Get Foreign Money Out of United States Elections Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8]
- Committees
- Committee on House Administration (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 22, 2026
Bottom line
The 'Get Foreign Money Out of United States Elections Act' aims to prevent foreign influence in U.S. elections by closing perceived loopholes that allow foreign-linked domestic businesses to make political contributions and expenditures, while also increasing compliance burdens for affected entities.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to expand the existing ban on political contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals. It applies this ban to domestic business entities that are foreign-controlled, foreign-influenced, or foreign-owned, based on specific ownership thresholds and control over decision-making. The bill also requires chief executive officers of such entities to certify compliance under penalty of perjury and extends the ban to state and local ballot initiatives and disbursements to Super PACs.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is crucial for safeguarding the integrity of U.S. elections and national security by preventing foreign adversaries and interests from covertly influencing American policy through campaign finance. They contend that existing laws are insufficient to address sophisticated methods of foreign interference, and this bill closes critical loopholes that allow foreign money to enter the political system via domestic business entities and state-level campaigns.
Opponents contend
Critics may contend that the bill's broad definitions, particularly the low ownership thresholds for 'foreign-influenced' entities, could create an undue administrative and legal burden on legitimate domestic businesses with minor foreign investment. They might also argue that it could deter beneficial foreign investment in the U.S. economy or raise concerns about federal overreach into state election matters and potential infringements on free speech rights for entities engaged in issue advocacy.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a)
Expanding Foreign National Ban to Foreign-Controlled, Influenced, and Owned Domestic Entities
This provision significantly broadens the definition of 'foreign national' under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to include domestic business entities. Specifically, it bans political contributions and expenditures from entities where a foreign national directly or indirectly owns 50% or more of the voting shares or ownership interests. It also includes entities where a single foreign national owns 1% or more, or two or more foreign nationals collectively own 5% or more, of ownership interests, AND have the power to direct decision-making regarding U.S. interests or election activities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this expansion is essential to close existing loopholes that allow foreign money to enter U.S. elections through seemingly domestic entities, thereby protecting the integrity of the democratic process and national security.
Critics contend
Critics may contend that the low ownership thresholds, particularly the 1% and 5% combined with decision-making control, are overly broad and could inadvertently capture many legitimate businesses with minor foreign investment, imposing undue burdens.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the critical need to prevent foreign influence in elections against potential impacts on foreign investment in U.S. businesses and the administrative complexity for companies to determine their status.
Section 2(b)
Certification of Compliance for Election Activity
This section mandates that the chief executive officer (or highest-ranking official) of any business entity making a political contribution or expenditure must file a certification with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) within seven days. This certification, made under penalty of perjury, must affirm that the entity was not a foreign national on the date of the disbursement. The bill also specifies how beneficial ownership is to be determined and requires providing a copy of the certification to the recipient of the funds.
Section 2(c)
Prohibiting Use of Uncertified Funds by Recipients
This provision makes it unlawful for any person (e.g., a political committee or campaign) to use a contribution or disbursement from a business entity if that entity was required to file a compliance certification but did not provide it. An exception is made if the recipient receives a copy of the certification, the use of funds is otherwise lawful, and the recipient separately designates, records, and accounts for these funds to ensure compliance with all requirements. This aims to prevent the circumvention of the foreign money ban through indirect channels.
Section 3(a)
Extending Ban to State/Local Ballot Initiatives and Super PACs
This section clarifies and expands the application of the foreign money ban to explicitly include state or local ballot initiatives, referendums, or recall elections. It also specifies that the ban applies to any disbursement made to a political committee, such as a Super PAC, that accepts donations or contributions not subject to the limitations, prohibitions, or reporting requirements of FECA. This aims to close perceived loopholes in non-federal elections and unlimited spending groups.
Section 3(b)
Corporate PAC Compliance Requirements
This section imposes new certification requirements on separate segregated funds (PACs) established by corporations. Annually, these PACs must certify to the FEC that all fund managers and decision-makers are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, no foreign nationals participate in the fund's decision-making processes, recommendations from foreign nationals are not solicited or accepted, and any foreign national members on the corporation's board of directors abstain from voting on PAC-related matters.
These subsections define a 'foreign-influenced' business entity as one where a single foreign national owns 1% or more, or two or more foreign nationals in aggregate own 5% or more, of the voting shares or ownership interests, AND have the power to direct, dictate, or control the entity's decision-making process regarding its U.S. interests or election activities.
Section 2(a)(4)(A) and (B)
Why it matters:While the detailed definitions are standard legislative practice for precision, the specific thresholds and conditions for 'foreign-influenced' entities are highly consequential and could be easily missed by a casual reader focusing on the more straightforward 'foreign-controlled' (50% ownership) definition.
Case for: Proponents argue that these low thresholds are necessary to capture subtle and indirect forms of foreign influence that do not rely on majority ownership, preventing sophisticated actors from circumventing the ban through complex corporate structures or minority stakes that still confer significant control.
Case against: Critics might argue that a 1% or 5% ownership threshold, even with a 'power to direct' clause, is extremely low and could inadvertently sweep in a vast number of legitimate domestic businesses with minor foreign investment, creating excessive compliance burdens and potentially deterring beneficial international capital flows.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly broadens the scope of entities subject to the foreign money ban, potentially affecting a large number of businesses with even minimal foreign investment if those investors are deemed to have decision-making control over U.S. interests or election activities.