The state of Missouri is facing a formal complaint that accuses a prominent civil liberties nonprofit and an anti-amendment political committee of skirting a new ban on foreign influence in ballot campaigns. A conservative watchdog says a Switzerland-based foundation gave the nonprofit a large grant, and weeks later that nonprofit routed a half-million dollars to the committee fighting an abortion-related amendment. The dispute has landed on the attorney general’s desk and raises questions about how courts and states will apply recently passed foreign funding rules.
A conservative group filed the complaint asking Missouri’s attorney general to open an investigation into whether the ACLU Foundation and Stop the Ban violated the state’s foreign-influence ballot-measure law. The watchdog points to a two-year, unrestricted $2 million grant the nonprofit received from the Switzerland-based Oak Foundation beginning in 2025. Shortly after that grant was reported, campaign filings show the ACLU Foundation donated $500,000 to Stop the Ban, which opposes a proposed constitutional amendment on abortion access.
Missouri was among GOP-led states that in 2025 moved to block foreign money from influencing ballot measures, spurred by reporting about foreign-linked cash reaching big advocacy nonprofits. Lawmakers argued state action was needed after evidence that foreign funds had flowed into groups shaping ballot campaigns. Those new laws are designed to stop foreign nationals and charities from effectively buying influence on state questions that determine public policy.
A federal court decision from 2025 in Kansas is already being cited as precedent in this fight, saying laws similar to Missouri’s can reach organizations that are “one step removed” from foreign funding. That ruling found that contributions to domestic nonprofits originating with foreign nationals could be subject to state restrictions, even when the money passes through intermediary groups. Advocates for enforcement point to that logic to argue Missouri’s law covers the ACLU Foundation’s accepting of foreign grants and any subsequent transfers.
“The ACLU is aware of and compliant with this Missouri campaign finance law,” the organization said in response to inquiries. That exact statement stands as the nonprofit’s public position while the complaint seeks to prove otherwise. The ACLU’s reassurance matters legally if it can show how the funds were sourced and tracked before the transfer to the political committee.
The Oak Foundation is primarily funded by the wealth of British billionaire Alan Parker, and his family retains seats on its board. That connection has been highlighted by critics who worry foreign-family controlled foundations can exert outsize influence on American politics. The complaint argues that accepting and then disbursing funds in this pattern undermines the intent of Missouri’s ban on foreign influence in ballot measures.
Americans for Public Trust contends the timing and flow of money amount to a violation of the Foreign Influence in Ballot Measures Act, which took effect in August 2025. The watchdog calls the sequence — foreign grant, then donation to an in-state political committee — at the very least reckless and at worst willful evasion of the law. Their filing presses the attorney general to investigate whether statutory attestation requirements were dodged or misrepresented.
“The ACLU Foundation has become a bastion of foreign money, unceremoniously opening its coffers to millions in Swiss-based funding, and, subsequently, to an unknowable degree of influence that comes along with it,” the complaint reads. Those are the exact words the watchdog used to frame its allegation of foreign leverage at play. The language is blunt and meant to underscore why enforcement proponents say the rules were written in the first place.
Missouri law requires organizations that donate to political committees to attest they received less than $10,000 from “prohibited sources” in the four years before contributing, and it defines prohibited sources as “contributions from or expenditures by a foreign national made with the intent to use such funds to influence an election on a ballot measure.” That statutory text is central to the legal test the attorney general will apply to the complaint. If the ACLU Foundation or Stop the Ban cannot credibly make those attestations, the law gives state officials the authority to act.
The ballot measure in question would, if adopted, repeal Missouri’s 2024 abortion-rights amendment and allow lawmakers to restrict abortion access with certain exceptions, while also addressing gender-transition procedures for minors. Stop the Ban is the principal committee opposing the amendment and has been fundraising and spending in anticipation of the 2026 election. The financial trail now in dispute goes straight to the heart of who can lawfully put money behind those efforts.
In asking the attorney general to investigate, Americans for Public Trust argues the complaint presents substantial evidence and urges swift enforcement consistent with the state’s effort to curb foreign interference. “Given the substantial evidence in our complaint, and Attorney General Hanaway’s work to end foreign interference in Missouri, we have full confidence the state will take swift action against both organizations,” the complaint quotes the watchdog’s executive director as saying. The coming inquiry will test how aggressively Missouri enforces its new ballot finance rules and could set a template for other states seeking to protect ballot measures from foreign money.
