Montana may possess the reputation of a solidly conservative red state, but its political culture has long leaned toward pragmatism rather than strict adherence to national partisan dogmas. A striking reflection of this independent streak can be found right within the state’s foundational legal document. Section I of Article IX of the Montana Constitution explicitly mandates that the state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations. This provision is not a radical manifesto; rather, it is a straightforward, practical recognition that the systemic degradation of local ecosystems runs entirely contrary to the fundamental best interests of everyday Montanans—even if a small cohort of wealthy industrial and corporate interests might argue otherwise.
Building on this tradition of independent thinking, Montana is now positioning itself to make history. According to reports from Truthout, the state is moving forward with an ambitious plan to become the first in the nation to directly challenge the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 Citizens United decision. Organizers are aiming for a 2026 ballot initiative, deploying an innovative legal maneuver that could potentially serve as a blueprint for other states seeking to curb the influence of unchecked corporate spending in elections.
Overwhelming Popular Support
The proposed ballot initiative enjoys remarkably broad and enthusiastic backing across the political spectrum. A poll conducted by the pro-democracy organization Issue One revealed that an overwhelming 74 percent of voters in Montana support the initiative. Crucially, that strong majority includes substantial numbers of both registered Republicans and political independents who are weary of the current state of campaign finance.
“I haven’t talked to a person yet that doesn’t think that there’s too much money in politics,” Jeff Mangan, a lifelong Montana resident who serves as the founder and president of the Transparent Election Initiative—the organization spearheading the proposal—told The New York Times.
While the state’s current governor and various business coalitions have argued that any such ballot initiative would ultimately be invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court, the campaign’s supporters hold a different view. They argue that individual states retain an inherent sovereign right to govern the corporations that choose to incorporate and do business within their borders.
If approved by voters, the ballot initiative would establish a mechanism to revoke the corporate charter of any entity that fails to comply with its provisions. Proponents maintain that every state possesses the legal authority to define corporations as artificial entities rather than living humans endowed with absolute constitutional free speech rights.
“I think it’s creative lawyering, and I don’t mean that in a negative way,” Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, observed in an interview with The New York Times.
Despite fierce opposition from current political leadership and prominent corporate groups, the initiative has drawn notable bipartisan support from former Montana political heavyweights. Marc Racicot, who served as Montana’s governor from 1993 to 2001 and formerly chaired the Republican National Committee, has joined forces with former U.S. Senator Jon Tester to actively promote the concept.
Reflecting on the shifting landscape of American elections, Racicot noted in an interview that the political system has grown profoundly “rancid” in the wake of the Citizens United ruling. He pointed to the influx of billions of dollars fueling waves of anonymous attack ads that obscure the identities of their financial backers. “The money moves around through these serpentine collections of entities and groups, then it becomes unidentifiable,” Racicot said.
Tom Moore, a senior fellow for democracy and government at the Center for American Progress, emphasized to The New York Times that restrictions on political spending continue to command broad public approval across diverse demographics. “Everybody hates dark money,” Moore stated.
At the same time, legal scholars point out the limitations of such state-level efforts. Professor Levitt noted that even if Montana’s ban were successfully implemented, it would not completely neutralize the impact of ultra-wealthy donors. “This wouldn’t change a thing about Elon Musk’s political spending,” Levitt remarked.
Soft Secession
The central question facing legal analysts is whether Montana can realistically pull off such a direct challenge to federal jurisprudence. While the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution presents a formidable hurdle, individual states have historically sought to guard their local prerogatives within the federal framework.
In a recent commentary, Substack writer Christopher Armitage explored what he characterizes as “soft secession”—a concept suggesting that a state may, under specific circumstances, decline to participate in federal policies or judicial rulings it deems fundamentally contrary to the best interests of its population.
Armitage highlighted the legal philosophy of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote in the 1997 ruling Printz v. United States that the federal government “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers … to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” Legal scholars Jessica Bulman-Pozen and Heather Gerken have similarly termed this dynamic “uncooperative federalism.” Under this framework, a state does not necessarily need to engage in a direct, confrontational legal battle with Washington; instead, it can simply decline to assist, effectively stalling or rendering federal programs difficult to enforce without local cooperation.
The Fugitive Slave Act
To illustrate the historical precedent for this strategy, Armitage pointed to the personal liberty laws enacted by various northern states prior to the American Civil War. Those state-level statutes rendered the federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 virtually impossible to enforce locally. Although the federal legislation remained formally on the books, it largely lost practical effect because the opposing states refused to carry out its mandates.
A more contemporary parallel can be seen in the state-level legalization of marijuana. As numerous states enacted laws to legalize cannabis and establish licensed retail dispensaries, the underlying federal prohibition effectively “became a dead letter, because the DEA has no state police to make the arrests,” Armitage explained.
“That is the posture that is proven to work—do the thing, in enough places, because it’s the right thing to do, and let the federal government be spread in 1,000x directions. It’s the principles of asymmetric warfare applied to governance,” he added.
Armitage also noted that states are increasingly establishing their own baseline protections in areas where federal oversight has weakened. Ten states have enacted their own independent voting-rights acts that extend beyond federal statutes, while states like Colorado utilize paper ballots paired with risk-limiting audits managed through systems entirely independent of federal agencies. In the realm of environmental policy, state-led coalitions have taken the initiative; the U.S. Climate Alliance comprises 24 governors representing roughly 60 percent of the national economy, while the 11-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative has successfully cut power-plant emissions by more than half.
Harm Reduction
“This is harm reduction,” Armitage wrote, describing the broader movement. “A state that builds its own capacity keeps the choice to leave it idle. While the federal government dismantles the safety net and turns its enforcement power on the places that did not vote for it, those states can stand up their own alternatives and keep their hands off the demolition. A state should never be forced to choose between its own residents and an order it knows to be unlawful.”
This phenomenon of soft secession, he argues, is already well underway. What remains is for states to adopt it as a deliberate and peaceful strategy to check the influence of unaccountable power and protect citizens from systemic political risks, while leaving the door open to national reconciliation when conditions improve.
By definition under American corporate law, corporations are creatures of the individual states in which they are chartered. This legal reality raises the fundamental question of whether states maintain the inherent power to regulate or restrict organizations that choose to operate within their geographic borders.
Nevertheless, the path ahead promises to be difficult. Earlier this month, a federal judge struck down New York’s climate superfund law, ruling that overarching federal law takes legal precedence. A similar legislative effort in Vermont is currently facing direct legal challenges from the federal government.
Critics often argue that the doctrine of states’ rights is selectively invoked. Yet Montana presents a distinct case as a reliably red state where public attitudes are shifting rapidly as residents experience the tangible effects of environmental and political pressures firsthand. As local communities grapple with these challenges, the unfolding debate over Montana’s ballot initiative and the broader philosophy of soft secession highlights a growing willingness among states to test the boundaries of local sovereignty against federal authority.
