Montana Voters Pass Corrupt Practices Act Banning Corporate Political Spending

Montana voters approved the Corrupt Practices Act by ballot initiative with 76% support, establishing one of the nation’s strongest bans on corporate money in elections. The law responded directly to decades of systematic corruption by the “Copper Kings” - mining barons William A. Clark, F. Augustus Heinze, and Marcus Daly - who had openly purchased judges, controlled newspapers, and bribed legislators. This citizen-led reform represented a rare successful pushback against corporate capture of democratic institutions, though it would be overturned exactly 100 years later by the U.S. Supreme Court.

CORRUPTION CONTEXT: The Copper Kings’ political dominance had reached cartoonish proportions by the early 1900s. William A. Clark famously declared he would reach the U.S. Senate “by openly bribing all of the legislators in Montana” - and did exactly that in 1899, though he was forced to resign amid scandal. The Anaconda Copper Company controlled most major newspapers statewide, used economic coercion against political opponents (including the 1903 shutdown), and maintained what one observer called an “all-pervading and unrelenting” grip on state politics where “the struggle admits of no neutrals.”

REFORM PROVISIONS: The initiative prohibited all corporate contributions to political campaigns and banned corporate expenditures to influence elections. Reformers recognized that “direct corporate contributions to candidates’ political campaigns was actually a major corrupting force in elections” and designed the law to break the Copper Trust’s stranglehold on Montana democracy. The 76% approval margin represented a massive repudiation of corporate political power and demonstrated that when citizens could bypass captured legislatures through direct democracy, they overwhelmingly chose to limit plutocratic influence.

IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT: The Corrupt Practices Act immediately reshaped Montana politics by forcing political activity to occur through individual contributions rather than corporate treasuries. While the Anaconda Company maintained significant informal influence through its economic power and newspaper control, it could no longer directly deploy corporate funds to buy elections. The law included enforcement mechanisms and penalties for violations, creating genuine accountability for corporate political spending for the first time in Montana history.

NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE: Montana’s 1912 ban on corporate election spending preceded the federal Tillman Act (1907) restrictions and became a model for progressive reforms nationwide during the era. The initiative demonstrated that direct democracy mechanisms could overcome legislative capture when representatives were too compromised to regulate their corporate patrons. Montana’s experience provided concrete evidence that corporate money corrupted elections and that legal restrictions were both feasible and effective.

CENTURY-LONG VINDICATION THEN REVERSAL: The Corrupt Practices Act remained Montana law for nearly 100 years, vindicated by absence of the spectacular corruption that preceded it. However, in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Montana’s corporate spending ban as inconsistent with Citizens United, explicitly rejecting Montana’s century of proof that corporate money corrupts elections. Justice Breyer’s dissent noted that “Montana’s experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court’s decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so.” The ruling demonstrated that corporate capture had simply moved from state legislatures to the federal judiciary, with the Supreme Court invalidating the democratic will of Montana voters to protect plutocratic power.