Montana’s latest attempt to shield its elections from foreign influence is under fire, and for good reason. Critics are sounding the alarm that the state’s new law, while a step in the right direction, leaves gaping loopholes for overseas meddling in ballot measures. It’s a classic case of good intentions meeting questionable execution.
According to Just the News, Montana has joined five other states in 2025 to ban foreign spending on ballot initiatives, but watchdog groups argue the measure falls short by allowing American advocacy organizations with foreign cash to keep playing the game.
Let’s rewind a bit to see how we got here. Ohio kicked off this trend last year as the first state to block foreign funding for ballot questions, setting a precedent that others followed. After Ohio’s move, groups like the Sixteen Thirty Fund shifted their focus to other states, including Montana.
This year, Montana became the sixth state to enact such a ban, prohibiting contributions from non-U.S. citizens, foreign governments, political parties, and foreign-owned entities. The law was passed with strong Republican support and only a smattering of Democratic votes, showing a clear partisan divide on how to tackle this issue.
But here’s the rub: the law carves out an exemption for U.S.-based companies with foreign ownership, as long as they pay state taxes and use funds from domestic citizens or permanent residents. Sounds reasonable on paper, until you realize it’s a door wide enough to drive a truck full of foreign influence through.
Enter the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a progressive advocacy group based in the U.S. that’s been bankrolled to the tune of at least $280 million by Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss since 2016. Last year alone, they dropped over $3 million to back a Montana ballot initiative enshrining abortion as a constitutional right. And because Wyss doesn’t directly control the spending, Montana’s new law can’t touch them.
Critics aren’t mincing words about this oversight. “The problem that Montana failed to address is that you can have these intermediary groups that act as essentially money launderers,” said Jason Snead, executive director of Honest Elections Project. Well, isn’t that a polite way to say the law’s got more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese?
Snead didn’t stop there, pointing out a fix that other states have tried. “That’s why some of the measures we’ve seen passed this year, like in Missouri, for instance, require 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 four years,” he added. Montana, take notes—your homework’s overdue.
The Sixteen Thirty Fund isn’t a small player either; they’ve splashed over $130 million on ballot questions across 25 states in the past decade. If that’s not a wake-up call about the scale of potential foreign sway funneled through domestic fronts, what is?
Other states like Wyoming, Kansas, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Indiana have passed tougher bans on foreign funding for ballot issues this year, setting a higher bar. “Starting with Ohio last year, we have seen that foreign funding bans have swept state houses across the country,” said Caitlin Sutherland, executive director of Americans for Public Trust. It’s a trend Montana seems to be lagging on.
Sutherland’s not shy about suggesting Montana look elsewhere for inspiration. “Yes, absolutely,” she said when asked if the state should model its laws after stronger ones. Turns out, copying the smart kid’s answers might just save the day.
The risks of half-measures are real, especially when hostile foreign powers are in the mix. “Any loopholes that exist in our current laws or that we create with new laws can and probably will be exploited by adversarial foreign powers, like China, like Russia, that mean the U.S. ill,” Snead warned. That’s not fearmongering; it’s a cold, hard reality check.
Snead’s final plea hits the nail on the head. “That’s why we should never risk playing with fire by allowing foreign powers to meddle in our politics,” he urged. Montana, are you listening, or are you too busy fiddling while the ballot box burns?
The bottom line is that while Montana’s heart may be in the right place, its law isn’t. Other states have shown that tighter restrictions can work—Ohio’s ban even pushed the Sixteen Thirty Fund to redirect its efforts elsewhere. It’s time for Montana to stop patching leaks with duct tape and build a proper dam against foreign influence.
