integral and closely related.”

“The separate-vote rule seeks to preserve meaningful choice, not to require an empty one,” the lawsuit read. “Here, because each subpart derives meaning from BI-4’s redefinition of artificial person powers, separating them would render the subparts unintelligible and leave the main question functionally incoherent — stripped of the provisions that make it workable.”

Issue One, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that advocates for the reduction of money in politics and is backing TEI, commissioned a poll from YouGov which found that 74% of Montanans would vote in favor of the ballot initiative. That figure includes 84% of Democrats, 69% of Republicans and 64% of independents, according to the pollster.

In a recent press conference, an analyst with YouGov pointed out that nearly half of Montanans polled who said they were opposed to the measure said it was because they thought it would not work.

“The opposition here is really not about whether the idea is good or not,” said Theodore Landsman. “Voters have just seen people talk about money in politics and then not do anything about it forever and they need to see something work.”

Multiple campaign finance experts not connected to TEI previously expressed skepticism that the initiative could withstand legal scrutiny given Citizen United’s precedent if it prevails.

The attorney general has until Nov. 17 to respond to TEI’s petition.