Montana Copies Hawaii's 'Corporate Personhood' Law, immediately gets sued – Hawaii Free Press

Current Articles | Archives | Search
First Amendment Lawsuit Challenges Montana Limits on Political Speech
Institute for Free Speech represents Frontier Institute, Frontier Action Fund, and Montana Republican State Central Committee in challenge to I-194’s severe penalties on political speech
REASON: The initiative's text copies much of a similar law Hawaii passed in August which stripped corporations operating in the state of their "power to spend money or contribute anything of value to influence elections or ballot measures." Under Montana's I-194, the "absence of political spending power" is now a condition for any entity seeking "state-conferred legal status and charter privileges."
News Release from Institute for Free Speech, November 5, 2026
Missoula, MT — Under a sweeping, just-passed Montana ballot measure known as Initiative 194 (I-194), citizens can spend money speaking about candidates and ballot measures on their own. But the law forbids them from pooling their money to do so through most nonprofit or civic organizations.
That’s the unconstitutional speech prohibition at the center of a new federal lawsuit filed by attorneys from the Institute for Free Speech on behalf of the Frontier Institute, Frontier Action Fund, Montana Family Foundation, and the Montana Republican State Central Committee.
The lawsuit, Frontier Institute, et al. v. Knudsen, et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, challenges I-194, which voters approved Tuesday. Absent relief from the court, the new law will take effect on January 1, 2027.
“Montana cannot require people to surrender their First Amendment rights simply because they join together to make their voices heard,” explained Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Owen Yeates, lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “This law attempts to accomplish indirectly what the Constitution expressly forbids: silencing organizations that engage in political advocacy. Calling censorship a restriction on corporate privileges doesn’t make it constitutional.”
I-194 prohibits a vast range of organizations—including nonprofits, trade associations, cooperatives, and other civic groups, even unincorporated associations—from spending money or anything of value to support or oppose candidates, political parties, or ballot measures.
The law’s reach extends far beyond political advertisements. Even ordinary advocacy activities, such as publishing research, issuing statements, or communicating with voters about important public issues, could force organizations to close if their communications are deemed to support or oppose candidates or ballot measures.
Those penalties are extraordinary. Organizations engaging in prohibited political speech automatically forfeit their corporate status, including limited liability, perpetual duration, and statutory protections against personal liability. Reinstatement requires surrendering the money spent, certifying future compliance, and satisfying any additional conditions imposed by state officials.
The consequences would threaten an organization’s very existence.
The Frontier Institute, a Montana nonprofit think tank founded in 2020, conducts research and advocates for public policies involving housing, education, property rights, taxation, and other issues affecting Montana residents. It has regularly expressed views on ballot measures and plans to continue doing so. I-194 threatens those activities, as well as the planned advocacy of an affiliated social welfare organization, Frontier Action Fund.
“Our mission is to keep Montanans free by promoting sound public policy and educating the public about the most important issues facing our state. I-194 severely harms our ability to do that,” said Frontier Institute President and CEO Kendall Cotton. “We shouldn’t have to choose between speaking about the merits of a ballot measure or property tax levy and protecting our organization’s ability to operate. Montanans deserve to hear from local businesses and nonprofits like ours that understand this state and have a stake in its future.”
I-194 also creates a troubling disparity between Montana organizations and those based elsewhere. Although the law attempts to restrict both, it expressly acknowledges that Montana cannot revoke legal privileges granted by other states. As a result, Montana-based organizations face particularly severe consequences for participating in debates about their own communities.
The Montana Republican Party, another plaintiff, argues that I-194 would prevent corporations and other organizations from contributing to its funds for independent expenditures—communications made independently from and not in coordination with candidates—substantially reducing its ability to communicate with voters. Although the initiative exempts political committees themselves, it restricts the organizations that may help finance their activities. The Party also argues that the law prevents it from publishing its newsletter. 
Also joining the lawsuit is the Montana Family Foundation, which advocates on issues including religious liberty, school choice, parental rights, and the protection of life. It has supported and opposed Montana ballot measures and uses public events, podcasts, and a weekly radio program carried by more than 40 stations to discuss state policy. I-194 would force the Foundation to curtail its advocacy or risk severe penalties, including the loss of its legal protections.
The law also contains an ambiguous exemption for “bona fide news, commentary, or editorial content,” without clearly defining its boundaries. This uncertainty threatens additional protected expression and invites selective enforcement. And it denies this protection to political parties.
The lawsuit alleges that I-194 violates the First Amendment’s protections of free speech, association, assembly, petition, and freedom of the press. It also challenges the law as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
The plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing enforcement of I-194. Local counsel Albert Jones is assisting the Institute in defending the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.
To read the complaint in Frontier Institute, et al. v. Knudsen, et al., click here. To visit the case page, click here.
About the Institute for Free Speech
The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment.
—30—
WE: Protect the right to speak together
R: Montana's new campaign finance law faces First Amendment lawsuit
 

source