DISCLOSE Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Pappas, Chris [D-NH-1]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 4, 2026
Bottom line
The DISCLOSE Act of 2026 aims to dramatically increase transparency in political spending by requiring more disclosure from 'dark money' groups and foreign entities, while also streamlining judicial challenges to campaign finance laws.
What it actually does
This bill significantly expands campaign finance disclosure requirements for a wide range of organizations, including corporations, labor organizations, and certain non-profits, that make campaign-related disbursements. It also broadens the prohibition on foreign money in U.S. elections to include state and local ballot initiatives and digital communications, and introduces new criminal penalties for concealing foreign influence. Furthermore, it mandates expanded 'Stand By Your Ad' disclaimers for political communications and centralizes judicial review of campaign finance laws in the D.C. courts.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential for fostering an informed electorate, detecting and deterring quid pro quo corruption, and enforcing existing prohibitions on foreign money in U.S. campaigns. They contend that current law contains too many loopholes, allowing significant undisclosed spending to influence elections and judicial nominations, thereby eroding public trust and accountability.
Opponents contend
Opponents typically argue that such extensive disclosure requirements can infringe on free speech and association rights, potentially chilling political participation by exposing donors to harassment or reprisals. They may also raise concerns about the administrative burden placed on organizations and the potential for overreach in regulating issue advocacy or digital communications.
This bill is substantial and introduces many new definitions and interlocking provisions, requiring a dedicated read to fully grasp its implications.
Title I, Sec. 101, amending 52 U.S.C. 30121(b)
Expanding Definition of 'Contribution and Donation' for Foreign Nationals
This provision broadens the types of financial activities considered 'contributions or donations' when made by foreign nationals, making more disbursements subject to the existing ban on foreign money in U.S. elections. Specifically, it includes any disbursement to political committees that accept unlimited donations (like Super PACs) or to any person for the purpose of funding expenditures, independent expenditures, or electioneering communications.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this clarification is crucial for closing existing loopholes that allow foreign entities to indirectly influence U.S. elections through various financial channels, thereby protecting the integrity of the democratic process.
Critics contend
While the core ban on foreign money is widely supported, some might argue that overly broad definitions could inadvertently capture legitimate activities or create undue compliance burdens, though this specific provision targets clear illicit activity.
Tradeoffs
The provision aims to enhance election integrity by preventing foreign interference, balancing this goal against the need for clear and enforceable definitions that do not inadvertently restrict legitimate activities.
Title I, Sec. 103, amending 52 U.S.C. 30121(b)
Prohibition on Foreign Money in State and Local Ballot Initiatives
This section extends the existing ban on contributions and donations by foreign nationals to include state and local ballot initiatives and referenda. This prohibition specifically applies to 'covered foreign nationals,' which are defined as foreign governments, foreign political parties, their agents, or individuals on the Treasury Department's specially designated nationals list.
Title I, Sec. 104, amending 52 U.S.C. 30121(a)(1)
Expanding Scope of Foreign Money Ban to Digital and Issue Ads
This provision significantly broadens the types of disbursements prohibited for foreign nationals. It includes independent expenditures, electioneering communications, digital communications referring to candidates near elections, broadcast or digital communications that promote/attack candidates (even without express advocacy), disbursements for national legislative issue ads by covered foreign nationals in election years, and compensation for internet activity related to candidates. It also defines 'online platform' for these purposes.
Title I, Sec. 105, adding 18 U.S.C. 612
Criminalizing Establishment of Corporations to Conceal Foreign Money
This section creates a new federal criminal offense, making it unlawful for an owner, officer, attorney, or incorporation agent of an entity to establish or use that entity with the intent to conceal a foreign national's prohibited election contributions or donations. Violators could face up to 5 years imprisonment, fines, or both.
Title II, Sec. 201, amending 52 U.S.C. 30126
Comprehensive Disclosure for 'Dark Money' Organizations
This section establishes extensive new disclosure requirements for 'covered organizations' (including corporations, LLCs, 501(c) non-profits, labor organizations, and certain political committees) that make over $10,000 in 'campaign-related disbursements' during an election cycle. These organizations must file statements with the FEC detailing their disbursements, identifying beneficial owners (for certain entities), certifying non-coordination, and disclosing donors who contribute $10,000 or more. Exceptions exist for ordinary business transactions, donor-restricted funds, and specific threats of harassment.
Title II, Sec. 202, amending 52 U.S.C. 30126
Disclosure for Federal Judicial Nomination Spending
This section extends the new disclosure requirements for 'campaign-related disbursements' to include spending on 'Federal judicial nomination communications.' This means organizations making communications (via broadcast, internet, mass mail, phone calls, etc.) that promote, support, attack, or oppose the nomination or Senate confirmation of a federal judge or justice must disclose their spending and donors, similar to electoral campaign spending. The dollar thresholds apply separately, and the reporting cycle is the calendar year.
Title III, Sec. 302, adding 52 U.S.C. 30141
Centralized and Expedited Judicial Review of Campaign Finance Laws
This section centralizes and expedites judicial challenges to federal campaign finance laws. Any action challenging the constitutionality or lawfulness of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) or related IRS chapters must be filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, with appeals going directly to the D.C. Circuit. These cases are to be advanced on the docket and expedited. Members of Congress are explicitly granted the right to intervene in such cases or to bring their own challenges.
Title IV, Sec. 402, amending 52 U.S.C. 30120
Expanded 'Stand By Your Ad' Requirements for Political Communications
This section significantly expands disclaimer requirements for political communications not authorized by candidates or committees. For audio, video, and internet communications, it mandates an individual or organizational disclosure statement (e.g., 'I am [name], the [title] of [organization], and [organization] approves this message.'). Additionally, for communications paid for with 'campaign-related disbursements,' it requires a 'Top Five Funders list' (for video/text/graphic ads) or 'Top Two Funders list' (for audio ads) of the largest donors ($10,000+ in the last 12 months), with specific rules for display and exceptions for very short ads using adapted disclaimers or website links.
This provision creates an exception to donor disclosure requirements for persons who provide specific and particular evidence establishing that disclosure would subject them to serious threats, harassment, or reprisals. It explicitly states that 'threats', 'harassment', and 'reprisals' do not include social ostracism, negative commentary, or criticism.
Sec. 201, amending 52 U.S.C. 30126(a)(3)(C)
Why it matters:This is a critical carve-out that addresses a common concern raised by opponents of disclosure laws. Its placement in the exceptions rather than a more prominent section might make it less visible to a casual reader, though it is a standard legislative practice to place exceptions within the relevant rule.
Case for: Proponents argue this exception is necessary to protect individuals from genuine harm while still advancing the overall goal of transparency. It attempts to strike a balance between public disclosure and individual safety.
Case against: Critics of disclosure laws often argue that such exceptions are difficult to prove and enforce, and that the definition of 'threats, harassment, or reprisals' is too narrow, potentially leaving many donors vulnerable to unwanted public scrutiny or pressure.
Estimated impact: This provision could significantly impact the actual scope of donor disclosure, depending on how the Federal Election Commission (FEC) promulgates regulations and how courts interpret the 'serious threats' standard.
This section defines 'beneficial owner' for certain covered organizations, requiring disclosure of natural persons who directly or indirectly exercise substantial control or have a substantial interest in, or receive substantial economic benefits from, an entity. It includes specific exceptions (e.g., minor children, employees, creditors) but also an anti-abuse rule to prevent evasion.
Sec. 201, amending 52 U.S.C. 30126(a)(4)(A)
Why it matters:This is a highly technical but crucial definition, as it determines *who* must ultimately be disclosed as controlling or benefiting from certain entities. Its detailed nature is typical for definitions in complex legislation, but its importance can be underestimated.
Case for: Proponents argue that identifying beneficial owners is essential to prevent shell corporations and other opaque structures from being used to hide the true sources of political spending, thereby ensuring genuine transparency.
Case against: Opponents might argue that the definition is overly broad or complex, creating significant compliance burdens for entities, particularly those with intricate ownership structures, and potentially leading to the disclosure of individuals with only tangential connections.
Estimated impact: This provision will significantly enhance the ability to trace political spending back to actual individuals, rather than just corporate entities, for non-publicly traded corporations and certain other entities.
This section defines 'covered transfer' as any transfer or payment of funds by a covered organization to another person if the transferring organization designates, requests, suggests, or knows/had reason to know the funds would be used for campaign-related disbursements (or transfers for such purpose). It includes exclusions for ordinary business transactions and donor-restricted funds, and special rules for transfers between affiliates.
Sec. 201, amending 52 U.S.C. 30126(f)
Why it matters:This definition is crucial because it determines which transfers between organizations trigger disclosure requirements, aiming to prevent money from being laundered through multiple entities to obscure its origin. Its intricate nature reflects the complexity of financial flows in political advocacy.
Case for: Proponents argue that this definition is essential to prevent organizations from simply passing funds through intermediary groups to avoid disclosure, thereby ensuring that the ultimate source of political spending is revealed.
Case against: Opponents might argue that the 'knew or had reason to know' standard is overly broad and could inadvertently capture legitimate transfers between organizations, creating an undue burden and chilling inter-organizational cooperation on advocacy.
Estimated impact: This provision will significantly expand the scope of disclosed financial flows between political organizations, making it much harder to hide the original source of funds used for campaign-related activities.
This provision specifies exclusions from the 'Top Five Funders list' and 'Top Two Funders list' required in expanded disclaimers. Excluded are amounts from ordinary business transactions or investments, and payments that the donor explicitly prohibited, in writing, from being used for campaign-related disbursements, provided the recipient organization segregated those funds.
Sec. 402, amending 52 U.S.C. 30120(e)(5)(C)
Why it matters:These exclusions are crucial for defining the practical scope of the 'Top Funders' disclosure. They aim to prevent the disclosure of funds unrelated to political spending or funds explicitly restricted by donors, reflecting a legislative attempt to narrow the impact of disclosure to truly political money.
Case for: Proponents argue these exclusions are necessary to ensure the 'Top Funders' lists accurately reflect the sources of political spending, rather than including commercial revenue or funds explicitly designated for non-political purposes, which would be misleading and overly burdensome.
Case against: Opponents might argue that even with these exclusions, the overall burden of tracking and reporting donor information for these lists remains high, and that the 'written prohibition' requirement might be difficult for all donors to implement.
Estimated impact: These exclusions will reduce the number of donors appearing on 'Top Funders' lists, focusing the disclosure on funds more directly linked to political advocacy, but still requiring significant internal accounting by organizations.