Preventing Foreign Interference in American Elections Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Steil, Bryan [R-WI-1]
- Committees
- Committee on House Administration (primary)
- Last action
- May 14, 2026
Bottom line
H.R. 8721 expands the ban on foreign money in U.S. elections while simultaneously enhancing donor privacy protections for non-political tax-exempt organizations.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to broaden the prohibition on foreign money in U.S. elections, extending it to activities like voter registration, ballot collection, and election administration. It also makes it unlawful to knowingly aid or facilitate such violations and clarifies that indirect contributions are covered. Additionally, the bill restricts federal government entities from collecting or publicly disclosing donor information for most tax-exempt organizations, with specific exceptions for agencies like the IRS and FEC under certain conditions, and establishes felony penalties for unauthorized disclosure.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill strengthens election integrity by closing loopholes that could allow foreign entities to influence U.S. elections through various non-campaign activities. They also contend that protecting the privacy of donors to non-political tax-exempt organizations is crucial for safeguarding free speech and association, preventing harassment, and ensuring these organizations can continue their work without undue pressure.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while preventing foreign interference is important, the bill's provisions regarding donor privacy could reduce transparency in political spending, making it harder to track the sources of money influencing public discourse, especially through "dark money" groups. Concerns may also be raised about the limitations placed on FEC investigations, potentially hindering effective enforcement of election laws.
The bill is relatively short and its provisions are clearly laid out, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core changes within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a)
Expansion of Prohibited Foreign Donations
This provision expands the existing ban on foreign money in U.S. elections. It now explicitly prohibits foreign nationals from making donations for voter registration, ballot collection, voter identification, get-out-the-vote activities, public communications referring to political parties, or the administration of any federal, state, or local election. This significantly broadens the scope of activities considered off-limits for foreign funding.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this expansion is critical to close loopholes that foreign adversaries could exploit to influence U.S. elections beyond direct campaign contributions, ensuring the integrity of the electoral process at all stages.
Critics contend
Some might argue that certain activities, like general voter registration or election administration support, if transparently conducted, should not be universally prohibited from foreign funding, especially from allied nations or for non-partisan efforts, though this is a less common argument against foreign interference bans.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between preventing foreign interference and potentially limiting resources for certain election-related activities that might otherwise be supported by international non-profits or philanthropic organizations.
Section 2(b)
Prohibition on Aiding or Facilitating Foreign Money Violations
This provision makes it illegal for any person to knowingly assist or enable a foreign national in violating the ban on foreign money in U.S. elections. This means that individuals or organizations acting as intermediaries or conduits for foreign funds intended for prohibited election activities could face legal consequences.
Section 2(c)
Indirect Contributions Treated as Direct
This section clarifies that if a person makes a contribution or donation to another entity with an explicit or implicit understanding that any part of it will be used for activities prohibited under the foreign money ban, it will be treated as an indirect violation. This aims to prevent foreign entities from funneling money through domestic organizations to bypass direct prohibitions.
Section 2(d)
FEC Enforcement Modifications
This section introduces two key changes to FEC enforcement. First, it allows an accused party to submit a sworn certification of no violation, which the FEC must consider. Second, it limits the scope of FEC investigations, once "reason to believe" a violation has occurred, to only the "factual matter necessary" to determine if the alleged violation happened. It also allows parties to challenge subpoenas or orders that exceed this scope.
Section 2(e)
Mandatory Perjury Certifications for Compliance
This provision mandates that political committees, political parties, and individuals making independent expenditures or electioneering communications must include a certification, under penalty of perjury, in their reports stating that they have complied with the foreign money ban (Section 319(a)) or that their expenditures/disbursements do not violate it.
Section 3(a) and 3(b)
Donor Privacy for Tax-Exempt Organizations
This section broadly prohibits federal government entities from collecting or publicly disclosing information identifying donors to most tax-exempt organizations (501(c) groups, excluding 527 political organizations). It includes specific exceptions for the IRS, congressional officers, and the FEC when acting lawfully under existing statutes, as well as for court orders or disclosures authorized by the organization itself.
Section 3(d)
Felony Penalties for Unauthorized Disclosure of Donor Information
This provision establishes severe penalties for any current or former federal officer or employee who willfully discloses donor identification information to a tax-exempt organization (as defined in the bill) without authorization. Violations are classified as felonies, carrying fines up to $250,000, imprisonment up to 5 years, or both, plus dismissal from federal employment.
Allows a person subject to an FEC investigation to file a petition in U.S. district court to quash any subpoena or order if it is not limited in scope to the factual matter necessary to determine whether an alleged violation of the foreign money ban occurred.
Section 2(d)(2)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining procedural rights and judicial review mechanisms, but its significance for FEC enforcement power could be overlooked.
Case for: Proponents argue this provides an important check on potential FEC overreach, protecting individuals and organizations from overly broad or intrusive investigations that extend beyond the specific alleged violation.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this adds a significant procedural hurdle to FEC investigations, potentially slowing down or complicating efforts to uncover complex foreign interference schemes that often require broader inquiry.
Estimated impact: Could increase litigation against the FEC and narrow the scope of its investigations into foreign money violations.