Montana plan hurts Montana business | Opinion

No doubt, I-194 would prohibit Montana businesses and nonprofits from participating in the political process. Under this initiative, family-owned businesses including farms, ranches, restaurants, and retail stores could not respond publicly to a ballot initiative targeting them. A Main Street restaurant could not support a local levy to improve public safety. A small business coalition could not push back against misleading claims that threaten their livelihoods and their employees’ jobs. These are not hypothetical concerns; they are the everyday realities of how Montana businesses engage in the civic life of our communities.

But make no mistake, I-194 does not remove big money from our politics.

While cleverly named “The Montana Plan,” I-194 should be called the “California Plan” since California is home to more than 200 individual billionaires and places no restrictions whatsoever on out-of-state wealthy individuals. Under I-194, a single well-funded outsider could bankroll a campaign to devastate a Montana agricultural practice, a logging operation, or a ranching family, while the Montana businesses under attack would be legally silenced. That is not campaign finance reform. That is a one-sided disarmament of Montana’s own voices.

The supporters of I-194 like to reference the Copper King’s influence that occurred at the beginning of the 20th century. And while this initiative would have prohibited the Anaconda Copper Company from supporting candidates, the actual individual Kings of copper — the millionaires that owned those companies — would have still been free to bankroll their preferred candidates, while the rest of Montana’s small business community sat in silence. They would have loved this proposal.

Montana has a proud history of fighting outside influence in our politics, from the battles against the Copper Kings to the Corrupt Practices Act of 1912. But that Act targeted corruption and covert control of government, not the right of businesses and community organizations to have an open voice in the state they call home. There is a meaningful difference between a corporation secretly buying a legislator and a chamber of commerce publicly advocating for its members.

We raised constitutional and legal questions about I-194’s scope before the Montana Supreme Court because those questions deserved an answer. We respect the court’s ruling. And now we are doing exactly what any organization or individual is entitled to do: making our case openly, with our names attached, and letting Montanans decide.

That is what chambers of commerce do. We advocate for Montana’s businesses and workers — the coffee shops, hardware stores, family farms, and yes, the larger employers whose presence helps keep smaller businesses alive. We are Montanans representing Montana’s economic engine.

We agree that Montanans deserve a political system where their voices matter more than outside money. Silencing Montana businesses while leaving out-of-state billionaires free to spend without restriction does not achieve that goal. It simply changes who gets silenced.

We urge every Montanan to read I-194 carefully — all of it — and ask: Does this make our democracy stronger, or does it make some voices louder by making others disappear?