Out-of-state billionaires want the freedom to shape Montana politics while supporting rules that would restrict Montana businesses and associations.

By Representative-elect Trevor Walter, HD 69

⁨Please follow us on X and Telegram

“Dark money” is the buzzword of the moment in Montana politics. It is on activists’ lips, in fundraising mailers, and on signs and billboards along Montana highways. But “dark money” is more than a buzzword. It is becoming a political weapon—and providing cover for a hostile takeover of Montana politics.

The takeover is not happening in secret. It is happening in plain sight. Some of the wealthiest people in America are spending millions trying to influence who represents Montanans. At the same time, they invoke the “dark money” mantra to portray Montana businesses and associations as threats to our elections and support restrictions that would limit those local voices.

Over several weeks this spring, local researchers used free, publicly available resources—including OpenSecrets, IRS Form 990 filings, the Montana Secretary of State’s business database, and Montana’s campaign-finance reporting system—to follow money flowing from out-of-state donors into Montana legislative races. That money wasn’t hard to trace.

The names appearing in the records include Kathryn Murdoch, Michael Bloomberg, John Arnold, members of the Walton family, Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss, and individuals connected to the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. These are not ordinary Montanans pooling a few dollars to support a local candidate. They are extraordinarily wealthy people with the resources to influence elections across the country.

So, when someone says Montana is drowning in untraceable dark money, Montanans should ask a simple question: How untraceable is it if ordinary citizens can follow the money through public records?

The people sounding the alarm about “dark money” are often part of a political effort to create an uneven playing field. Out-of-state billionaires want the freedom to shape Montana politics while supporting rules that would hamstring Montana businesses, associations, employers, and other local voices from speaking about decisions that directly affect their workers, communities, and livelihoods.

That is the double standard Montanans should be discussing. People thousands of miles away can spend heavily to influence a Montana legislative race. But when a Montana business wants to speak about policies that could determine whether it expands, cuts jobs, or keeps its doors open, its participation is treated as a threat.

The real issue is not simply whether political money is “dark.” The issue is who gets to speak, who gets silenced, and who benefits from the new rules.

The answer is not to repeat a politically convenient buzzword or impose one-sided restrictions on Montana voices. The receipts are out there. We have to read them—and recognize what the “dark money” debate has become: cover for a hostile takeover in which national interests retain their influence while pushing Montanans out of their own state politics.

Want to avoid a hostile takeover of Montana? Vote “NO” on I-194.