In the first two parts of this series, we looked at what Montana changed and who helped push those changes through the Legislature.
Now we get to the question people inevitably ask when an outside industry helps change the laws under which that industry may eventually operate:
Who paid for all of this?
The answer is not as simple as finding a pharmaceutical company check written to a Montana senator.
At least, not from the records I have found.
There is no evidence I have found that Sen. Ken Bogner, Gov. Greg Gianforte or another Montana lawmaker was handed money in exchange for passing Montana’s experimental-treatment laws.
That needs to be said clearly.
But that does not mean there is no money involved.
There is plenty of money surrounding the movement that helped bring these policies to Montana.
And there are relationships Montanans deserve to know about.
Start With A4LI
One of the central organizations behind Montana’s experimental-medicine legislation is the Alliance for Longevity Initiatives, known as A4LI.
A4LI is a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization created specifically to change public policy surrounding longevity science and biotechnology.
It has publicly taken credit for its involvement with Montana’s Right to Try legislation.
In 2023, Montana passed SB 422, dramatically expanding access to experimental treatment by removing the requirement that a patient be terminally ill.
Two years later came SB 535, creating licensed Experimental Treatment Centers.
A4LI supported both.
This was not an organization that discovered Montana after the laws passed.
It was involved while the policy was being built.
A Nearly Million-Dollar Advocacy Organization
Following the money gets more interesting when we look at A4LI’s federal nonprofit filings.
For the fiscal year ending in June 2025, A4LI reported approximately:
$915,062 in total revenue.
Approximately:
$852,093 came from contributions.
That is more than 93 percent of the organization’s revenue.
A4LI reported approximately $688,310 in expenses and nearly $960,000 in net assets.
Its founder and president, Dylan Livingston, received approximately $172,900 in compensation.
This wasn’t one unusually large year either.
Earlier filings show substantial contribution revenue.
For the fiscal year ending in May 2023, A4LI reported approximately $625,459 in revenue.
Approximately $621,899 of it came from contributions.
In 2022, reported revenue and contributions were approximately $657,286.
So we know considerable money has flowed into the organization.
What we cannot easily determine from the public tax filings is equally important:
Who provided all of it?
A4LI’s tax status means its public filings do not give Montanans a neat list identifying every contributor behind those hundreds of thousands of dollars.
That makes examining the organization’s publicly acknowledged sponsors and industry relationships especially important.
Want Access? A4LI Sells Sponsorships
A4LI openly offers corporate and organizational sponsorship packages.
Those sponsorships range from thousands of dollars to a top tier of approximately $60,000.
And these aren’t simply advertisements in a conference brochure.
Depending upon sponsorship level and availability, A4LI advertises benefits involving government-affairs calls, policy retreats, advisory activities, VIP events, presentations and opportunities connected with meetings with policymakers.
Again, lobbying government is legal.
Organizations across the political spectrum do it every day.
But Montanans should understand that the organization helping change experimental-treatment policy in our state operates a sophisticated, funded government-affairs operation.
Who Is Around A4LI?
The answer takes us directly into the longevity biotechnology industry.
A4LI’s publicly documented network has included biotechnology companies, longevity investors, researchers and executives.
Methuselah Foundation publicly announced becoming an A4LI sponsor.
Reporting has also identified Retro Biosciences as an A4LI sponsor.
Retro is particularly noteworthy because it is backed by Silicon Valley billionaire Sam Altman, who reportedly personally invested approximately $180 million into the company.
That does not mean Sam Altman funded SB 535.
It does not mean Retro bought Montana legislation.
I have found no evidence establishing either claim.
But it does show the scale of the financial world surrounding the movement that identified Montana as an attractive place to change experimental-medicine policy.
This isn’t a bake sale.
There is serious biotechnology and Silicon Valley capital operating in this world.
Dylan Livingston
A4LI founder Dylan Livingston did not come to this through a traditional medical career.
His background includes politics.
Livingston has described working on political campaigns before founding A4LI, including working as a field organizer during Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign.
He subsequently built an organization specifically designed to give the longevity movement political influence.
A4LI has worked on federal lobbying, congressional relationships and longevity legislation.
It helped establish a congressional Longevity Science Caucus.
Livingston also came directly to Montana.
He testified before Montana lawmakers.
And he has publicly described Montana’s legislative changes as accomplishments of his organization’s advocacy work.
He wasn’t merely observing what Montana was doing.
He was helping advocate for it.
Then There Is Jesse Luther
The other important figure in this story is Jesse Luther.
Luther appeared before Montana lawmakers representing A4LI in support of SB 535.
But unlike Livingston, Luther didn’t need an introduction to Helena.
He already knew the building.
Luther is an experienced professional Montana lobbyist whose public legislative history stretches back years.
Montana legislative records show him representing a wide range of interests over time, including the Montana Contractors Association, Association of Montana Troopers, Consumer Data Industry Association and interests connected with the Motion Picture Association.
More recently, records identify Luther and the Taylor Luther Group representing interests including Talen Energy Montana and Sabey Data Centers.
That does not mean any of those companies had anything to do with SB 535.
They are separate clients and separate issues.
Professional lobbyists commonly represent many unrelated businesses and organizations.
But it tells Montanans something important about A4LI’s strategy.
A national longevity advocacy organization didn’t simply send someone unfamiliar with Montana politics into a committee hearing.
It had representation from someone who understands Montana government and has years of experience working inside that system.
Livingston brought the longevity-policy movement.
Luther brought experience navigating Helena.
That is a powerful combination.
Niklas Anzinger Appears in the Story Too
Then we get another connection.
Niklas Anzinger is a longevity investor and entrepreneur associated with Infinita and the Próspera ecosystem in Honduras.
Próspera has become internationally known for an unusual regulatory environment that has attracted biotechnology, longevity and experimental medical ventures.
Anzinger did not simply discover Montana after SB 535 passed.
Reporting has identified him as someone who worked on SB 535.
That matters because Infinita now actively promotes Montana’s experimental-treatment framework as an opportunity for biotechnology companies.
Its own marketing discusses things such as early commercialization, treatment deployment, outcome data and revenue.
So we have someone reportedly involved in developing the policy who is also connected to an organization promoting commercial opportunities created by that policy.
That is not proof of corruption.
But it is absolutely something the public has a right to examine.
Researchers Helped Too
Another important name is Matt Kaeberlein.
Kaeberlein is a respected aging researcher known for his work in geroscience and the Dog Aging Project.
He has publicly discussed testifying in Montana and helping Bogner with legislative language concerning expanded Right to Try.
That shows something important about the coalition behind these laws.
This wasn’t simply pharmaceutical lobbyists.
It included scientists, patient-autonomy advocates, longevity entrepreneurs, political advocates, professional lobbyists and investors.
Some may have participated because they sincerely believe patients should have greater control over their medical decisions.
Others may see an enormous commercial opportunity.
Both things can be true at the same time.
Bogner’s Relationship With the Longevity Movement Predates SB 535
Sen. Ken Bogner’s relationship with this movement also deserves examination.
Bogner participated in longevity-related events before SB 535 became law.
He appeared at a 2023 longevity conference where regulatory changes involving longevity were discussed alongside figures from the broader longevity, cryptocurrency and Próspera communities.
He later participated in A4LI programming discussing Montana’s expanded Right to Try system and the possibility of broader policy changes.
There was even a longevity movement event that listed an initiative concerning Ken Bogner’s congressional campaign.
That is evidence of political interest in Bogner among people within this movement.
It is not evidence that they gave him money.
And that distinction matters.
So Did They Donate to Bogner?
This is where facts matter more than insinuation.
Bogner ran for Congress in 2024.
His federal campaign committee, Ken Bogner for Congress, reported approximately $55,442 in total receipts through the reporting period examined.
Approximately $53,913 came from individual contributions.
Approximately $48,078 of those contributions were itemized.
Another approximately $5,836 were unitemized.
His campaign reported $1,500 from other political committees.
I have not found evidence in the records examined establishing that Dylan Livingston, Niklas Anzinger, Sam Altman, Retro Biosciences, CSBio, A4LI or another major longevity company directly funded Bogner’s campaign.
If evidence of that appears, it should be reported.
Until then, it would be irresponsible to claim it happened.
But Campaign Contributions Aren’t the Only Money in Politics
This is where “follow the money” gets more complicated.
Influence does not always mean:
Company → campaign check → politician.
Modern political influence can involve:
Company → advocacy organization → lobbyist → legislator.
Or:
Investor → nonprofit advocacy organization → policy campaign.
Or:
Industry → conference → relationships → legislation.
Or political committees, independent expenditures, lobbying contracts, sponsorships, research organizations and individual executives making personal political contributions.
Those are different things legally.
They need to remain different things journalistically.
But they all deserve examination.
A4LI Has a Political Operation Too
A4LI’s political world extends beyond educational advocacy.
There is also a longevity-focused political action effort intended to support candidates favorable to longevity biotechnology policy.
Publicly available records I examined did not establish that this political organization donated to Montana lawmakers connected with SB 535.
So again:
No accusation.
No invented connection.
But its existence tells us exactly what the broader strategy is.
The longevity movement isn’t merely trying to convince scientists.
It is trying to influence politics.
That is their stated purpose.
The Question Isn’t Whether Lobbying Happened
It did.
We know people associated with the longevity movement worked with Montana policymakers.
We know A4LI supported the legislation.
We know Livingston testified.
We know Luther represented A4LI before Montana lawmakers.
We know researchers participated.
We know Anzinger has been reported as working on SB 535.
We know Bogner developed an ongoing relationship with people in the longevity-policy movement.
We know A4LI receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions.
We know it accepts substantial sponsorships.
We know companies and investors within the longevity biotechnology world stand to benefit if experimental treatments can reach paying patients faster.
None of that proves corruption.
And we do not need to pretend it does.
The facts themselves raise enough questions.
What Montanans Should Be Asking
Who originally approached Montana lawmakers about these changes?
Who actually wrote the first drafts?
Which portions came from Montana legislators and which came from outside organizations?
Who funded A4LI during the years it worked on Montana legislation?
Which biotechnology companies participated in discussions about Montana?
What did they tell legislators about businesses they intended to bring here?
Were environmental consequences discussed?
Was housing discussed?
Was pharmaceutical manufacturing discussed?
Were water and wastewater demands discussed?
Was medical tourism discussed?
Were long-term liability and patient injuries discussed?
And did lawmakers know which companies and investors could eventually profit from the system they were creating?
Those questions are not accusations.
They are basic due diligence.
And Montana Still Needs to Follow Its Own Money
There is another layer of records that deserves continued scrutiny through the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices.
That includes campaign contributions to legislators who handled these bills, lobbying registrations, principals represented by lobbyists, compensation disclosures, political committees and expenditures.
Those records should be compared against the names of executives, investors and organizations now preparing to benefit from Montana’s experimental-treatment marketplace.
And if there is nothing there, that should be reported too.
Because this investigation should not begin with a conclusion and search for evidence to support it.
It should follow the evidence wherever it goes.
Right now, the evidence establishes something significant without needing to embellish it:
A well-funded national longevity advocacy movement helped make Montana one of America’s experimental-medicine test cases.
It had political organizers.
It had professional Montana lobbying experience.
It had scientists.
It had investors and biotechnology companies surrounding it.
And it had Montana lawmakers willing to try something no other state had attempted on this scale.
Now those laws are creating commercial opportunities.
That makes one final question especially important.
If the same people who helped convince Montana to build this new marketplace are now positioned to participate in or profit from that marketplace, Montanans deserve complete transparency about who helped write the rules, who financed the advocacy, who lobbied our government and who ultimately gets paid.
That isn’t conspiracy.
That is accountability.
Sources
Alliance for Longevity Initiatives, advocacy history and Montana legislative involvement.
A4LI public sponsorship materials, including sponsorship levels and government-affairs benefits.
IRS Form 990 filings for Alliance for Longevity Initiatives, available through ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer. FY2025 filing reports approximately $915,062 in revenue and $852,093 in contributions.
Federal lobbying disclosure records for Alliance for Longevity Initiatives.
Federal Election Commission records, Ken Bogner for Congress, Committee C00865048.
Montana Legislature, SB 535 committee hearing records and testimony.
Montana Legislature historical committee records documenting Jesse Luther’s representation of various clients.
Montana Commissioner of Political Practices, campaign-finance and lobbying disclosure systems.
A4LI public statements and materials concerning Dylan Livingston and Montana SB 422/SB 535.
Public statements by Matt Kaeberlein concerning his Montana testimony and participation in legislative language.
Published reporting concerning Niklas Anzinger’s involvement with SB 535 and his subsequent involvement in Montana’s experimental-treatment ecosystem.
Published reporting and corporate materials concerning Infinita, Próspera, Retro Biosciences and the emerging longevity biotechnology industry.
Leave a Reply