In 2023, state legislators introduced bills in both houses of the Massachusetts state legislature to prohibit spending by foreign-influenced corporations in Massachusetts elections. State Senator Mark Montigny is the lead sponsor of Senate Bill S.430 and State Representative Erika Uyterhoeven is the lead sponsor of House bill H.722, both of which will require corporations that spend money in Massachusetts elections to certify they are not foreign-influenced, or owned in whole or a significant part by foreign investors. I Watch: Video on Two Critical Massachusetts Election Bills II The Bills III Letters of Support IV Reports Watch: Video on Two Critical Massachusetts Election Bills The Bills Political Spending by Foreign-Influenced Corporations Bill S.430 (2023 legislative session): “An Act to limit political spending by foreign-influenced corporations” Bill H.722 (2023 legislative session): “An Act to limit political spending by foreign-influenced corporations” The nation has witnessed money from corporations with significant foreign ownership flowing into our elections as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which swept away longstanding precedent barring corporate money in our political process. For example, in May 2016, Uber teamed up with fellow ride-hailing service Lyft to drench Austin, Texas, in $9 million worth of election spending in the hope of overturning a city law requiring drivers to submit to fingerprint-based criminal background checks. Then, just weeks later, Uber disclosed an unprecedented $3.5 billion investment from the Saudi Arabian government, meaning that the Saudi Kingdom owns more than five percent of the company, along with a seat on its board of directors. In 2019, Amazon spent over 1.5 million dollars to try to influence the outcome of the Seattle City Council elections that year. That amount was more than the combined total amount of money raised by candidates not supported by Amazon. More than 5% of Amazon is foreign-owned. In January 2020, the Seattle City Council enacted a ban on political spending by foreign-influenced corporations based on the same model as the Massachusetts bill. In Congress, Senator Warren and Representative Pramila Jayapal have proposed the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act, which includes a provision to ban foreign-owned and partially foreign-owned corporations from spending on United States elections, including on a State or local ballot initiative or referendum. Letters of Support FSFP Letter in Support of S.430 and H.722 May 19, 2023 Reports Ending Foreign-Influenced Corporate Spending in U.S. Elections by Michael Sozan A new 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. Ending Foreign-Influenced Corporate Spending in U.S. Elections Center for American Progress (Nov. 21, 2019) (full report) Letter from Michael Sozan Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress (Dec. 20, 2019) Fact Sheet (Updated May 3, 2022) Quantifying Foreign Institutional Block Ownership at Publicly Traded U.S. Corporations by John C. Coates, Ron Fein, Kevin Crenny and 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. Download Report The SpeechNow Case and the Real World of Campaign Finance by Stephen R. Weissman Ph.D. In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s SpeechNow decision, which created super PACs, the court theorized that contributions to so-called “independent expenditure committees” could not possibly result in corruption. In the real political world, however, as this study shows, top donors to super PACs and other independent spenders are not only contributing to these groups. They are simultaneously giving directly to the very candidates who benefit from their contributions to independent spending. The typical two-track donor supports multiple candidates in this fashion. Thus, while independent spendinggroups are legally restrained from coordinating with their beneficiaries, donors to such groups are legally permitted to financially coordinate with these same candidates within certain contribution limits. When donors amplify their legally limited direct contributions to candidates with unlimited indirect support via independent spending groups, an “anti-corruption interest in limiting contributions to an independent expenditure group” certainly arises. These unlimited contributions intensify the dangers of quid pro quo corruption and its appearance that contribution limits were established to prevent. Download Report The SpeechNow Case and the Real World of Campaign Finance: Undermining Federal Limits on Contributions to Political Parties Pt. II by Stephen R. Weissman Ph.D. This report explores the top 100 individual and 50 organizational donors to independent groups in the 2012 and 2014 elections. It focuses on those who gave to one or more of the six official national party committees and also contributed to unofficial party-linked Super PACs active in the same election(s). There are federal limits on how much a donor can give to an official party committee per year, but following the SpeechNow ruling, there are no set limits on contributions to party-linked super PACs. For example, in 2014, the maximum a donor could give to a party committee per year was $32,400; assuming a donor who gave to all three committees of one party, that’s $97,200 to party committees. Under federal law, $97,201 would be illegal—too high a risk of quid pro quo corruption—but that same donor can give millions to party-linked super PACs. In essence, donors can multiply their legal direct party contributions by giving to party-linked super PACs at levels far beyond what Congress has determined is necessary (and the Supreme Court has so far upheld) to protect against corruption. This pattern of giving completely undermines the limits on contributions to parties. he large donors surveyed in this study made very substantial contributions to their preferred party committees. The size of these contributions, while within legal limits, assured that these donors would be noticed by party fundraisers, many of whom were themselves candidates and elected officials. When these donors simultaneously embellished their financing by massively subsidizing independent Super PACs linked to the same parties in the same elections, they intensified the danger of corruption and its appearance. By ignoring such political realities, the SpeechNow decision has helped undermine federal contribution limits, the primary means of federal regulation of campaign financing. Download Report Photo by iQoncept