S-3991-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Sponsored by Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
What it does
The DISCLOSE Act of 2026 would expand existing prohibitions on foreign nationals spending money in U.S. elections to cover digital and web-based political communications and federal judicial nomination campaigns, and would ban foreign nationals from contributing to ballot initiative and referendum campaigns. It would require covered organizations — including corporations, labor unions, and political organizations — to file reports with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours of making campaign expenditures exceeding $10,000 in an election cycle. It would also require political advertisements to disclose the organization's largest donors from the prior year, and would criminalize the use of shell entities to conceal foreign contributions, with penalties of up to five years in prison.
Who benefits
Voters who would gain more information about who funds political advertising. Domestic political candidates and campaigns that compete against foreign-influenced spending. Journalists and researchers who track campaign finance. Good-government advocacy organizations that monitor election integrity. State and local election officials who administer ballot initiative campaigns. Federal judicial nominees and the confirmation process, which would be shielded from undisclosed foreign influence. Small donors whose contributions are less likely to be obscured by large undisclosed sums.
Who is hurt
Nonprofit organizations — including 501(c)(4) "social welfare" groups — that currently do not disclose donors and would face new reporting obligations. Large individual donors to politically active organizations who would have their names disclosed in political ads. Labor unions that would face new 24-hour reporting requirements. Corporations engaged in political spending that would face faster and more detailed disclosure timelines. Foreign-linked entities that currently operate in gray areas of campaign finance law. Organizations with limited administrative capacity that may struggle to meet 24-hour filing deadlines. Advocacy groups across the political spectrum that rely on donor anonymity to protect contributors from potential harassment.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that foreign interference in U.S. elections is a documented and ongoing threat — the Senate Intelligence Committee found extensive foreign influence operations in the 2016 and 2020 election cycles — and that existing law leaves significant gaps, particularly for digital advertising and ballot initiative campaigns. They contend that the 24-hour disclosure requirement and top-donor identification in ads would give voters the information they need to evaluate the source of political messaging before casting a ballot, restoring a basic accountability standard that the rise of dark money organizations has eroded since Citizens United v. FEC (2010).
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that compelled donor disclosure can chill constitutionally protected political association, pointing to NAACP v. Alabama (1958), in which the Supreme Court recognized that forced membership disclosure can expose donors to retaliation and suppress participation in advocacy. They contend that the bill's broad definition of covered organizations and its top-donor disclosure requirement for ads would sweep in groups engaged in issue advocacy — not just express electoral advocacy — potentially exceeding Congress's authority to regulate speech that does not explicitly call for a vote for or against a candidate, and that 24-hour reporting timelines impose disproportionate compliance burdens on smaller civic organizations.
Constitutional context
The First Amendment limits Congress's ability to compel political disclosure, though the Supreme Court has generally upheld disclosure requirements that are narrowly tailored to prevent corruption or inform voters, as in Buckley v. Valeo (1976). The bill's donor identification requirements for political ads and its coverage of issue advocacy organizations could face scrutiny under the "exacting scrutiny" standard the Court applied in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021), which struck down a state donor disclosure requirement. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any FEC rules implementing the bill's broad provisions would face independent judicial review without deference to the agency's statutory interpretation.
Checks and balances
Congress would expand its own campaign finance framework and delegate implementation to the FEC; the FEC gains new enforcement authority over digital spending and shell-entity prohibitions, while courts — applying independent post-Loper Bright review — serve as the primary check on both the statute's scope and any implementing regulations.
Historical precedent
Earlier versions of the DISCLOSE Act were introduced in 2010, 2012, 2014, and subsequent Congresses following Citizens United v. FEC (2010), but none were enacted into law; the core disclosure framework builds on Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold).