Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Fact brief: Can foreigners indirectly fund political ads by giving money to a U.S. nonprofit that then gives money to a U.S. super PAC?

U.S. Capitol surrounded by money
Greggory DiSalvo/Getty Images

This fact brief was originally published by Wisconsin Watch. Read the original here. Fact briefs are published by newsrooms in the Gigafact network, and republished by The Fulcrum. Visit Gigafact to learn more.

Can foreigners indirectly fund political ads by giving money to a U.S. nonprofit that then gives money to a U.S. super PAC?

Yes.

Federal law prohibits a foreign national — someone who is not a U.S. citizen and not lawfully a permanent resident — from making contributions in connection with any federal, state or local election.


But there’s a loophole.

Foreign nationals can donate money to social welfare organizations, also known as 501(c)(4) groups. Those nonprofits, such as the NRA and an arm of Planned Parenthood, can contribute to super PACs.

A super PAC can spend unlimited sums to advocate for or against political candidates.

Federal Election Commission chair Sean Cooksey told the U.S. House Administration Committee that the loophole is legal, as long as a foreign national donor doesn’t direct the nonprofit to channel money to a super PAC.

Committee chair, Republican Rep. Bryan Steil, who represents southeast Wisconsin, introduced a bill in July 2023 to restrict foreign nationals’ contributions to 501(c)(4) groups. The House of Representatives has not voted on the measure.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Federal Election Commission Foreign nationals

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

U.S. Code Voting and Elections

Internal Revenue Service Social Welfare Organizations

Nonprofit Law Blog 501(c)(4) Social Welfare Organizations

Planned Parenthood Donor FAQ

charitynavigator.org NRA

Open Secrets Super PACs

Committee on House Administration Chairman Bryan Steil Q&A at the Full Committee Hearing on FEC Oversight

US Congress All Actions: H.R.4563 — 118th Congress (2023-2024) All Information (Except Text)

US Congress H.R. 4563

Read More

Connecticut lawmakers consider new bill to ban female genital mutilation/cutting

Every U.S. state needs a comprehensive law against female genital mutilation and cutting.

U.S. End FGM/C Network and Equality Now

Connecticut lawmakers consider new bill to ban female genital mutilation/cutting

Optimism is growing that a new Bill in Connecticut will lead to the introduction of a statewide ban against female genital mutilation/ cutting (FGM/C). Thousands of women and girls across the state have undergone or are at risk of this harmful practice. Despite this, Connecticut remains one of just nine U.S. states that still lack state-level legal protections—something advocates hope this legislation will finally change.

Survivors and others from impacted communities, alongside women’s rights advocates and civil society organizations - including the U.S. Network to End FGM/C, Sahiyo, Equality Now, and the Connecticut General Assembly’s Commission on Women, Children, Seniors, Equity, and Opportunity - have long called for state legislation against FGM/C in Connecticut, citing how a law would help those at risk and their families resist cultural and social pressures to continue the practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Anti-LGBTQ+ policies harm the health of not only LGBTQ+ people, but all Americans

Courts across the nation are debating whether LGBTQ+ people should be protected from discrimination.

Anti-LGBTQ+ policies harm the health of not only LGBTQ+ people, but all Americans

In 2024, state legislatures introduced an all-time record of 533 bills targeting LGBTQ+ populations. These policies create a patchwork of legal landscapes that vary widely between and within states, affecting aspects of everyday life ranging from how kids learn and play to where adults live and work.

All of these policies have implications for the health of not only LGBTQ+ people but also the general public.

Keep ReadingShow less
Transgender Athletes: President Trump’s Executive Order is Merely Symbolic

U.S. President Donald Trump signs a series of executive orders in the Oval Office at the White House on February 10, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Transgender Athletes: President Trump’s Executive Order is Merely Symbolic

On February 5th, President Trump signed an executive order regarding transgender athletes and their participation in women’s sports, effectively outlawing the practice. But is it law?

While the President has tremendous power, especially when it comes to directing the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) interpretation of statutes, his executive order likely won’t survive.

Keep ReadingShow less
If we can come together on family policy, so should Congress
man in long sleeve shirt standing beside girl in pink tank top washing hands
Photo by CDC on Unsplash

If we can come together on family policy, so should Congress

The issues facing families with young children in our country are numerous and well-known. It’s our politics that’s been the problem.

We know that the share of the federal budget devoted to children is relatively small and declining as a share of spending. Parents frequently want different arrangements for care and work than they can afford or negotiate, and parents’ jobs may not leave enough time or flexibility to care for young children. The share of people having children is declining, with many citing cost concerns. People with children are citing higher levels of pessimism about the future that awaits their kids. But our divided politics has gotten in the way of addressing these challenges. Or so it seemed.

Keep ReadingShow less