Please follow us on X and Telegram

The views and opinions expressed are those of the individual author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy, position, or opinions of this outlet.

Former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg recently visited Butte, Montana, and held an event at the Mother Lode Theater, where he argued that, “[…] special interests have become way, way too powerful in politics in this nation.” Buttigieg’s argument supports Initiative 194, dubbed “The Montana Plan”, with the goal of keeping corporate money out of politics. Buttigieg fielded questions from the audience and drew many concerns back to the issue of how politicians are elected.

Corporate spending in political races is often referred to as “dark money”, but the Merriam-Webster dictionary refers to the term as “money contributed to nonprofit organizations (especially those classified as social welfare organizations and business leagues) that is used to fund political campaigns without disclosure of the donors’ identities.”

The issue of “dark money” and how to handle it is a bit complex.

In 2010, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, holding that laws restricting corporate and union political spending are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This has led to substantial changes in Montana state law.

In 2011, the Montana Supreme Court argued that there was a compelling reason for exempting the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act from the Citizens United ruling. However, in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protections established in Citizens United apply directly to state laws, effectively invalidating the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act – a law initially designed to limit the political influence of the “Copper Kings”.

The Transparent Election Initiative is the group advocating for The Montana Plan. It is a C4 organization, even though it advocates limits on C4s, and its founder, Jeff Mangan, states, “The irony of this is not lost on me.”

Regarding The Montana Plan, Pete Buttigieg has stated that, “There is no one individual law, policy, idea, or politician who’s going to fix everything, but this is one of the most powerful things that I see happening in our time.”

Despite First Amendment arguments, Jeff Mangan argues that this issue is better understood as a First Amendment versus Tenth Amendment issue, since each state already charters its own corporations and authorizes certain benefits when a corporation incorporates in the state. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Jeff Mangan points out that the states never gave up the ability to rein in the authority they grant to corporations – they just haven’t done so.

Arguments can be made on either side of the debate. Free speech is an important right, enshrined in our Constitution. But the people of Montana should have a voice in elections that is not overshadowed by powerful interests. As this debate continues, Montanans should make their voices heard and take an active role in shaping the future of their government.