As public frustration with the role of money in politics grows, campaign finance ballot measures are up for a vote in key states.
Originally published on the Brennan Center’s State Court Report.
With vast amounts of money flowing to political candidates and unprecedented corruption, it is no surprise that Americans are more frustrated than ever with how broken the system has become. They want the system to change, and this year voters in key states will have the chance to vote directly on campaign finance reforms through referenda that have qualified for the ballot.
Record spending on state and federal races is defining the 2026 election cycle, with an unprecedented share of the money coming from billionaire megadonors, corporations and “dark money” nonprofits that don’t disclose their donors. The trend of ever-rising spending has continued cycle after cycle since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC.
Alaska
One state has already voted to put new election-spending safeguards in place.
In Alaska, a historically red state that is hosting one of the most competitive Senate contests this fall, 72 percent of voters in August approved Ballot Measure 1, which sets individual donor limits at $2,000 and organizational donor limits at $4,000 per candidate per election. These new contribution limits replace earlier voter-approved caps that a federal court struck down as unconstitutionally low.
In November, Alaska voters will now weigh in on Ballot Measure 2, which asks whether to repeal the state’s enhanced campaign disclosure law requiring any person or group that spends more than $2,000 on an election in Alaska to reveal its donors.
Voters approved the disclosure law in 2020 as part of a package that also instituted ranked-choice voting in the state.
Six years later, the two provisions are the subject of a combined effort to repeal both.
A similar effort was narrowly defeated in 2024, but this year’s “yes” campaign is well-funded. It has received $1.5 million from Elon Musk, with most commentary centering on the ranked-choice voting provision.
… Voters are angry about the corrupting influence of big money in politics and are hungry for solutions.
Michigan
Alaska is not the only state hosting a ballot referendum on campaign finance.
In Michigan, voters will decide whether to limit political contributions by state contractors and utility companies and crack down on dark money. Proposal 2 would ban donations by companies with over $250,000 in annual state government contracts, regulated gas and electric utilities, and individuals associated with these companies. The measure would also require all groups making independent advertising expenditures of over $500 to disclose their donors.
Recent polling suggests that Proposal 2 has more than 70 percent support from eligible Michigan voters, despite concerted opposition from utility companies and major state contractors that have bankrolled the “no” campaign.
Montana
Meanwhile, in Montana, Proposal I-194 would revise the state’s corporate code to eliminate the power of corporations chartered or doing business in the state to engage in campaign spending. The proposal has been billed as a way to bypass Citizens United and crack down on dark money.
While there has not been any recent public polling, past surveys suggest the idea is very popular, and a bipartisan group of former elected officials recently endorsed the measure. Montana-based corporations have already brought one lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this restriction, but the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the measure must be allowed to go to voters on the November ballot. The groups are likely to renew their challenge if the initiative passes.
This would not be the first time Montana has been in the vanguard for limiting corporate campaign spending: After Citizens United, the state’s highest court upheld its limits on corporate campaign activity but was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012.
California
Rounding out the list of major initiatives is California’s Proposition 4, which asks voters to repeal the 1988 ban on the state and most of its localities using public funds for political campaigns. If adopted, Prop 4 would pave the way for public financing of elections.
Fourteen states and dozens of localities across the country (including five California jurisdictions that have special home-rule charters) have some form of public financing. Many of the most successful programs use small-donor matching, which uses public funds to multiply small private donations from eligible voters in the jurisdiction, giving candidates a way to run without depending on large donors or “super PACs.”
Missouri and Arizona
Finally, voters in two other states have, or soon will, consider campaign finance changes as part of larger packages.
In August, Missouri voters defeated a measure whose main objective was to curb the state’s initiative process, but that also included a provision to prohibit foreign spending on state ballot measures that received very little attention.
And in Arizona, voters in November will consider a provision that prohibits foreign spending on state elections as a part of a larger package of restrictive voting law changes.
Whatever happens with these initiatives, one thing is clear: Voters are angry about the corrupting influence of big money in politics and are hungry for solutions. A Brennan Center survey conducted in April and May found that 79 percent of voters across party lines support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and even larger majorities support mandatory disclosure of campaign contributions and spending as well as prohibitions on campaign spending by government contractors.
It remains to be seen whether elected leaders will respond to voters’ desire for change, but in the meantime, we should not be surprised to see the initiative process used to advance reform with greater frequency.
*
A note from Ms. editors: We want to hear from you for The Majority, a new campaign collecting stories about how reproductive freedom has enabled readers to build the lives they want and need.
Poll after poll shows a majority of Americans support reproductive healthcare access. Yet public debate overlooks the lives shaped by abortion access, contraception, IVF, miscarriage care, maternal healthcare or comprehensive sex education—countless women who chose to pursue an education, have children, not have children, protect their health and chart their own future. What’s your reproductive freedom story? Add your voice. Together, these stories will help show not only why reproductive freedom remains a majority value, but also what it makes possible.
