HELENA — For a second time in four years, a federal judge has ruled that Montana’s campaign contribution limits are unconstitutional, possibly opening a flood of money from political parties just three weeks before the state’s June 7 primary.

Tuesday’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell was a clear setback for the state’s Commissioner of Political Practices, Jonathan Motl, who defended the strict limits that voters enacted in 1994.

Motl urged restraint by political parties, which can now contribute unlimited amounts of money directly to candidates.

After conferring with the State Attorney General’s Office, Motl said he was reinstating contribution for individuals and political action committees that were in place prior to the initiative, with a slight adjustment for inflation.

The contribution limit for gubernatorial candidate rises to $1,990, up from a maximum of $1,300. Other statewide offices will now have limits of $990 per election cycle, including primary and general elections, up from $640 for candidates in contested primary races.

Lovell’s ruling said Montana officials did not prove that the limits “further the important state interest of combating quid pro quo corruption or its appearance.”

The plaintiffs in the case, which include several political action committees and Republican central committees, claimed the limits restricted freedom of speech, association and candidates’ ability to raise enough money to effectively campaign.

Prior to Tuesday’s ruling, Montana’s individual contribution limits were $170 for legislative candidates, $320 for attorney general candidates and $650 for gubernatorial candidates. The law also set total contribution limits from political party committees to candidates that range from $850 per election for a state House candidate to $23,350 for a gubernatorial candidate.

Lovell expressed no opinion on what the limits should be. “The court leaves this question for the Montana Attorney General to consider,” he wrote.

Attorney General Tim Fox could not be immediately reached Tuesday afternoon.

Lovell had previously struck down Montana’s contribution limits in state elections as being too low for candidates to effectively campaign. A federal appeals court reinstated the limits a little over a week later in October 2012, but by that time, the Montana Republican Party had donated $500,000 to gubernatorial candidate Rick Hill.

Hill spent the money, leading to a lawsuit and complaints of campaign violations that resulted in the final act of the campaign playing out in a courtroom before Democrat Steve Bullock won the election.

The contribution limits case returned to Lovell’s courtroom last fall after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the judge’s 2012 ruling and ordered him to re-examine the issue based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizen’s United case, which required states to prove their limits were stopping an exchange of money for political favors.

The lawsuit against Motl came from a group of conservative activists, corporations and political organizations who complained the limits were unconstitutionally low. They are represented by James Bopp, an Indiana lawyer who initiated the Citizens United lawsuit that led to the ruling that corporations can spend unlimited amounts on independent expenditures in federal elections.