Montana’s Foreign Money ‘Ban’ Wouldn’t Have Stopped $3 Million in 2024 Abortion Amendment Funding

Montana legislators thought they were closing the door on foreign influence in elections when they passed a new law prohibiting non-U.S. citizens, foreign governments, and foreign-owned entities from funding ballot measure campaigns. But according to watchdog organizations, they may have left the window wide open.

The law, House Bill 818, which targets foreign money in ballot initiatives, contains what critics describe as significant loopholes that could allow foreign influence to continue flowing into Montana’s electoral process through alternative channels, according to reporting by Tom Joyce at The Center Square. The criticism comes from conservative election integrity organizations who argue that effective campaign finance reform should work regardless of which political side benefits from the gaps.

The concerns aren’t merely theoretical. Robin Sertell, chair of Montanans for Life, calls HB 818 “a tragic example of a great bill that was completely gutted and rendered ineffective for its intended use by amendments.” Sertell says that while her organization supported the bill in its original form, “the emasculated version wasn’t one we could get behind” after “stripping five entire pages of language” and including “massive loopholes in Section Two that allow for everything it had initially intended to stop.”

The Loopholes in Question

The most glaring exemption, buried in HB 818’s definition of “foreign national,” allows U.S.-based companies with foreign ownership to contribute to ballot campaigns under specific conditions. According to the bill’s text, a foreign-owned U.S. entity can participate in Montana elections if it meets one of two criteria: either it “employs individuals who pay income tax to the state of Montana and the entity pays property taxes to a taxing authority in the state of Montana,” or its contributions “derive entirely from funds generated by the U.S. entity’s U.S. operations” with decisions made by U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

This provision essentially creates a pathway for foreign-influenced entities to participate in Montana elections as long as they check the right boxes on paper.

Even more concerning to watchdogs is what HB 818 doesn’t address: American political groups that receive foreign funding can still participate in ballot initiatives without restriction. The law requires political committees to obtain affirmations that donors “are not foreign nationals,” but it places no obligation to verify the ultimate source of funds flowing through domestic intermediary organizations.

This gap means organizations could potentially launder foreign money through domestic intermediaries before it reaches Montana campaigns, exploiting the same vulnerabilities that government accountability experts have identified in other states.

A Recent Example

The stakes became clear in Montana’s 2024 election cycle, when Constitutional Initiative 128—the abortion rights amendment that ultimately passed—saw massive out-of-state funding that local opponents say undermined claims about representing “the will of the people.”

The Sixteen Thirty Fund, a progressive organization that operates as a major hub for undisclosed political spending on the American Left, contributed $3 million in support of the measure. But as Sertell notes, “roughly 40 million dollars was funneled in from out of state groups to prop up the narrative supporting this constitutional initiative. None of the major donors were Montanans.”

Here’s where Montana’s loopholes matter: The Sixteen Thirty Fund has received at least $280 million from Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss since 2016, according to the New York Post. Since the organization is American-based and Wyss doesn’t directly control how the money is spent, Montana’s new law wouldn’t prevent similar contributions in future campaigns—effectively allowing foreign money to influence Montana ballot initiatives through domestic intermediaries.

Sertell points to this specific foreign connection: “Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss has pumped well over three million dollars into Montana’s elections via the Sixteen Thirty Fund during the 2024 election cycle alone according to the COPP’s website.”

This demonstrates exactly what watchdogs call the “money laundering” problem that HB 818 fails to address. As Sertell puts it: “Montanans deserve the truth – not the lie that ‘CI-128 was the will of Montanans.’ If this was truly what Montanans wanted, why would they need to pump such immense amounts of dark money into the state to prop it up?”

Missing Safeguards

While HB 818 gives the Commissioner of Political Practices and county attorneys investigatory powers and establishes civil penalties up to $500 or three times the amount of unlawful contributions, the law’s enforcement mechanisms rely heavily on self-reporting and affirmations rather than proactive verification systems.

The bill requires political committees to maintain records of donor affirmations, but watchdogs point out that sophisticated actors could easily circumvent these paper-trail requirements by routing funds through compliant domestic entities that meet HB 818’s technical exemptions.

“The problem that Montana failed to address is that you can have these intermediary groups that act as essentially money launderers, like the Sixteen Thirty Fund, raising enormous sums from foreign nationals, while simultaneously spending money on ballot measures,” Honest Elections Project executive director Jason Snead told The Center Square.

What Other States Are Doing

The criticism comes with a solution: watchdog organizations are urging Montana to adopt stricter measures similar to those implemented in other states that have taken more comprehensive approaches to blocking foreign money in elections.

Missouri, for example, requires groups that spend in support of or against ballot measures to certify that they have not taken above a certain threshold of foreign money over a four-year period. This approach specifically targets the money laundering activity that Montana’s law allows to continue.

Ohio’s foreign funding ban was so effective that the Sixteen Thirty Fund stopped spending on that state’s ballot questions entirely once the law took effect, demonstrating that stronger legislation can actually work.

Wyoming, Kansas, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Indiana have all passed similar comprehensive bans this year that close the loopholes Montana left open.

The Broader Stakes

The debate over Montana’s law reflects a larger national conversation about election integrity and foreign influence. While supporters argue HB 818 represents a step in the right direction, critics contend that laws with significant loopholes may provide false security while failing to address the underlying problem.

For Montana voters, the question becomes whether a law that appears tough on foreign money but contains multiple exemptions actually protects the integrity of their ballot initiatives—or simply creates the illusion of protection while allowing business as usual to continue under a different name.

The state now faces a choice: strengthen HB 818 to close these loopholes, or risk having its election finance reform become another case study in well-intentioned legislation that falls short of its promise.