Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Report: Foreign powers exploit election law weaknesses to interfere in U.S. elections

Russian financial interference

This image of Russian leader Vladimir Putin behind an American flag illustrates the findings of a new report that Russia, China and others are trying to inject foreign funds into U.S. elections.

Jaap Arriens/ Nur Photo/Getty Images

A chilling new report outlines how Russia, China and other authoritarian regimes have used weaknesses in campaign finance and financial reporting laws to launch attacks on the political processes in the United States and elsewhere.

The report, released last week by the Alliance for Securing Democracy at the German Marshall Fund, found that authoritarian regimes spent more than $300 million in the past decade on dozens of interference campaigns.

Among the foreign powers' methods of attack: government-funded disinformation; funneling money to campaigns through straw donors, nonprofits and shell companies; and providing in-kind donations to U.S. and other Western politicians.


Most of these incidents occurred in the past four years, researchers found.

The report comes as security experts focus on protecting the 2020 presidential race from a reprise of the efforts to hack election systems in 2016. And it includes numerous recommendations for U.S. policy makers, including passage of several pieces of legislation that were introduced in response to cybersecurity concerns raised four years ago.

While the focus has been on cybersecurity, these experts say Russia and China have also been exploiting financial loopholes that allow foreign money to seep into the American political system.

Examples of what the authors call "malign finance" include:

  • Providing in-kind contributions to influence candidates and office holders. The most prominent effort involving the United States was President Trump's request for negative information from Ukraine on Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his family — the cause of Trump's impeachment. But U.S. law is not clear on whether getting dirt on a political opponent is a "thing of value" that constitutes a reportable contribution. What's needed, they argue, is a broader interpretation in U.S. campaign finance law — or a revision to the law — to clarify that a "thing of value" includes political information. The report calls closing this loophole "the single most urgent reform" that the authors recommend.
  • Requiring campaigns to report contacts with foreign agents. The SHIELD Act, introduced and passed last year in the Democratic-controlled House on a party-line vote, would institute such requirements. The bill has not advanced in the GOP-controlled Senate.
  • Outlaw secret shell companies and restrict U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies. This is a key way that foreign money gets introduced into U.S. campaigns, the report states.
  • Disclose foreign donors to nonprofits. Foreign powers hide donations by giving the money to a nonprofit that in turn provides it to a candidate or office holder while not having to disclose the source of the funds. Numerous legislative efforts to require disclosure of so-called dark money contributions have failed.

Other proposals include requiring disclosure of the source of funding for online political ads and requiring disclosure of foreign funding sources to U.S. media companies.

The authors say they hope exposing financial loopholes that allow foreign governments to interfere in our politics "will jumpstart a policy reform initiative to build resilience against this threat."

"There is no time to lose," they conclude. "Just like airplanes in the summer of 2001 and cyberattacks in the summer of 2016, the system is currently blinking red about incoming rubles and yuan."


Read More

Typing on a computer
person using laptop

America Needs a Digital Equity Policy, Not Just Tech Innovation

The United States invests billions in artificial intelligence research and development‚ semiconductor fabrication‚ and next-generation connectivity. Yet millions of Americans cannot consistently access the internet or afford the devices needed to submit an online application for social services or a job application․ This is not an oversight․ It is a policy choice that is costing the country dearly․

Connectivity is a floor, not a ceiling:

Keep ReadingShow less
The election voting process, bidding, hands raised up with papers

Confidence in U.S. elections has fallen to 55% ahead of the 2026 midterms. The real risk isn't who wins — it's whether the loser accepts it.

Svetlana Shamshurina/Getty Images

The Real Test of the 2026 Midterms Comes After the Vote

Less than three months before Americans vote in the 2026 midterms, a federal judge on August 11 blocked the U.S. Postal Service from implementing part of President Donald Trump’s executive order tightening mail-in voting rules. The ruling came amid an intensifying fight over how November’s elections will be administered. That fight underscores a deeper problem: the real question in American politics is no longer simply who wins the next election, but whether large numbers of people will still accept the result when their side loses.

Elections in the United States were supposed to settle arguments. One side wins, the other accepts defeat, and the country moves on. That quiet agreement is under growing pressure as the midterms approach. Control of Congress still matters, but beneath that contest lies a more consequential question: if the outcome goes against one of the two major political camps, will that camp still trust the process that declared it the loser?

Keep ReadingShow less
 Unrecognizable doctor prescribing pharmacy to patient.

After a 30-year decline, U.S. abortions are rising again. Texas data suggests bans may shift where abortions happen — not whether they do.

Natalia Gdovskaia/Getty Images

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Bridging the Gap

Introduction

We have spent decades arguing about abortion policy on ideological grounds. I think we now have an opportunity to step back, look at what actually happened, and ask a more fundamental question: What policies actually reduce the number of abortions?

I believe that is a question on which pro-life and pro-choice people should be able to agree. Whatever our differences about abortion itself, surely, we can agree that fewer abortions would be a good outcome.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol.

A rundown of the House bills most likely to become law this week — from seafood fraud enforcement to a sanctions bill critics call a tariff bill.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Both Chambers in Session this Week

Last Minute Rush

We’re not going to describe every bill the House aims to take action on this week because there’s lots. Instead, we’re going to focus on the ones that will become law if passed by the House and pull a few notable bills at the beginning of the legislative process. We’ll use the same level of discretion at the end of this week when we review what actually happened between today, Monday Sept. 14 and Friday, Sept. 18.

Probable New Laws

In addition to the bills listed below are also a couple of park renamings. All of these will, if passed, then go to the President for signing and once that’s done, become law.

Keep ReadingShow less