FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463 

September 18, 2018 OFFICE OF THE CHAIR 

The Honorable Rodney P. Frelinghuysen The Honorable Nita M. Lowey 

Chairman Ranking Member 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Richard C. Shelby The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy 

Chairman Vice Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairmen Frelinghuysen and Shelby, Vice Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Lowey: 

The Explanatory Statement for the Financial Services and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 2018, directed the Chair of the Federal Election Commission to report to the 

Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate on the FEC's role in enforcing the 

foreign national prohibition, including how it identifies foreign contributions to elections, and 

what it plans to do in the future to continue these efforts. See Explanatory Statement, 164 Cong. 

Rec. H2045, H2520 (Mar. 22, 2018). 

To meet this reporting requirement, FEC staff prepared a report on the agency's 

enforcement of the foreign national prohibition that addresses each of the questions in the 

Explanatory Statement. Enclosed please find that report. Thank you for this opportunity to 

provide this information about the agency's work to the Committees. 

Should you or your staff have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact 

any of the Commissioners or Duane Pugh, the FEC's Director of Congressional Affairs, at 

(202) 694-1002.

On behalf of the Commission, 

Caroline C. Hunter 

Chair 

Enclosure 
Letter to Appropriations Committees 

September 18, 2018 

Page 2 

cc: 

The Honorable J. Thomas Graves Jr. The Honorable Michael B. Quigley 

Chairman Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Financial Services 

and General Govermnent 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable James Lankford The Honorable Christopher A. Coons 

Chairman Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Financial Services 

and General Government 

U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations 

The Honorable Derek C. Kilmer 

Member of Congress 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FEC Report to the Committees on Appropriations on 

Enforcing the Foreign National Prohibition 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, provided the Federal Election Commission 

(“FEC”) with an appropriation of $71.25 million for Fiscal Year 2018.1 The Explanatory 

Statement for this Act included a reporting requirement for the FEC, which states: 

Foreign Contributions. Preserving the integrity of elections, and protecting them 

from undue foreign influence, is an important function of government at all levels. 

Federal law, for example, prohibits foreign campaign contributions and 

expenditures. With that in mind, the [FEC] Chairman is directed to report to the 

Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate no later than 180 days 

after the enactment of this Act on the Commission’s role in enforcing this 

prohibition, including how it identifies foreign contributions to elections, and 

what it plans to do in the future to continue these efforts.2 

The President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, on March 23, 2018, which 

makes this report due by September 19, 2018. This report was prepared by FEC staff to meet 

that requirement. Following a discussion of the legal background, this report addresses three 

points: 

I. The Commission’s Role in Enforcing the Foreign National Prohibition; 

II. How the Commission Identifies Foreign National Contributions or Donations; and 

III. The Commission’s Plans for Enforcing the Foreign National Prohibition. 

Legal Background 

The prohibition on foreign campaign contributions and expenditures referred to in the 

Explanatory Statement has been a provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”)3 

since the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1976.

4 In 2002, Congress 

strengthened and clarified the law governing foreign nationals’ participation in the electoral 

process as part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”).5 Since then, 

FECA’s foreign national prohibition has read as follows: 

It shall be unlawful for— 

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make— 

1 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Public Law No. 115-141, 132 Stat. 348, 566 (Mar. 23, 2018). 

2 Explanatory Statement, 164 Cong. Rec. H2045, H2520 (Mar. 22, 2018). 

3 Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, Pub. L. No. 92-225, 86 Stat. 3 (Feb. 7, 1972) [“FECA”], codified 

at 52 U.S.C. §§ 30101 to 30145. 

4 Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-283, § 112, 90 Stat. 475, 493 

(May 11, 1976). 

5 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-155, § 303, 116 Stat. 81, 96 (Mar. 27, 2002) 

[“BCRA”]. BCRA also prohibited presidential inaugural committees from accepting foreign national donations. 

BCRA, § 308, 116 Stat. at 103-04, codified at 36 U.S.C. § 510. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to 

make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in 

connection with a Federal, State, or local election; 

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or 

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an 

electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) 

of this title); or 

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in 

subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.6 

Subsection (b) of this provision defines “foreign national,” as follows: 

As used in this section, the term ‘‘foreign national’’ means— 

(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, 

except that the term ‘‘foreign national’’ shall not include any individual who is a 

citizen of the United States; or 

(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the 

United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully 

admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.7 

In 2002, to implement BCRA, the FEC revised its regulation on the foreign national 

prohibition.8 In those revisions, the FEC incorporated the revised statutory prohibition into its 

regulations.9 

In addition, the FEC adopted related definitions,10 including a three-prong definition of a 

knowing standard to establish the degree of knowledge required to show a violation of the 

foreign national prohibition, which includes actual knowledge, a “reason to know” standard, and 

a willful blindness standard.11 The revised regulation also sets forth categories of facts that are 

illustrative of the types of information that should lead a recipient to question whether a 

contribution or donation originated from a foreign national. These include contributors or donors 

who: (i) use a foreign passport; (ii) provide a foreign address; (iii) use a check drawn on a 

foreign bank or a wire transfer from a foreign bank; or (iv) reside abroad.12 The Commission 

6 

 FECA, § 319(a), codified at 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a). 

7 

 FECA, § 319(b), codified at 52 U.S.C. § 30121(b). 

8 

 See 11 C.F.R. § 110.20; 67 Fed. Reg. 69,928 (Nov. 19, 2002). The FEC adopted its first regulation on the 

foreign national prohibition in 1976, 41 Fed. Reg. 35,950 (Aug. 25, 1976), which was codified at 11 C.F.R. 

§ 110.4(a). In 1989, the FEC revised its regulations concerning earmarked contributions to prohibit foreign 

nationals from being conduits and intermediaries and further revised the foreign national regulation to add an 

explicit prohibition on expenditures and to clarify that foreign nationals may not participate in the election-related 

activities of others. 54 Fed. Reg. 34,098 (Aug. 17, 1989); 54 Fed. Reg. 48,581 (Nov. 24, 1989). In the 2002 

rulemaking, the foreign national regulation was revised and recodified to 11 C.F.R. § 110.20. 

9 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(b), (c), (e), (f) and (g). 

10 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(a). 

11 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(a)(4). 

12 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(a)(5). 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

adopted a narrowly tailored safe harbor with which political committees can satisfy their duty to 

investigate their receipts in order to confirm that they do not come from foreign sources. Based 

on practices the Commission observed, the safe harbor protects any person who seeks and 

obtains copies of current and valid U.S. passports for any contributors or donors who meet any of 

the four factual criteria enumerated above.13 

The FEC’s 2002 regulation also makes explicit that the foreign national prohibition 

applies to donations to political parties’ building funds.14 The FEC determined that a rule that 

prohibits persons from knowingly providing substantial assistance to foreign nationals to 

circumvent FECA was necessary to effectuate its foreign national prohibition; consequently, to 

address the issue, the Commission included such a prohibition in its regulation.15 The 

Commission also decided to retain the prohibition in its previous version of this regulation on 

participation by foreign nationals in election-related decisions made by any person, including 

entities such as corporations, labor organizations or political committees.16 In 2004, the FEC 

amended its regulations to incorporate BCRA’s prohibition on foreign national donations to 

inaugural committees into Commission regulations.

17 

I. THE COMMISSION’S ROLE IN ENFORCING THE FOREIGN NATIONAL 

PROHIBITION. 

One of the FEC’s primary responsibilities is enforcing FECA, including the foreign 

national prohibition. In fact, the FEC has exclusive jurisdiction over the civil enforcement of 

federal campaign finance laws, and it maintains an enforcement program to ensure that the 

campaign finance laws are fairly enforced. In exercising that authority, the Commission uses a 

variety of methods to uncover possible campaign finance violations. Complaints alleging 

noncompliance with the foreign national prohibition have been handled primarily as FEC 

enforcement cases, or Matters Under Review (“MURs”).18 The Enforcement Division of the 

Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) handles MURs through the FEC’s traditional enforcement 

program pursuant to the procedures set forth in FECA.19 Part A of this section first briefly 

describes the MUR enforcement process, and then discusses some recently closed MURs that 

included allegations of foreign national prohibition violations. 

Another Commission enforcement and compliance program is the Alternative Dispute 

Resolution (“ADR”) Program, which seeks to resolve less complex matters more swiftly by 

13 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(a)(7). 

14 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(d). 

15 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(h). 

16 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(i). 

17 11 C.F.R. §§ 104.21(b)(1)(iii) and 110.20(j); BCRA, § 308, 116 Stat. at 103-04, codified at 36 U.S.C. § 510. 

18 Another enforcement or compliance program not directly relevant to the foreign national prohibition but 

available to the Commission is the Administrative Fine Program, which addresses violations involving the late 

submission of FEC reports or failure to file reports. 

19 FECA, § 309, codified at 52 U.S.C. § 30109. 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

encouraging settlement using a streamlined process that focuses on remedial measures for 

candidates and political committees. Part A of this section also discusses recently closed matters 

that were resolved in the ADR Program. 

Because of the large number of political committees and growing number and size of 

financial disclosure reports filed with the FEC, voluntary compliance is essential to enforcing 

FECA. Accordingly, the Commission devotes considerable resources to encouraging voluntary 

compliance. One way the Commission does so is by issuing advisory opinions. FECA directs 

the Commission to issue advisory opinions to answer questions about the application of FECA 

and FEC regulations to specific factual situations. Advisory opinions promote voluntary 

compliance not only by the requestors, but also by others engaged in transactions or activities 

that are indistinguishable in all material aspects. Part B of this section reviews many of the 

Commission’s advisory opinions that are related to the foreign national prohibition. 

Another means of promoting voluntary compliance with FECA’s requirements are the 

Commission’s educational outreach efforts. The agency strives to reduce the number of 

inadvertent violations by issuing clear guidance to the public through information and outreach 

activities, such as compliance information available on the FEC website.20 The agency 

maintains online resources to detail developments in the campaign finance law and Commission 

decisions and publishes a series of Campaign Guides and brochures written in plain language to 

help political committee representatives comply with the campaign finance laws.21 Part C of this 

section describes the guidance the Commission makes available on its website related to the 

foreign national prohibition. 

The Commission’s enforcement responsibilities include defending the constitutionality of 

the foreign national prohibition, which has been challenged in litigation. This section’s final 

part, Part D, describes this aspect of the Commission’s role in enforcing the foreign national 

prohibition. 

A. Enforcement 

The enforcement process begins when a complaint or referral is made alleging that a 

violation of the federal election campaign laws or FEC regulations has occurred or is about to 

occur. Any person can file a complaint, including individuals who make a voluntary submission 

indicating they themselves may have violated campaign finance laws, which are known as sua 

sponte submissions. Internal referrals for enforcement are made by the Commission’s Reports 

Analysis Division and Audit Division in the normal course of exercising their supervisory 

responsibilities. External referrals come from another government agency. 

20 The FEC also hosts instructional conferences, seminars and webinars where Commissioners and staff 

explain FECA’s requirements. Whenever prohibited contribution sources are discussed in conference materials and 

presentations, the foreign national prohibition is emphasized. Additionally, the agency maintains its own YouTube 

channel, which can be found at https://www.youtube.com/FECTube. Videos about contributions emphasize the 

foreign national prohibition. 

21 See https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/. 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A respondent is a person or entity who is the subject of a complaint, referral, or sua 

sponte submission that alleges the person or entity violated FECA, another statutory provision 

within the Commission’s jurisdiction such as the inaugural committee foreign national provision, 

or an FEC regulation. Respondents are notified of the filing of a complaint or referral and have 

an opportunity to respond in writing. Professional staff in the Office of General Counsel review 

and analyze complaints, referrals, and sua sponte submissions; respondents’ responses to them; 

and publicly available information to formulate a recommended course of action for the 

Commission. The Commission then reviews the General Counsel’s report and 

recommendations, the complaint, referral, or sua sponte submission and any respondents’ 

responses. 

The Commission can find no reason to believe a violation occurred, or it may otherwise 

dismiss a complaint, referral or submission at any point during its consideration of the matter. If 

the Commission finds reason to believe a violation occurred, it may conduct an investigation to 

determine if there is probable cause that a violation has occurred or proceed, prior to a finding of 

probable cause, to negotiations to reach a conciliation agreement, which may include a monetary 

civil penalty. If the Commission finds probable cause to believe a violation occurred and if the 

Commission fails to conciliate with a respondent,22 it may file a civil lawsuit in U.S. District 

Court. In certain circumstances, the Commission may also refer a matter to the U.S. Department 

of Justice for criminal prosecution under FECA. 

While the Federal Election Commission has exclusive civil enforcement authority over 

the Federal Election Campaign Act, the U.S. Department of Justice has criminal enforcement 

authority over knowing and willful violations of FECA.

23 As a result, the Commission has an 

ongoing relationship with the Department of Justice through a formal Memorandum of 

Understanding, and, on occasion, exercises concurrent jurisdiction over certain matters. In 

furtherance of that relationship, the Memorandum of Understanding acknowledges the 

Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction in the civil enforcement of the Act, and establishes a 

framework for the two agencies with respect to the discharge of their respective 

responsibilities.

24 

The Commission has enforced the foreign national prohibition in a number of MURs. 

Some of the recently closed MURs that included allegations of foreign national prohibition 

violations are discussed below. 

22 Following a finding of probable cause to believe that FECA was violated, FECA requires the Commission 

to attempt to conciliate the enforcement matter. FECA, § 309(a)(4)(A); codified at 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(4)(A). In 

addition, the Commission has promulgated regulations that provide for an earlier opportunity to resolve enforcement 

matters, which is known as pre-probable cause to believe conciliation. 11 C.F.R. § 111.18(d). The Commission 

provides an incentive to settle an enforcement matter earlier in the process by considering lower civil penalties at the 

pre-probable cause stage compared to the post-probable cause stage. See Request for Comment on Enforcement 

Process, 78 Fed. Reg. 4081 at 4086 (Jan. 18, 2013). All of the conciliation agreements described in this report were 

reached prior to a Commission finding of probable cause to believe a violation occurred. 

23 See FECA, § 309(d)(1); codified at 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(1); Fieger v. U.S. Attorney General, 542 F.3d 

1111, 1116-17 (6th Cir. 2008). 

24 See Memorandum of Understanding with Department of Justice, 43 Fed. Reg. 5441 (Feb. 8, 1978). 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Direct Foreign National Contributions. In certain instances, foreign national 

individuals or foreign national corporations have made direct contributions to candidates in 

violation of the ban on foreign national contributions. 

In a matter that arose from an audit referral, the Commission reached a conciliation 

agreement with a membership organization’s separate segregated fund that had violated the 

foreign national prohibition by knowingly receiving foreign national contributions. The 

committee disgorged $13,242.14 to the U.S. Treasury, representing contributions identified by 

Commission auditors from a sample of committee records showing foreign resident addresses. 

The conciliated agreement, which, in addition to the foreign national issue, also redressed serious 

violations pertaining to the misstatement of financial activity in the PAC’s disclosure reports, 

receipt of prohibited corporate contributions, and improper solicitation practices, included a 

$300,000 civil penalty and an agreement to cease and desist from further violations.25 

The Commission conciliated another matter following a Commission audit that 

uncovered possible violations of the foreign national prohibition. In that matter, a federal 

candidate had accepted $100,000 to his personal account from a Mexican corporation wholly 

owned by a Texas limited partnership controlled by the candidate and his family; the candidate 

then transmitted the $100,000 from his personal account to his political committee. In a 

conciliated agreement, the candidate and his committee agreed to pay a civil penalty of $22,500 

and to cease and desist from violating the foreign national prohibition. Additionally, the foreign 

national corporation and the candidate’s brother agreed to pay a civil penalty of $40,000, to 

cease and desist from violating the foreign national prohibition, and to waive any right to refund 

of contributions.26 

In another instance, the Commission received a sua sponte submission from INVISTA, a 

Luxembourg-based corporation, in which it acknowledged that between November 2005 and 

October 2009, it made 12 campaign contributions totaling $26,800 to seven nonfederal 

committees. The respondents agreed to pay a civil penalty of $4,700 and cease and desist from 

violating the foreign national prohibition.27 

Another complaint alleged that an unregistered local Democratic party committee 

solicited and received a $5,000 contribution from Canarx Services, Inc., a Canadian company. 

25 See MUR 6129 (American Resort Development Association Resort Owners Coalition PAC), 

https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/6129/; see also Conciliation Agreement, MUR 6129 

(Aug. 4, 2010), http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/10044273912.pdf. 

26 See MUR 6919 (Canseco for Congress, et al.) Conciliation Agreement, 

https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/6919/; see also Francisco Canseco and Canseco for Congress 

Conciliation Agreement, MUR 6919 (Apr. 29, 2016), https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/6919/16044394800.pdf; 

Inmuebles Caza S.A. de C.V. and Jorge Canseco Conciliation Agreement, MUR 6919 (Sept. 3, 2016), 

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/6919/16044394789.pdf. 

27 See MUR 6473 (INVISTA), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/6473/; see also INVISTA 

S.A.R.L., Conciliation Agreement, MUR 6473 (June 2, 2011), 

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/6473/11044293.pdf. 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In an ADR settlement agreement, the committee agreed to issue and distribute guidelines on 

prohibited contributions and pay a $3,500 civil penalty.28 

In a sua sponte submission, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., and its separate 

segregated fund (or “PAC”) admitted that an employee who is not currently a US citizen, 

permanent resident, or green card holder made four annual $5,000 contributions for a total of 

$20,000 to the PAC and that the PAC accepted those contributions, both violations of the foreign 

national prohibition. The PAC issued a refund to the employee. The matter was referred to 

ADR, and, in a settlement agreement, the respondents agreed to develop and circulate a policy on 

the eligibility and limitations on contributions to the PAC, to designate a compliance officer and 

to send a representative of the PAC to an FEC conference. The respondents also paid a civil 

penalty of $3,000.29 

A recent complaint alleged that Jill Stein for President accepted foreign national 

donations in connection with the committee’s 2016 recount effort. The complaint cited Tweets 

from purported foreign nationals who stated they donated to the recount effort. Two 

Commissioners supported OGC’s recommendation to dismiss the allegation based on a possible 

low amount in violation, while two other Commissioners voted to open an investigation. The 

matter was therefore closed.30 

2. Domestic Subsidiaries of Foreign Parent Corporations. The Commission 

received several sua sponte submissions from domestic subsidiaries of foreign parent 

corporations that had made contributions or donations in violation of the foreign national 

prohibition; the Commission conciliated with these respondents. In MUR 6203 (Itinere North 

America), a domestic subsidiary of a Spanish corporation admitted making $55,500 in 

nonfederal contributions to over 50 candidates or party committees with funds provided by its 

foreign parent. In the conciliated agreement, the respondents agreed to pay a civil penalty of 

$10,000, cease and desist from violating the foreign national prohibition, and send follow up 

letters to each recipient who had not yet disgorged the contribution to the U.S. Treasury.31 

Similarly, in MUR 6093 (Transurban Group), a domestic subsidiary of an Australian corporation 

admitted making $180,750 in nonfederal contributions with funds provided by its foreign parent. 

In the conciliated agreement, the respondents agreed to pay a civil penalty of $33,000, cease and 

28 See Schenectady County Democratic Committee Negotiated Settlement, ADR 458 (Nov 13, 2008), 

http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsADR/28190280134.pdf. 

29 See Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc. PAC Negotiated Settlement, ADR 708 (Oct. 7, 2014), 

http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsADR/14190300025.pdf. 

30 See MUR 7205 (Jill Stein for President, et al.), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/7205/; 

see also Statement of Reasons, Vice Chair Ellen L. Weintraub (Sept. 7, 2018) 

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7205/7205_1.pdf. 

31 See MUR 6203 (Itinere North America, et al.), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/6203/; 

see also Conciliation Agreement, MUR 6203 (July 6, 2009), 

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/6203/29044250632.pdf. 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

desist from violating the foreign national prohibition, and send follow up letters to each recipient 

who had not yet refunded the contribution.32 

In a complaint-generated matter, the Commission considered whether foreign national 

individuals and corporations had violated the foreign national prohibition through funding or 

controlling several domestic subsidiary corporations’ donations to a Beverly Hills, California, 

ballot measure committee. Consistent with OGC recommendations, the Commission found no 

reason to believe the foreign national prohibition had been violated because it appeared that the 

domestic subsidiaries’ donations originated with domestic revenues and no foreign nationals 

participated in the decisions to make the donations.33 

3. Foreign Participation in Domestic Corporate Contributions. The Commission 

has also considered matters involving prohibited foreign national control or funding of corporate 

contributions outside of the domestic subsidiary context. The Commission received a sua 

sponte submission from Skyway Concession Company, LLC, and its foreign national CEO 

indicating that the CEO had authorized and signed checks for 30 contributions totaling $13,085 

from the domestic corporation to nonfederal political committees; the foreign national CEO also 

had made one $2,000 contribution from himself to a federal political committee. The 

Commission conciliated with the respondents, who agreed to pay a civil penalty of $4,000 and 

cease and desist from violating the foreign national prohibition.34 

The Commission also considered a complaint asserting multiple violations of law, 

including that an American citizen had used funds obtained from a Chinese national to make 

contributions through an intermediary to a federal independent expenditure-only political 

committee and that the committee had knowingly accepted the foreign national contribution. 

The Commission dismissed the matter after concluding that the record did not provide a 

sufficient evidentiary basis to support an inference that the funds contributed were from a foreign 

national, which was consistent with OGC recommendations.35 

4. Volunteer Activity. The Commission considered a complaint that the Australian 

Labor Party impermissibly paid the expenses of Australian volunteers to travel to the United 

States to work on the 2016 presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders and that Sanders’s 

committee accepted the prohibited foreign national in-kind contribution. The Commission found 

reason to believe the Australian Labor Party made, and Sanders’s committee accepted, a $24,422 

32 See MUR 6093 (Transurban Group, et al.) https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/6093/; see 

also Conciliation Agreement, MUR 6093 (Jan. 9, 2009), http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/29044224176.pdf. 

33 See MUR 7141 (Beverly Hills Residents and Businesses to Preserve our City, et al.)(Nov. 6, 2017), 

https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/7141/. 

34 See MUR 6184 (Skyway Concession Company, LLC, et al.), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-underreview/6184/; see also Conciliation Agreement, MUR 6184 (Oct. 5, 2009), 

http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/29044252724.pdf. 

35 See MUR 7081 (Floridians for a Strong Middle Class) (Sept. 20, 2017), 

https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/7081/; see also Statement of Reasons, Commissioners Ellen L. 

Weintraub and Ann M. Ravel (Feb. 28, 2017), https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7081/17044430165.pdf, and 

Factual & Legal Analysis for Floridians for a Strong Middle Class (Sept. 25, 2017), 

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7081/17044430866.pdf. 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

prohibited in-kind foreign national contribution. The Commission reached conciliation 

agreements with both the Australian Labor Party and Bernie 2016 pursuant to which each 

respondent agreed to pay a civil penalty of $14,500 and to cease and desist from violating the 

foreign national prohibition.36 

5. Amount in violation as a basis for dismissal. The amount in violation can be a 

factor in whether the Commission pursues a foreign national contribution. In MUR 6976, the 

Commission considered whether the City Council Committee for Johnny W. Streets, Jr., 

accepted contributions totaling $3,000 from three foreign corporations with addresses in Halifax, 

Nova Scotia. Three Commissioners supported OGC’s recommendation to dismiss the allegation 

based on the low amount in violation, while three other Commissioners voted to pursue the 

matter.

37 In light of the disagreement, the matter was closed. 

Another complaint alleged that a foreign entity made donations totaling $100 to four 

candidates for local office in Texas. The Commission observed the de minimis amount at issue, 

the apparent refunds of the donations before the complaint was filed, and the uncertainty of 

whether the donor was in fact a foreign entity. Consistent with OGC’s recommendations, the 

Commission exercised its prosecutorial discretion and dismissed the matter in consideration of 

Commission priorities.38 

In two related complaint-generated matters, the Commission considered an allegation that 

Project Veritas, its president James O’Keefe, and one of its employees assisted in the making of 

a contribution by a foreign national, and that Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign 

committee solicited and received the contribution, in violation of the foreign national prohibition, 

when the Project Veritas employee used $35 or $45 from a self-identified Canadian citizen to 

purchase $75 of Clinton campaign merchandise. The Commission found no reason to believe 

that Clinton or O’Keefe was involved in or aware of the transaction and dismissed the allegations 

against the remaining respondents.39 

A complaint alleged that the Committee to Re-elect Gary Jensen accepted a $700 

contribution from a foreign corporation in violation of the foreign national prohibition. The 

ADR Office negotiated a settlement agreement; however, the Commissioners disagreed about 

whether it should be approved because it did not include a civil penalty. Consequently, the 

36 See MUR 7035 (Australian Labor Party, et al.), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/7035/; 

see also Australian Labor Party Conciliation Agreement, MUR 7035 (Feb. 15, 2018), 

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7035/18044437382.pdf; Bernie 2016 Conciliation Agreement, MUR 7035 

(Feb. 15, 2018), https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7035/18044437388.pdf. 

37 See MUR 6976 (City Council Committee for Johnny W. Streets, Jr., (Dec. 6, 2016), 

https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/6976/. Statement of Reasons, Vice Chair Hunter and 

Commissioners Goodman and Petersen (Feb. 14, 2017), 

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/6976/17044405949.pdf. 

38 See MUR 6944 (Farias) (dismissing a $100 foreign national contribution) (Nov. 14, 2016), 

https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/6944/. 

39 See MURs 6962 and 6982 (Project Veritas, et al.) (June 21, 2017), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matterunder-review/6982/. 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

settlement was not accepted and the case was closed.40 Three commissioners issued a Statement 

of Reasons explaining their position.41 

Another complaint alleged that three candidates for local office in the Bellingham, 

Washington-vicinity accepted contributions from three Canadian entities or individuals that 

totaled $1,100. After referral to ADR and considering the circumstances of the matter, the 

Commission determined to exercise its prosecutorial discretion and take no action against the 

Respondents, which was consistent with the ADR Office recommendations.42 

A 2017 complaint alleged that Maricela Arteaga, a Mexican citizen, made political 

contributions in violation of the foreign national prohibition. In her response, Ms. Arteaga 

acknowledges that she made political contributions between October 2012 and April 2013 

totaling $70 to Obama for America and Organizing for Action prior to obtaining permanent 

resident status in the United States. Due to the low dollar amount, the Commission agreed with 

ADR Office recommendations and voted to exercise its prosecutorial discretion and dismiss the 

matter.

43 

6. Screening for foreign national contributions. The Commission considered two 

complaints that alleged that Obama for America accepted thousands of dollars in foreign national 

contributions via the Internet. The Commission concluded that Obama for America used proper 

controls to screen for domestic-only contributions and found no reason to believe that Obama for 

America violated the foreign national prohibitions, which was a determination recommended by 

OGC.

44 

7. Soliciting Foreign National Contributions. The Commission considered a 

complaint that during a broadcast on a Spanish language radio station, Rep. Christopher B. 

Cannon (Utah-3), his legislative aide, and the host of the program encouraged listeners to make 

political contributions even if they were foreign nationals, or make the contributions in the name 

of a citizen of the United States. The Congressional committee agreed in an ADR settlement 

agreement to have the committee treasurer and the legislative aide attend an FEC seminar for 

Congressional Candidates and Committees. In addition, the radio host agreed to make himself 

knowledgeable about information available from the Commission on the foreign national 

prohibition and agreed to host at least one additional radio program, within six months, in which 

40 See ADR 592 (Committee to Re-elect Gary Jensen, Mayor of Ferndale) (Jan. 24, 2012), 

http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsADR/12190292128.pdf. 

41 See ADR 592 (Committee to Re-elect Gary Jensen, Mayor of Ferndale), Statement of Reasons, Vice Chair 

Weintraub and Commissioners Bauerly and Walther (Feb. 27, 2012), 

http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsADR/12190292128.pdf. 

42 See ADR 447 (Watts, et al.) (Nov. 6, 2008), http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsADR/28190274175.pdf. 

43 See ADR 822 (Arteaga) (June 9, 2017), http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsADR/17190304332.pdf. 

44 See MURs 6687 and 6772 (Obama for America, et al.) (July 9, 2013), 

https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/6687/ and https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-underreview/6772/. 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

he would provide his Spanish language speaking radio audience with the resources available 

from the Commission about campaign finance and the political process.45 

The Commission recently considered a complaint alleging that Donald J. Trump for 

President, Inc., solicited foreign national contributions in the form of several solicitation emails 

sent to members of foreign parliaments. Two Commissioners supported OGC’s recommendation 

to find reason to believe, and two voted to dismiss. Accordingly, the matter was closed.46 

8. State Ballot Initiatives. The Commission considered a complaint that foreign 

nationals made donations to a local ballot initiative committee in Los Angeles, California, in 

violation of the foreign national prohibition. The first donation, in the amount of $150,000, was 

made by MindGeek USA, a domestic subsidiary of a Luxembourg corporation, allegedly using 

foreign funds and under the direction of foreign national decision makers. The second donation, 

in the amount of $75,000, was made by a Cypriot corporation. In this matter, the 

Commissioners disagreed on whether the foreign national prohibition on donations in connection 

with an “election” prohibited foreign national donations to state or local ballot initiatives. 

Commissioners issued statements of reasons explaining their positions, and the Commission 

closed the file.47 

B. FEC Advisory Opinions 

Supporting its efforts to promote voluntary compliance with FECA, the Commission has 

provided compliance guidance regarding the prohibition on foreign national contributions in the 

context of advisory opinions, informational publications on the Commission’s public website, 

and rulemaking matters. 

Advisory opinions are Commission responses to particularized inquiries about how 

federal campaign finance laws apply to specific factual situations. FECA directs the 

Commission to render a written advisory opinion in response to any person’s complete written 

request concerning the application of FECA or Commission regulations to a “specific transaction 

or activity of the requester.”48 The Commission has issued advisory opinions in several contexts 

in which it considered the foreign national prohibition. 

45 See ADR 207 (Cannon)(June 3, 2005), http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsADR/00004469.pdf. 

46 See MURs 7094, 7096, & 7098 (Donald J. Trump for President, et al.), 

https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/7094/; see also Statement of Reasons, Vice Chair Ellen L. 

Weintraub (Sept. 6, 2018), https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7094/7094_1.pdf. 

47 See MUR 6678 (MindGeek S.A.R.L.), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/6678/; see also 

Statement of Reasons, Chair Ravel (Apr. 22, 2015), http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/15044372954.pdf; Statement of 

Reasons, Commissioner Weintraub (Apr. 23, 2015), http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/15044372958.pdf; Statement of 

Reasons, Vice Chairman Peterson and Commissioners Hunter and Goodman (Apr. 30, 2015), 

http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/15044372963.pdf; Statement of Reasons, Commissioner Goodman (May 1, 2015), 

http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/15044372967.pdf. 

48 FECA, § 308, codified at 52 U.S.C. § 30108. 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Fundraising by officeholders and candidates at events. The Commission has 

issued an advisory opinion addressing the scope of activities that federal candidates and 

officeholders may undertake at events raising money outside the federal source and amount 

restrictions. Federal candidates and officeholders may solicit federally permissible funds at 

certain nonfederal fundraising events, provided that the solicitation is limited to funds that 

comply with FECA’s amount limitations and source prohibitions, including the foreign national 

prohibition.49 

2. State Ballot Initiatives. FECA provides that federal candidates and officeholders 

may not “solicit, receive, direct, transfer or spend” funds in connection with an election for 

federal office or any nonfederal election unless the funds comply with the FECA’s amount 

limitations and source prohibitions.50 Notwithstanding these restrictions, FECA also states that 

federal candidates and officeholders are permitted to “attend, speak, or be a featured guest at a 

fundraising event for a State, district, or local committee of a political party.”51 The Commission 

has addressed questions in this area in the context of fundraising efforts by federal candidates 

and officeholders on behalf of state ballot initiatives. 

In 2003, the Commission stated that all activities of a ballot measure committee 

“established, financed, maintained or controlled” by a federal candidate are “in connection with” 

a nonfederal election. This includes activity in the signature-gathering and ballot-qualification 

stage, as well as activity to win passage of the measure after it qualifies for the ballot. 

Accordingly, funds solicited by a federal candidate or officeholder in connection with such 

nonfederal elections must fall within the amount limitations and source prohibitions, including 

the foreign national prohibition.52 

The Commission has also concluded that the source and amount restrictions, including 

the foreign national prohibition, did not apply to a situation in which federal officeholders and 

candidates proposed to raise funds for ballot measure committees involved in a special election 

in which no federal candidates were on the ballot, and where the ballot measure committees were 

not directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled by the federal 

officeholders or candidates.53 

3. Election Recounts. The Commission has concluded that the foreign national 

prohibition applies to funds raised and spent on election recount activities.54 

49 See Advisory Opinion 2015-09 (Senate Majority PAC and House Majority PAC), 

https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2015-09/. 

50 See FECA, § 319, codified at 52 U.S.C. § 30121(e)(1)(A), (B); 11 C.F.R. §§ 300.61, 300.62. 

51 See FECA, § 323, codified at 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(3); 11 C.F.R. § 300.64. 

52 See Advisory Opinion 2003-12 (Flake), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2003-12/. 

53 Advisory Opinion 2005-10 (Berman/Doolittle), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2005-

10/. 

54 Advisory Opinion 2010-14 (DSCC), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2010-14/. 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Screening for Foreign National Contributions. The Commission has examined 

programs proposed by requestors in which contributions could be made through affinity 

programs, and later, over the internet and by text message. While foreign nationals’ 

contributions were not the main focus of these advisory opinions, the proposals each included a 

requirement that potential contributors attest that they were not foreign nationals. The 

Commission noted in these opinions that while this was a reasonable manner to assist the 

recipient political committee in screening for prohibited contributions, the legal obligation not to 

accept foreign national contributions remained with the committee, rather than the provider of 

the program or the platform.55 

5. Changes in Nationality. The Commission has determined that when an 

individual’s status as a foreign national changes, so does the individual’s ability to make 

contributions. For example, individuals who were foreign nationals, and prohibited from 

contributing to at the time of an election may, if they are no longer foreign nationals, contribute 

to the candidate’s later efforts to pay obligations related to that election. Further, if a person has 

actual knowledge that an individual was a foreign national at some time in the past, that person 

may not solicit that individual for contributions unless the person is able to determine through a 

reasonable inquiry that the individual is no longer a foreign national.56 

6. Volunteer Activity. Responding to questions regarding volunteer activity by 

foreign nationals, the Commission has concluded that foreign nationals may provide volunteer 

services to a political committee provided that they do not participate in the management of any 

political committee or the committee’s decisions regarding its receipts and disbursements in 

connection with federal and nonfederal elections. The Commission has further concluded that 

the value of volunteer services provided by foreign nationals is exempt from the definition of 

“contribution” under the volunteer services exemption.57 

7. What constitutes a contribution. The Commission has concluded that goods and 

services provided to political committees at the usual and normal charge by foreign nationals are 

permissible and do not constitute contributions.58 

55 See, e.g., Advisory Opinion 2016-08 (eBundler.com), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisoryopinions/2016-08/; Advisory Opinion 2012-28 (CTIA The Wireless Association), 

https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2012-28/; Advisory Opinion 2012-09 (Points for Politics), 

https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2012-09/; Advisory Opinion 2006-08 (Brooks), 

https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2006-08/. 

56 See Advisory Opinion 2016-16 (Gary Johnson 2012), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisoryopinions/2016-16/; Advisory Opinion 2016-10 (Parker), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2016-10/. 

57 See Advisory Opinion 1987-25 (Otaola), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/1987-25/; 

Advisory Opinion 2004-26 (Weller), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2004-26/; and Advisory 

Opinion 2014-20 (Make Your Laws PAC, Inc.), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2014-20/. 

58 See Advisory Opinion 2007-22 (Hurysz), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2007-22/; 

Advisory Opinion 2010-05 (Starchannel Communications, Inc.), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisoryopinions/2010-05/. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. Domestic Subsidiaries of Foreign Parent Corporations. The Commission has 

responded to questions regarding whether proposed activities by the domestic subsidiaries of 

foreign corporations would constitute prohibited foreign national contributions. Generally, the 

Commission has determined that domestic subsidiaries of foreign parent corporations may 

engage in certain election-related activities, so long as the funds used are not from foreign 

nationals, and no foreign nationals participate in the decision-making process concerning the 

activities in question.59 

9. Matching Funds. The Commission has concluded that a presidential candidate 

who was neither a naturalized citizen of the United States nor a natural born citizen was not 

eligible to receive matching funds under the Matching Payment Act because he did not meet the 

requirements to serve as President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. 

Constitution.60 

10. Miscellaneous Reminders About the Prohibition on Foreign National 

Contributions. Finally, in various advisory opinions regarding issues such as disaffiliation of 

organizations and payroll deductions to a separate segregated fund, the Commission has 

cautioned that contributions from foreign nationals may not be solicited or accepted as part of the 

proposed activity.61 

C. Other Guidance 

The Commission provides general public guidance regarding the foreign national 

contribution ban via its website. 

In June 2017, the Commission’s brochure on foreign nationals, which provides a general 

primer on the foreign national prohibition, was updated and republished on the website.62 

Other pages on the Commission’s website provide information on specific questions 

about foreign national activities. These pages discuss the definition of “foreign national,” how to 

determine the nationality of a contributor, and address issues such as domestic subsidiaries of 

59 See Advisory Opinion 2006-15 (TransCanada Corp.), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisoryopinions/2006-15/; Advisory Opinion 2009-14, (Mercedes-Benz USA LLC) 

https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2009-14/. 

60 Advisory Opinion 2011-15 (Hassan), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2011-15/. This 

advisory opinion led to litigation in which Mr. Hassan’s claims were dismissed. See Hassan v. FEC, 2013 WL 

1164506 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 11, 2013), https://transition.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_ac_order3.pdf. 

61 See, e.g., Advisory Opinion 2011-22 (Virginia Poultry Growers Cooperative, Inc.) 

https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2011-22/; Advisory Opinion 2007-12 (Tyco) 

https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2007-12/; Advisory Opinion 2004-32 (Spirit) 

https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2004-32/. 

62 See Foreign National Brochure, https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/. 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

foreign corporations and the provision of substantial assistance to a foreign national making a 

contribution.63 

Other FEC webpages provide guidance about foreign national volunteers providing 

services to, but not participating in the decision making of, political committees; the ability of 

“super PACs” and the non-contribution accounts of “hybrid PACs” to raise funds outside the 

contribution limits and source prohibitions, except for the foreign national prohibition (and 

certain other FECA source prohibitions); and similarly, the fact that state, district and local 

political party committees when accepting donations for the purpose of constructing or 

purchasing a national party building are not under any donation limitation, but must abide by the 

foreign national prohibition (along with certain other FECA source prohibitions).64 

Finally, another FEC webpage states that federal candidates may not solicit funds for 

nonfederal elections, outside of the limits and source prohibitions of FECA and Commission 

regulations. This page also provides guidance for federal candidates attending events raising 

funds for nonfederal elections.65 

D. Litigation 

The Commission has also successfully defended constitutional challenges to the foreign 

national prohibition and other provisions of FECA that enable detection of violations of that 

prohibition. In Bluman v. FEC, the three-judge court upheld FECA’s prohibition on foreign 

nationals making contributions and expenditures in connection with elections as applied to the 

activities planned by the plaintiffs in that case. The plaintiffs sought to “donate money to 

candidates in U.S. federal and state elections, to contribute to national political parties and 

outside political groups, and to make expenditures expressly advocating for and against the 

election of candidates in U.S. elections.” The court found that “the government (federal, state, 

and local) may exclude foreign citizens from activities that are part of democratic selfgovernment in the United States.” The federal ban at issue thus “readily passes constitutional 

muster,” the court further found, and the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the decision.66 

63 See Who can and cannot contribute, https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidatetaking-receipts/who-can-and-cannot-contribute/. 

64 See Volunteer Activity, https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-takingreceipts/volunteer-activity/; Contributions to super PACs and hybrid PACs, https://www.fec.gov/help-candidatesand-committees/taking-receipts-pac/contributions-to-super-pacs-and-hybrid-pacs/; Donations to political party 

building funds, https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/taking-receipts-political-party/building-funddonations-party/. 

65 See Federal candidate participation in nonfederal fundraising for party committees, 

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements-political-party/federal-candidatesparticipation-nonfederal-fundraising-party-committees/. 

66 Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 282-83 (D.D.C. 2011), aff’d, 565 U.S. 1104 (2012). 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In other cases, the Commission has defended the constitutionality of disclosure 

provisions that assist the detection of violations of FECA’s contribution limitations including the 

foreign national prohibition.67 

II. HOW THE COMMISSION IDENTIFIES FOREIGN NATIONAL 

CONTRIBUTIONS OR DONATIONS. 

The Reports Analysis Division (“RAD”) of the FEC’s Office of Compliance reviews all 

federal campaign finance reports to track compliance with FECA and to ensure that the public 

record provides a full and accurate representation of reported campaign finance activity.68 If the 

review identifies an apparent violation or raises questions about the information disclosed on a 

report, RAD sends a request for additional information (“RFAI”) to the filer, affording an 

opportunity to take remedial action or correct the public record, if necessary.69 RFAIs sent to 

filers are made public, as are the filers’ responses. If the filer is able to resolve the FEC’s 

concerns, it may avoid an enforcement action. If not, the Commission has several tools available 

to it, including referring the filer for an audit or to the traditional enforcement program. 

The Reports Analysis Division bases its review of reports on Commission-approved 

Review and Referral Procedures that have categories of review with specific thresholds for 

determining when an RFAI should be sent to a filer. These procedures are updated and approved 

by the Commission every two years, with content based on input from both staff and 

Commissioners.70 The RAD Review and Referral Procedures include instructions to review 

reported receipts for contributions that may be excessive, prohibited or otherwise impermissible 

as Standard 5 of the RAD Review and Referral Procedures. FECA’s foreign national prohibition 

is among the prohibitions considered, and the RAD Review and Referral Procedures specify that 

contributions be examined to identify those from contributors with a foreign address on an FEC 

report. If a RAD analyst identifies contributions with reported foreign addresses on a filer’s 

reports in excess of the dollar amount or percentage threshold, an RFAI will be sent. Depending 

on the circumstances, a filer that receives such an RFAI might respond by noting that the 

contributor is a citizen of the United States who has a foreign address. If the filer further 

67 See, e.g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 67–68 (1976) (per curiam) (“[R]ecordkeeping, reporting, and 

disclosure requirements are an essential means of gathering the data necessary to detect violations of the 

contribution limitations . . . .”); SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686, 698 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[R]equiring 

disclosure of such information deters and helps expose violations of other campaign finance restrictions, such as 

those barring contributions from foreign corporations or individuals.”); Indep. Inst. v. FEC, 216 F. Supp. 3d 176, 

191 (D.D.C. 2016), aff’d, 137 S. Ct. 1204 (2017) (“[D]isclosures help the Commission to enforce existing 

regulations and to ensure that foreign nationals or foreign governments do not seek to influence United States’ 

elections.”) (internal citations omitted). 

68 FECA, § 311(b), codified at 52 U.S.C. § 30111(b). 

69 In Fiscal Year 2017, for example, RAD reviewed 87,848 documents that totaled nearly 35 million pages. 

During that year, 77 percent of the reports were reviewed within 90 days of receipt, and 88 percent of the RFAIs 

issued were sent within 40 days of the report review. Thus, FEC performance on both measures exceeded the goals 

of 75 percent. 

70 RAD Review and Referral Procedures for the 2017-2018 Election Cycle, subject to limited redactions, are 

available on the FEC website: https://transition.fec.gov/pdf/2017-2018_rad_review_referral_procedures.pdf. 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

responds by indicating that filer routinely obtains copies of current and valid U.S. passports for 

such contributors pursuant to the safe harbor regulation at 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(a)(7), then no 

further RFAIs on this issue will be sent for the remainder of the two-year election cycle. For 

responses to RFAIs that are not sufficient to resolve an issue, the RAD Review and Referral 

Procedures provide thresholds for further Commission action, including assessment of audit 

points (which could result in a referral for an FEC audit), referral for enforcement action to the 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Office or to the Office of General Counsel. 

The FEC’s Audit Division conducts audits of committees that, according to the RAD 

Review and Referral Procedures, have not substantially complied with the law. As required by 

the public funding statutes, the FEC also audits all Presidential campaigns that receive public 

funds. All of these audits include an analysis of receipts that seeks to identify contributions or 

donations from foreign nationals.71 Subject to Commission-approved thresholds, receipt of 

prohibited contributions or donations can result in a referral to OGC Enforcement or to the ADR 

Office. Recent audit referrals of foreign national prohibition issues that resulted in enforcement 

proceedings are discussed above in Part A of Section I. Earlier audits identified apparently 

prohibited foreign national contributions, but generally due to the refunded, small dollar amounts 

at issue, enforcements matters were not pursued against the audited committees. Nonetheless, 

publicly available FEC Audit Reports documented the Commission’s finding and circumstances 

that resulted in no further action.72 

III. THE COMMISSION’S PLANS FOR ENFORCING THE FOREIGN NATIONAL 

PROHIBITION. 

The Commission plans to continue the work described in this report to enforce the 

foreign national prohibition and to promote voluntary compliance with it. Specifically, 

complaints, referrals and sua sponte submissions will continue to be addressed by the 

Commission and its OGC Enforcement Division and the ADR Office. The Commission intends 

to meet its statutory obligation to answer advisory opinion requests related to the foreign national 

prohibition. No specific revisions are planned at this point for the guidance the agency offers on 

the foreign national prohibition, which was revised in June 2017, although all such guidance is 

regularly reviewed for any necessary revisions. The work of the Reports Analysis Division and 

the Audit Division will continue, as discussed in Part II above. 

With respect to enforcement matters, the Commission has issued an instruction related 

particularly to the foreign national prohibition. Timely resolution of any enforcement matters 

71 In addition, as part of the public funding program, the Audit Division reviews the receipts of Presidential 

primary committees that seek matching funds to look for indications of foreign national contributions. 

72 See Friends of Corrine Brown, Final Audit Report (Nov. 17, 1994), 

https://transition.fec.gov/audits/1992/Authorized/92CorinneBrownDFL.pdf; LaRouche Campaign Audit Report 

(Oct. 29, 1985) (evidence of U.S. citizenship for all contributors at issue), 

https://transition.fec.gov/audits/1984/Title26/84LyndonLaRouche.pdf; National Committee for an Effective 

Congress, Final Audit Report (Dec. 14, 1979), https://transition.fec.gov/audits/1978/Unauthorized/78NCEC.pdf; 

Claude Pepper Campaign Committee, Audit Report (June 5, 1978), 

https://transition.fec.gov/audits/1976/Authorized/ClaudePepperFLD76.pdf. 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

73 

involving allegations of prohibited activity by foreign nationals remains a particular priority for 

the FEC. In fact, 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.73 As a follow-up, at the Commission’s public meeting on 

May 25, 2017, then-Chairman Steven T. Walther called upon the FEC staff to apply their 

resources to continue to fulfill the prioritization of any such enforcement matters and to further 

the Commission’s regulatory, educational, and enforcement work in this area.74 

The Commission is also currently engaged in a rulemaking proceeding concerning 

potential revisions to the regulations on disclaimers required on certain internet communications, 

which could have implications related to the foreign national prohibition. 

Disclaimers on paid digital and internet-based advertisements are one tool used to expose 

prohibited expenditures by foreign nationals. Disclaimers “provide the electorate with 

information and insure that the voters are fully informed about the person or group who is 

speaking,” to enable people “to evaluate the arguments to which they are being subjected.”75 

Disclaimers serve this important function even on communications paid for by persons, like 

foreign nationals, prohibited from engaging in electoral expenditures; complaints about 

disclaimer violations can result in conciliation of violations of both disclaimer and prohibited 

source rules.

76 

Commission regulations require disclaimers on political committees’ mass emails, 

publicly available websites, and public communications, including communications by political 

committees that are placed for a fee on another person’s website; disclaimers are also required on 

any electioneering communication by any person and on any public communication, including 

communications placed for a fee on another person’s website, by any person containing express 

advocacy or a solicitation for contributions.77 

In four advisory opinions, the Commission considered the application of the general 

disclaimer regulations in the context of paid digital and internet advertisements.

78 The 

Commission also sought public comment regarding whether it should take broader action and 

revise its disclaimer rules for paid internet communications, as described below. 

See FEC Press Release (May 25, 2017), https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-approves-amended-auditdivision-recommendation-memorandum-approves-advisory-opinion-and-agrees-commence-work-party-rulemaking/. 

74 Id. 

75 Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 368 (2010) (internal quotations and alterations removed). 

76 Accord Conciliation Agreement at 10, MUR 5158 (Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) (Feb. 16, 

2005), http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/0000370E.pdf (conciliating violation of disclaimer and corporate 

expenditure rules on express advocacy communications by a then-prohibited corporate payor). 

77 See 11 C.F.R. § 110.11(a). 

78 See Advisory Opinion 2002-09 (Target Wireless), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2002-

09/, Advisory Opinion 2010-19 (Google), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2010-19/, Advisory 

Opinion 2011-09 (Facebook), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2011-09/, and Advisory Opinion 

2017-12 (Take Back Action Fund), https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2017-12/. 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 2011, the Commission issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(“ANPRM”) to seek public input on whether to open a rulemaking revising its disclaimer 

regulations for paid online communications.79 The Commission re-opened the comment period 

on this ANPRM twice, in 2016 and 2017.80 In response to the 2017 re-opening of the comment 

period, the Commission received more than 149,000 comments. 

On March 26, 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(“NPRM”) requesting comment on revisions to the definition of “public communication” and on 

two alternative proposals to amend its regulations concerning disclaimers on public 

communications on the internet that contain express advocacy, solicit contributions, or are made 

by political committees.81 By the close of the comment period, the Commission received more 

than 165,000 comments on the NPRM, which showed very strong public interest in vigorous 

enforcement. The Commission held a public hearing on June 27 and 28, 2018, at which it 

received testimony from 18 persons who had requested to appear.82 The Commission is 

currently considering the comments and testimony it has received in order to consider a final 

rule. 

Conclusion 

This report was prepared for the approval of the FEC in order to meet the reporting 

requirement in the Explanatory Statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018. FEC 

staff are available to answer questions about the contents of this report or discuss other 

information related to the FEC’s efforts to enforce the foreign national prohibition. The 

Commissioners submitted this report to the Appropriations Committees on September 18, 2018. 

79 See Internet Disclaimer Communications, 76 Fed. Reg. 63,567 (Oct. 13, 2011), 

http://sers.fec.gov/fosers/showpdf.htm?docid=353587. 

80 See Internet Communication Disclaimers, 81 Fed. Reg. 71,647 (Oct. 18, 2016), 

http://sers.fec.gov/fosers/showpdf.htm?docid=353586 ; Internet Communication Disclaimers, 82 Fed. Reg. 46,937 

(Oct. 10, 2017), http://sers.fec.gov/fosers/showpdf.htm?docid=357882. 

81 See Internet Communication Disclaimers, 83 Fed. Reg. 12,864 (Mar. 26, 2018), 

http://sers.fec.gov/fosers/showpdf.htm?docid=373521. 

82 See Agenda, June 27-28, 2018 Public Hearing: Internet Communication Disclaimers and Definition of 

“Public Communication,” available at https://www.fec.gov/updates/june-27-28-2018-public-hearing/. 

19