A quiet change at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) could allow “unlimited” foreign money to flow into elections, election experts have warned.
The FEC issued an advisory opinion earlier this month allowing federal candidates for public office to request unlimited funding from anywhere for groups working on state ballot initiatives.
That means if President Joe Biden is raising money for a state abortion referendum, there are no limits on the donations he can request. If Donald Trump is raising money for a group to oppose such a referendum, the same would be true for his campaign.
Federal campaign finance law prohibits foreigners from donating in federal, state and local elections, although the FEC only interprets the ban as applying to candidates, not ballot initiatives.
The new change means that if President Joe Biden is raising money for a state abortion referendum, there are no limits on the donations he can request.
If Donald Trump is raising money for a group to oppose such a referendum, the same would be true for his campaign.
With no limits on donations to ballot initiatives, groups that support or oppose such initiatives can also advocate for or against candidates.
“Because the ballot initiative can be coordinated directly with the presidential campaigns, they can go door to door and say, please support our ballot initiative, and say, by the way, that President Biden supports it too,” explained Jim Dornan, Director of Congressional Affairs at American Promesa.
He is pushing for a constitutional amendment to set new limits on campaign spending.
Dornan continued: “This decision opens the door for huge amounts of foreign and dark money to flow into our statewide ballot initiative campaigns, because many states do not have restrictions like the federal government has on foreign campaign donations. “.
In recent years, at least seven states have instituted their own bans on foreign political spending, and seven more have introduced bills to do so.
The new decision arose from a request from a Nevada-based abortion rights group that hopes to put an abortion referendum on the ballot in the fall. Florida has an abortion measure on the ballot, and in Arizona, a pro-abortion group says it has the signatures for a ballot measure.
That means the new decision could tip the balance in a handful of swing states where the race is likely to be decided by razor-thin margins.
‘It is absurd that voters must compete with out-of-state billionaires, partisan dark money groups, and even foreign actors to determine the direction of their communities and their states. The FEC’s decision is undemocratic, unequal and undermines the integrity of the “one person, one vote” system, Dornan said.
It could widen President Joe Biden’s fundraising lead over President Trump, as abortion measures are one of the most popular ballot initiatives, and mobilize more pro-choice voters to vote for Democrats than pro-life voters for Republicans.
In 2024, up to 15 states will be able to have abortion measures on their ballots. Groups pushing for pro-choice measures could also encourage people to vote for Biden
“Biden can now basically raise money for a ground game, i.e. door to door, phone calls, etc., on any pro-abortion or pro-choice initiative, that the states put forward and the money can come from almost anywhere” .
In 2024, up to 15 states will be able to have abortion measures on their ballots.
Republicans are decidedly more upset with the measure than Democrats. The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) disagreed with a draft of the opinion a day before it was due to be finalized. They argued that close coordination between candidates and outside ballot measure groups meant the opinion could be translated into a get-out-the-vote effort in Nevada.
“The risk of corruption inherent in direct contributions from foreign nationals to candidates would simply metastasize in the context of the ballot initiative, with the same deleterious effect,” the NRSC wrote.
Several lawmakers on both sides have proposed legislation to stop foreign spending on state and local ballot measures.
Dornan put the new decision on par with Citizens United, a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that overturned 100 years of election law and said corporations can spend “unlimited funds” on campaign advertising if they do not “formally” cooperate with a candidate or party.
That decision led to the rise of super PACS, outside groups that empower wealthy donors with no donation limits. Wealthy donors who do not seek to have their name attached may funnel money through dark money groups or shell companies. Super PACs can still spend money on political advertising to attack or promote a certain candidate.
“It’s a huge change along the lines of what Citizens United did, which completely puts our campaign finance system at stake and it’s not going to go well,” Dornan warned.