A federal judge on Monday upheld an executive order by Gov. Steve Bullock requiring companies to report political spending if they want to bid on large state contracts.

U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell ruled the Illinois Opportunity Project does not have the legal standing to challenge the governor’s 2018 order requiring reporting of contributions even to so called dark money groups.

Judge Lovell had dismissed the complaint in January due to lack of standing.

However, he gave the Illinois Opportunity Project another chance to prove the executive order would cause it to suffer an actual or imminent, as opposed to hypothetical, loss of a legally protected right.

Under Bullock’s order, companies submitting bids for contracts valued at more than $25,000 for services or $50,000 for goods must disclose two years’ worth of political spending if the spending exceeds $2,500.

The order allows Montana to bring transparency to spending by groups classified as social welfare organizations under the federal tax code.

A lawsuit filed by the Illinois Opportunity Project over Montana Gov. Steve Bullock’s executive order on dark money in elections has been dismissed.

The Illinois-based conservative advocacy group filed the lawsuit in U.S. federal court in Helena objecting to Executive Order 15-2018.

The Executive order requires organizations receiving large state contracts to report political contributions that exceed $2,500, even if the disclosures are not required under federal election laws.

Judge Charles C. Lovell ruled the Illinois Opportunity Project could not prove it had been harmed by the executive order because current or potential donors refused to contribute money because they would be named.

The advocacy group has until January 21 to file an amended complaint.

Two conservative groups are asking a federal judge to strike down Rhode Island campaign finance laws that make them report political advertising and identify donors.

Rhode Island’s Gaspee Project and the Illinois Opportunity Project filed a lawsuit against the Rhode Island Board of Elections in U.S. District Court arguing that paid political messaging not coordinated with a specific campaign is protected free speech that should not be subject to state financial disclosure laws.

The suit claims the disclosure laws regarding campaign contributions are unconstitutional and that revealing the identity of donors can expose them to retribution, making them less likely to donate.

The Rhode Island law requires any group that makes more than $1,000 in independent expenditures not coordinated with a campaign to report them to the Board of Elections, list what candidate or referendum is involved, list all individual donors who gave more than $1,000 that election cycle, and list the top five donors.

Supporters of the disclosure law believe it will survive the challenge because federal courts around the U.S. have upheld similar disclosure provisions.