{"id":1025,"date":"2026-09-20T22:20:12","date_gmt":"2026-09-20T22:20:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/?p=1025"},"modified":"2026-09-20T22:20:12","modified_gmt":"2026-09-20T22:20:12","slug":"montana-prepares-landmark-ballot-initiative-to-challenge-citizens-united-and-dark-money-in-politics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/?p=1025","title":{"rendered":"Montana Prepares Landmark Ballot Initiative to Challenge Citizens United and Dark Money in Politics"},"content":{"rendered":"

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\u2019s 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\u2014even if a small cohort of wealthy industrial and corporate interests might argue otherwise.<\/p>\n

Building on this tradition of independent thinking, Montana is now positioning itself to make history. According to reports from Truthout<\/em>, the state is moving forward with an ambitious plan to become the first in the nation to directly challenge the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s landmark 2010 Citizens United<\/em> 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. <\/p>\n

Overwhelming Popular Support<\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\u201cI haven\u2019t talked to a person yet that doesn\u2019t think that there\u2019s too much money in politics,\u201d Jeff Mangan, a lifelong Montana resident who serves as the founder and president of the Transparent Election Initiative\u2014the organization spearheading the proposal\u2014told The New York Times<\/em>. <\/p>\n

While the state\u2019s 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\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

\u201cI think it\u2019s creative lawyering, and I don\u2019t mean that in a negative way,\u201d Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, observed in an interview with The New York Times<\/em>.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

Reflecting on the shifting landscape of American elections, Racicot noted in an interview that the political system has grown profoundly \u201crancid\u201d in the wake of the Citizens United<\/em> ruling. He pointed to the influx of billions of dollars fueling waves of anonymous attack ads that obscure the identities of their financial backers. \u201cThe money moves around through these serpentine collections of entities and groups, then it becomes unidentifiable,\u201d Racicot said.<\/p>\n

Tom Moore, a senior fellow for democracy and government at the Center for American Progress, emphasized to The New York Times<\/em> that restrictions on political spending continue to command broad public approval across diverse demographics. \u201cEverybody hates dark money,\u201d Moore stated. <\/p>\n

At the same time, legal scholars point out the limitations of such state-level efforts. Professor Levitt noted that even if Montana\u2019s ban were successfully implemented, it would not completely neutralize the impact of ultra-wealthy donors. \u201cThis wouldn\u2019t change a thing about Elon Musk\u2019s political spending,\u201d Levitt remarked.<\/p>\n

\"Montana<\/figure>\n

Soft Secession<\/h3>\n

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. <\/p>\n

In a recent commentary, Substack writer Christopher Armitage explored what he characterizes as \u201csoft secession\u201d\u2014a 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. <\/p>\n

Armitage highlighted the legal philosophy of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote in the 1997 ruling Printz v. United States<\/em> that the federal government \u201cmay neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States\u2019 officers \u2026 to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.\u201d Legal scholars Jessica Bulman-Pozen and Heather Gerken have similarly termed this dynamic \u201cuncooperative federalism.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

The Fugitive Slave Act<\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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 \u201cbecame a dead letter, because the DEA has no state police to make the arrests,\u201d Armitage explained. <\/p>\n

\u201cThat is the posture that is proven to work\u2014do the thing, in enough places, because it\u2019s the right thing to do, and let the federal government be spread in 1,000x directions. It\u2019s the principles of asymmetric warfare applied to governance,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Harm Reduction<\/h3>\n

\u201cThis is harm reduction,\u201d Armitage wrote, describing the broader movement. \u201cA 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

Nevertheless, the path ahead promises to be difficult. Earlier this month, a federal judge struck down New York\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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\u2019s foundational legal document. Section I of Article IX of the Montana Constitution explicitly […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1024,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[161],"tags":[1511,671,1513,1514,163,162,164,1512,1459,1221,1510,268,1338,171],"class_list":["post-1025","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-environment-and-energy","tag-ballot","tag-challenge","tag-citizens","tag-dark","tag-energy","tag-environment","tag-green","tag-initiative","tag-landmark","tag-money","tag-montana","tag-politics","tag-prepares","tag-united"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1025","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1025"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1025\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/1024"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1025"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1025"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xesi.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1025"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}