Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Campaign finance loophole allows for foreign election interference, report finds

political money
krisanapong detraphiphat/Getty Images

Businesses that finance super PACs could be exploited by foreigners who want to secretly and illegally spend millions to influence American elections, a campaign finance advocacy group warned Wednesday.

So long as they disclose their donors, super PACs are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts in support or opposition of candidates for president and Congress. But these donations too often come from opaque shell companies, Issue One said in a new study, obscuring the true source of the money and opening campaigns to even more interference by overseas adversaries.

A bipartisan nonprofit that advocates for a broad democracy reform agenda, Issue One says the remedy is more regulation of these shell companies. (The group operates but has no journalistic say over The Fulcrum.)


The 20-page "Mystery Money" reportdetails a dozen cases of businesses seemingly set up as shell companies to steer cash in secret toward both parties. While super PACs list these businesses among their donors, the individual or group behind the firm can stay well-hidden.

"The Justice Department says foreigners have already used shell companies to illegally funnel money into U.S. elections at least twice in recent years," said Issue One CEO Nick Penniman. "It's only a matter of time before this glaring loophole in our campaign finance system is more systematically abused by malicious foreign actors."

Both parties benefit from the loophole. In one case study, a New Jersey plumbing firm gave $250,000 last November to the main super PAC supporting Republican Senate candidates. The business "appears to be associated with" billionaire Steven Roth, who has been an economic advisor to President Trump, the authors said.

Another case study described two companies "tied to a pair of businessmen who have been accused of bribing a politician in New Orleans" and contributing $300,000 in the past five years to New Horizons USA, a super PAC that has mostly aided Democrats in Louisiana.

To close this loophole, the nonprofit watchdog says Congress should make it a felony for Americans to create business entities that conceal illegal political activities by foreign nationals, while the Federal Election Commission should also strengthen regulation and transparency around corporate donations to super PACs.


Read More

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding
person in red shirt wearing silver bracelet holding red and black metal tool
Photo by Wassim Chouak on Unsplash

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looking at social media app icons on a phone

Gen Z is quietly leaving social media as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and addictive platform design fuel anxiety, isolation, and mental health struggles.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Gen Z Begs Legislators: Make Social Media Social Again

Lately, it seems like each time I reach out to an old acquaintance through social media, I’m met with a page that reads, “This account doesn’t exist anymore.”

Many Gen-Z’ers are quietly quitting the platforms we grew up on.

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less