After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, Montana tried to preserve its century-old ban on corporate election spending and lost. In 2012, the Court summarily reversed the Montana Supreme Court in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, holding that Citizens United applies with equal force to state law. The practical effect of Citizens United in Montana is that corporations and unions can now spend unlimited money on independent political communications, but they still cannot give directly to candidates, and every dollar spent is subject to Montana’s disclosure and attribution rules enforced by the Commissioner of Political Practices.
How Citizens United Reached Montana
Montana had banned corporate contributions and expenditures in elections since 1912, when voters passed the Corrupt Practices Act in response to documented bribery by the state’s copper mining interests. That law, codified at Montana Code Annotated 13-35-227, barred corporations from spending any money in connection with a candidate, ballot issue, or political party.1Montana State Legislature. Montana Code 13-35-227 – Prohibited Contributions From Corporations
In January 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission by a 5-4 vote, striking down the federal ban on independent corporate political expenditures. The majority held that political speech does not lose First Amendment protection because the speaker is a corporation. The Court did, however, uphold the government’s power to require disclosure and disclaimers so voters know who is paying for political messaging.2Justia. Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
A group called Western Tradition Partnership immediately sued to invalidate Montana’s statute. The Montana Supreme Court upheld the 1912 law, pointing to the state’s documented history of corporate corruption and the vulnerability of its small, inexpensive elections to outside money.3FindLaw. Western Tradition Partnership Inc v. Attorney General State That ruling did not survive long. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a summary reversal in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, without oral argument. The unsigned opinion stated there could be “no serious doubt” that Citizens United applied to Montana’s law under the Supremacy Clause. Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented.4Library of Congress. American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock
Bullock settled the constitutional question: Montana cannot use its own history of corruption to carve out an exception to Citizens United. The state responded by rewriting its rules around what the First Amendment still permits — disclosure, attribution, and a ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates.
What Corporations Can and Cannot Do in Montana Elections Today
The current version of MCA 13-35-227 still prohibits corporations and unions from making direct contributions to candidates in Montana, and candidates cannot accept them. Contributions cannot be routed through intermediaries either.5Montana State Legislature. Montana Code 13-35-227 – Prohibited Contributions From Corporations And Unions What is now permitted is independent spending: a corporation can pay for its own ads, mailers, and other communications supporting or opposing a candidate.
The dividing line is coordination. Under Montana law, an independent expenditure is spending on an election communication that is not made in cooperation with, in consultation with, at the request of, or with the express prior consent of a candidate or political committee.6Montana Legislature. Montana Code 13-1-101 – Definitions Cross that line and the spending is treated as a prohibited in-kind contribution rather than a protected independent expenditure.
Corporations also have a lawful route for giving to candidates: a separate, segregated fund, which functions as a PAC. The fund can accept only voluntary contributions from individual shareholders, employees, or members. Corporate treasury money cannot flow into it.5Montana State Legislature. Montana Code 13-35-227 – Prohibited Contributions From Corporations And Unions
If any part of the activity touches a federal race, the Federal Election Commission’s own coordination test also applies. The FEC uses a three-part analysis covering payment, content, and conduct, and material involvement by the candidate or shared campaign strategy with the spender can turn a communication into a coordinated, and therefore prohibited, contribution.7Federal Election Commission. Coordinated Communications
Disclosure and Attribution Rules
Montana replaced its outright ban with a transparency regime that lines up with what Citizens United expressly permitted. Every candidate, political committee, and joint fundraising committee must file periodic electronic reports of contributions and expenditures with the Commissioner of Political Practices. Anyone making an independent expenditure or electioneering communication is also subject to reporting requirements under chapters 35 and 37 of Title 13. The Commissioner publishes filings on its website within seven business days.8Montana Legislature. Montana Code 13-37-225 – Reports of Contributions and Expenditures Required
Every political ad also has to carry a “paid for by” attribution. For a corporation or union, that attribution must include the entity’s name, the name of its chief executive officer or equivalent, and the physical address of its principal place of business. If the spending runs through a political committee, the committee treasurer’s name must appear as well. The attribution must be placed clearly and conspicuously, and if a physical item is too small to carry the full disclosure, the person financing it must file a copy with the Commissioner together with the required identifying information.9Montana Legislature. Montana Code 13-35-225 – Election Materials Not to Be Anonymous
Penalties for Violations
Montana enforces these rules through civil liability. A person who violates the reporting requirements or the ban on direct corporate contributions can be ordered to pay up to $500 or three times the amount of the unlawful contribution or expenditure, whichever is greater. The treble-damages formula scales with the violation: a corporation that spends $50,000 in unlawful coordination with a campaign faces potential civil liability of up to $150,000.10Montana State Legislature. Montana Code 13-37-128 – Cause of Action Created
Actions are brought by the Commissioner of Political Practices or a county attorney. The statute covers both intentional and negligent violations, so a corporation cannot avoid liability by claiming it did not realize its spending had crossed the coordination line.10Montana State Legislature. Montana Code 13-37-128 – Cause of Action Created
Foreign Corporate Spending Is Still Banned
Citizens United did not open Montana elections to foreign money. Federal law prohibits foreign nationals from making any contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure in connection with any federal, state, or local election. “Foreign national” includes foreign governments, foreign political parties, foreign corporations, and anyone who is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident.11Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 30121 – Contributions and Donations by Foreign Nationals
A U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation can participate, but only under strict conditions. No foreign national can be involved in any decision about the subsidiary’s political spending; only U.S. citizens or permanent residents can make those calls. The subsidiary may make independent expenditures from its own treasury funds and may form a traditional PAC, which must be funded through voluntary individual contributions rather than corporate treasury money. Foreign nationals also cannot solicit PAC contributions or direct how the PAC spends.12Congressional Research Service. Foreign Money and U.S. Campaign Finance Policy
A Current Push to Tighten the Rules
The constitutional question is closed, but the political one is not. As of early 2026, a Montana ballot initiative designated I-194 is gathering signatures to restrict entities that do business in Montana from contributing to candidates, political parties, or ballot issue campaigns. Backers need 60,000 voter endorsements by the end of June 2026 to put it on the ballot. Any measure that passed would still have to survive the same First Amendment framework that brought down the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, but the effort shows that the debate over corporate money in Montana elections did not end with Bullock.