On January 8, 2024, the New York State Senate passed, with bipartisan support, the Democracy Preservation Act (S371), a bill designed to end the influence of foreign corporate money in statewide elections.
On January 9, 2025, it was reintroduced. The Senate bill number is S324 and the Assembly bill number is A1258.
The Democracy Preservation Act was built on the groundwork laid by similar legislation passed in Seattle, Washington and St. Petersburg, Florida, which Free Speech For People helped to draft.
Watch: Videos About This Legislation
Current Organizational Endorsements
Adirondacks Indivisible
Amazon Labor Union
Blue Haven Initiative
Blue Wave Postcard Movement
Center for American Progress
Citizen Action of New York
Common Cause New York
Communications Workers of America, District 1
DemCast USA
Democracy Policy Network
Dutchess County Progressive Action Alliance
Empire State Indivisible
End Citizens United // Let America Vote Action Fund
Faiths for Safe Water
Fix Democracy First
Free Speech For People
Indivisible Nation BK
Justice Committee Albany Province, Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet
Main Street Alliance
Metro New York Health Care for All
New York Public Interest Research Group
People For the American Way
RepresentUs
Secure Elections Network
Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Justice Team
Sisters of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Sisters of St. Joseph
Sisters of St. Joseph Brentwood NY Office of Justice, Peace, Integrity of Creation
Sisters of St. Joseph of Rochester
SMART Legislation
Stand Up America
Westchester for Change
The Workers Circle
Previous New York Legislation Relating to Foreign Influence in Elections
In 2020, State Senator Michael Gianaris introduced a similar bill S7578, which went further than a bill that Governor Andrew Cuomo had introduced that same year.
“Unlimited corporate expenditures have a pernicious effect on our elections and the Democracy Preservation Act will make substantial inroads in fighting the influence of big corporations,” Gianaris told WhoWhatWhy. “Enactment of this bill would ensure that New York’s elections are decided by its people, not by big corporations.”
Report: Ending Foreign-Influenced Corporate Spending in U.S. Elections
A report from the Center for American Progress, written by senior fellow Michael Sozan, highlights the problem of political spending by foreign-influenced corporations. The report—which cites Free Speech For People’s pioneering legislative work in places like Seattle, St. Petersburg, and Massachusetts—proposes banning political spending by partially-foreign-owned corporations, using the same thresholds for foreign ownership as the Seattle and Massachusetts legislation that we helped develop.
Report: Quantifying Foreign Institutional Block Ownership at Publicly Traded U.S. Corporations
Report by John C. Coates, Ron Fein, Kevin Crenny & L. Vivian Dong
Since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision invalidated restrictions on corporate political spending, considerable public and policymaker interest has developed in the potential for U.S. elections to be influenced by foreign interests through U.S. corporations. On the one hand, existing federal law (the Federal Election Campaign Act) already prohibits political spending in federal, state, or local elections by corporations that are incorporated outside the U.S., or which have their principal place of business abroad. On the other hand, current law still allows substantial avenues for foreign influence over corporate political spending by U.S.-incorporated and -based corporations.
Lawmakers in Congress and members of the Federal Election Commission have expressed interest in addressing this phenomenon. As of yet, federal reform proposals have failed to advance. A more likely near-term prospect for new policy measures is at the state and local level. Local governments (notably in St. Petersburg, Florida) are now contemplating measures to address this concern.
This paper focuses on ownership of significant blocks of stock as a potential mechanism for foreign influence over corporate political spending. We found that roughly one in eleven (9%) companies in the S&P 500 has one or more foreign institutions each owning five percent or more blocks of stock, nine have foreign institutions with ten percent or more blocks, five have a foreign institution with more than fifteen percent, and three have foreign institutions with more than 20% blocks. Three firms have multiple foreign institutional blockholders. This is the first recent empirical analysis of the level of foreign institutional blockholder ownership of publicly traded corporations.