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

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. House Republicans

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire?

GOP US Rep. David Valadao has never won his seat in Congress on Republican votes alone because too few Republicans live in the district where he was raised, lives, and runs his family farm.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less