Guest opinion: Who's paying to influence your vote?

In February, at the Republican Winter Kickoff in Great Falls, Henry Kriegel of Americans for Prosperity Montana said his group's mailers and digital ads in our legislative primaries were "hard-hitting for a purpose" and "honor our donors' intent." Asked who those donors are, he said he did not know.

Montana Free Press reported that four groups accounted for 96 percent of outside spending in Montana's 43 contested Republican legislative primaries, more than $4 million. Public filings identify some contributors. The donors behind Americans for Prosperity's Montana ads generally are not identified in public campaign reports.

By contrast, an individual may give a legislative candidate no more than $470 per election. Once contributions reach $50, the candidate must publicly report the donor's name, address, occupation and employer.

A 501(c)(4) "social welfare" nonprofit, however, can accept donations without a dollar cap. Candidate campaigning cannot be its primary activity. When it files as an incidental committee in Montana, it reports election spending but generally identifies donors only when their gifts were earmarked for a candidate or ballot issue, or solicited for election activity.

That means a rancher's $50 contribution to a candidate is public, while an unrestricted $500,000 donation that a nonprofit later spends on election advertising may leave the original donor unidentified in Montana's reports.

In 2027, I intend to introduce the Montana True Source Act. Drawing on a definition Alaska voters adopted in 2020, it would trace election money to the person or business whose money came from wages, investment income, inheritance or revenue from selling goods or services. Organizations passing along contributions could not conceal the original source by adding another layer. Somebody would have to answer the question Kriegel could not.

Under my proposal, contributions exceeding $2,500 in a calendar year to groups spending on Montana elections would trigger reporting by both contributor and recipient within 48 hours. Membership dues below the threshold would remain private.

Companion proposals would require year-round disclosure for covered election advertising, identify the top three funders on advertisements, and bar fundraising during the legislative session.

These proposals would not cap independent election spending. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court struck down corporate independent spending restrictions while upholding disclaimer and disclosure requirements.

Voters deserve the same information whether an advertisement praises their preferred candidate or attacks that candidate.

Madison wrote in Federalist 52 that the House of Representatives ought to be "dependent on the people alone." Knowing who finances election advertising helps citizens judge whose interests a message may serve.

Most of my colleagues honor their oath of office, vote their conscience, and represent their constituents. But hidden donors invite suspicion and undermine public trust. A Montanan who opens the mailbox should be able to learn who paid for what is inside. A healthy democracy depends on restoring trust in our elections, our institutions, our political process, and a rule of law that applies equally to everyone.

Rep. Brad Barker, R-Red Lodge.