I-194State law · Citizen initiative
Bar organizational political contributions
Explain it like I'm 5
Companies, nonprofits, and some other groups could not give money or things of value to candidates, parties, or ballot campaigns. Individual people could still participate.
Yes vote
Artificial persons, including corporations, nonprofits, trusts, partnerships, and associations, could not make covered political contributions and could risk losing Montana business privileges for violations.
No vote
Current campaign-finance rules would remain, allowing covered entities to make political contributions as currently permitted.
The question to ask yourself
Is limiting organizational contributions worth the effects on nonprofits and groups, while individuals could still spend freely?
The case for
- Could reduce the influence of corporations and other well-funded organizations in elections.
- Applies a broad rule intended to keep organizational money from overwhelming individual voters.
- Uses state-granted business privileges as the enforcement mechanism.
Backed by: Transparent Election Initiative, The Montana Plan, Steve Bullock
The case against
- The definition reaches nonprofits, trade groups, partnerships, and local organizations, not only large corporations.
- Wealthy individuals could still spend freely, so the measure would not eliminate all major political spending.
- The contribution ban and penalties could face serious constitutional and legal challenges.
Opposed by: Montanans for Free Speech, Montana Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Prosperity
- Money
- No fiscal or enforcement-cost estimate was stated in the sources reviewed.
- Don't be misled
- A claim that I-194 affects only large corporations is misleading because its definition includes many other artificial persons, including some nonprofits and associations.