HR-3535-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Sponsored by Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
What it does
This bill would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to extend the existing federal ban on foreign national contributions to elections so that it explicitly covers state and local ballot initiatives, referenda, and recall elections. Currently, the law prohibits foreign nationals from contributing to candidate elections; this bill would close a gap by applying that same prohibition to direct democracy processes at the state and local level. The change would take effect for contributions made on or after the date the bill is signed into law.
Who benefits
U.S. voters participating in ballot initiative and recall campaigns, who would have greater assurance that those campaigns are not funded by foreign nationals. Domestic advocacy organizations and campaigns that compete against foreign-funded efforts. State election officials who would gain a clearer federal legal basis for rejecting foreign contributions in these contests. Candidates subject to recall elections who face foreign-funded opposition campaigns.
Who is hurt
Foreign nationals — including permanent legal residents (green card holders) who are already prohibited from contributing to candidate elections — who wish to fund ballot initiative campaigns on issues that affect them directly (e.g., labor, housing, or environmental policy). Foreign-owned corporations with U.S. subsidiaries that currently fund ballot campaigns through domestic entities may face increased scrutiny. Organizations that rely on international funding sources and engage in ballot initiative advocacy may need to restructure their financing. States that have not independently prohibited such contributions would lose flexibility to permit them.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the existing gap in federal law — which bans foreign money in candidate elections but not in ballot initiative campaigns — is a significant vulnerability, since ballot measures can have policy consequences as significant as any candidate race. They contend that foreign nationals and foreign-controlled entities have exploited this gap to influence U.S. policy directly, and that the principle underlying the existing ban (that U.S. elections should be decided by U.S. participants) applies equally to direct democracy. They point to documented instances of foreign-linked spending in state ballot campaigns as evidence that the loophole is actively used.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that ballot initiatives address policy questions — not the selection of government officials — and that spending on such campaigns may constitute protected political speech under the First Amendment, complicating a categorical foreign-spending ban. They contend that the bill's definition of covered elections could sweep in lawful speech by long-term legal residents who pay taxes and are directly affected by ballot outcomes, yet have no other avenue for political participation. Critics also argue that enforcement would be difficult, since the FEC's jurisdiction over state ballot campaigns is limited, and that the bill may create conflicts with state campaign finance frameworks.