Imagine: Your Montana-based church, religious nonprofit, or charity decides to spend its own money to print signs or posters urging voters to reject a ballot initiative related to abortion. Or imagine your local environmental nonprofit prints materials to distribute in opposition to a ballot initiative that would weaken Montana’s water-quality protections. If I-194 passes, either organization’s spending could trigger automatic forfeiture of its Montana-conferred charter privileges, including limited liability and statutory protections against personal liability, if it falls within I-194’s definition of an “artificial person.” To obtain reinstatement, the organization would have to disgorge the money spent, certify future compliance, and satisfy any additional conditions imposed by the state. The attorney general could also bring enforcement proceedings. People act like I-194 is simply about whether “corporations are people” or whether large corporations can contribute directly to political candidates. But Montana law already prohibits direct corporate contributions to candidates and requires disclosure of certain political contributions and expenditures, including identifying who pays for campaign advertisements. I-194 is far more sweeping than that. It restricts independent political spending by entities it defines as “artificial persons,” including incorporated churches, environmental nonprofits, charities, and other private organizations, even when that spending concerns ballot initiatives.

I-194 will NOT do what proponents have suggested in our comments over the last 48 hours 1. It does not simply prohibit corporations from donating directly to candidates. Montana law already does that without I-194. Instead, it would prohibit covered “artificial persons,” which include not just corporations but incorporated churches, charities, and small nonprofits, from spending their own money on election-related materials like posters, pamphlets, signs, or other forms of advocacy supporting or opposing candidates, political parties, and ballot initiatives, subject to certain exemptions. 2. It will not eliminate big money in politics or guarantee an equal playing field for all individuals. Our critics have said they are okay with prohibiting “artificial persons” from spending money because it doesn’t restrict the rights of individuals who can still create their own signs. The problem here, of course, is that many individuals on their own cannot afford to print materials in bulk. This law would restrict existing local grassroots organizations covered by the initiative from using their pooled funds directly to get their voices heard. Wealthy individuals, meanwhile, could still afford those materials on their own, and political committees could continue pooling and spending money on political advocacy, subject to existing campaign-finance laws. 3. It does not necessarily impose the same consequences on all organizations. Most importantly, this initiative will not prevent out-of-state individuals and lawful political committees from spending money to influence Montana elections. While its text applies to both Montana-based and qualifying out-of-state organizations, the initiative expressly limits forfeiture to charter privileges, including limited liability, conferred by Montana law. In short, Montana cannot revoke the charter protections and limited liability an out-of-state corporation receives from its home state. Out-of-state corporations would still be subject to the initiative’s spending restrictions and other enforcement provisions. The attorney general could pursue court orders to stop prohibited spending or recover money already spent. However, an out-of-state corporation without Montana-conferred charter privileges would have no such privileges to forfeit, and its home-state corporate protections would remain intact. A Montana-chartered organization, meanwhile, could lose its limited liability and other fundamental corporate protections, in addition to facing those same enforcement proceedings. In other words, a small Montana nonprofit could put its very corporate existence and legal protections at risk by spending money on a ballot initiative, while a wealthy out-of-state corporation would retain the protections granted by its home state, even if it violated the same law. It also exempts certain organizations, including Montana government entities, and expressly preserves the lawful activities of political committees. The result? I-194 risks kneecapping existing local grassroots organizations in Montana while leaving wealthy individuals free to spend their own money and out-of-state organizations with legal protections Montana cannot revoke.