FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of

Astrid Silva, et al.

)

)

)

)

MUR 7863

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF REASONS OF 

COMMISSIONER SEAN J. COOKSEY

I supported the Commission’s decision to find no reason to believe Astrid Silva and other 

Respondents violated the law in this matter. I write to emphasize an important legal point that the 

Commission has unanimously endorsed here: “Because [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals]

status does not confer citizenship, lawful permanent residence, or any other immigration status, 

DACA participants remain foreign nationals under the Act.”

1

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”), defines a “foreign 

national” to include anyone who is not a citizen or legal permanent resident of the United States.2

The Act and our regulations place broad limits on foreign nationals’ ability to participate in 

American elections: Foreign nationals may not contribute or donate to any federal, state, or local 

election.3 They may not make any expenditures, independent expenditures, or disbursements in 

connection with any federal, state, or local election.4 And they are barred from directing, dictating, 

controlling, or directly or indirectly participating in the decision-making process for any person’s

or organization’s federal or non-federal election activities.

5

The reason for the foreign-national prohibition is simple—“[T]he United States has a 

compelling interest ... in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in activities of American 

democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political 

1 Factual & Legal Analysis at 10 (Sept. 15, 2021), MUR 7863 (Astrid Silva, et al.); Certification (Aug. 31, 

2021), MUR 7863 (Astrid Silva, et al.). The Commission reached the same conclusion unanimously in another matter 

earlier this year. See generally MUR 7712 (Tom Steyer 2020, et al.).

2 52 U.S.C. § 30121(b)(2).

3 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1)(A), (B); 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(b), (c).

4 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1)(C); 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(e), (f).

5 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(i).

MUR786300137
2

process.”

6 The statute has been upheld against constitutional challenge,7

and the Commission has 

made its enforcement an agency priority.8

At the same time, there is significant uncertainty among the public about how the foreignnational prohibition applies to non-citizens in the United States.

9 That confusion is compounded 

in the case of DACA, whose legality has been the subject of nearly a decade of litigation.10 This 

matter therefore provides important guidance and clarification to the regulated community: the

Act’s foreign-national prohibition applies to DACA recipients.

The Commission correctly found no violation of the foreign-national prohibition in this 

case because there was no violative conduct. I have every confidence it will continue to enforce 

the foreign-national prohibition fairly and consistently in future cases.

_________________________________ October 12, 2021

Sean J. Cooksey Date

Commissioner

6 Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 288–89 (D.D.C. 2011), aff’d 565 U.S. 1104 (2012).

7

Id.

8 At the Commission’s public meeting on September 15, 2016, FEC Commissioners unanimously directed the 

Office of General Counsel to prioritize cases involving allegations of foreign influence.

9 See, e.g., Factual & Legal Analysis at 1–3 (May 5, 2021), MUR 7642 (Cynthia Brehm for San Antonio City 

Council, et al.) (dismissing a complaint against a local candidate for mistakenly accepting a foreign-national 

contribution).

10 See, e.g., Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1901 (2020). But see 

Tex. v. United States, No. 18-cv-00068 (July 16, 2021 S.D. Tex.) (holding that the Department of Homeland 

Security violated the Administrative Procedure Act with the creation of DACA).

MUR786300138