Trump and Biden-backed state efforts for the 2024 presidential election could see ‘unlimited’ foreign money thanks to a little-known FEC rule change

An under-the-radar change at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) could allow ‘unrestricted’ foreign money to flow into the elections, election experts have warned.

The FEC issued an advisory earlier this month that would allow federal candidates for office to raise unlimited funds, anywhere, for groups pushing for state ballot initiatives.

That means if President Joe Biden raises money for a state referendum on abortion, there are no limits to the donations he can request. If Donald Trump raises money for a group that opposes such a referendum, the same would apply to his campaign.

Federal campaign finance law prohibits foreign nationals from making donations in federal, state and local elections, although the FEC interprets the ban as applying only to candidates, and not ballot initiatives.

If Donald Trump raises money for a group that opposes such a referendum, the same would apply to his campaign

Because there are no limits on donations for ballot initiatives, groups that support or oppose such initiatives can also advocate for or against candidates.

“Because the ballot initiative can coordinate directly with presidential campaigns, they can go door to door and say, please support our ballot initiative, and say by the way President Biden also supports it,” said Jim Dornan, director of congressional affairs at American Promise.

He is pushing for a constitutional amendment to set new limits on campaign spending.

Dornan continued, “This decision opens the door to massive amounts of foreign and dark money flowing into our statewide ballot initiative campaigns, because many states do not have restrictions like the federal government on foreign campaign donations.”

In recent years, at least seven states have instituted their own bans on foreign political spending, and seven more have introduced bills to do so.

The new decision came from a request from a Nevada-based abortion rights group that hopes to put an abortion referendum on the ballot in the fall. In Florida, an abortion measure is on the ballot, and in Arizona, an abortion rights group says it has the signatures for a ballot measure.

That means the new decision could tip the balance in a handful of swing states, where the race is likely to be decided by razor-thin margins.

“It is absurd that voters have to compete with out-of-state billionaires, partisan dark money groups, and even foreign actors to shape the direction of their communities and their states. The FEC’s decision is undemocratic, unequal and weakens the integrity of one person and one vote,” Dornan said.

It could increase President Joe Biden’s fundraising advantage over President Trump, as abortion measures are among the most popular ballot initiatives and could mobilize more pro-choice voters to vote for Democrats than pro-life voters on the Republicans.

By 2024, 15 states may have abortion measures on their ballots. Groups pushing for pro-choice measures could also encourage people to vote for Biden

“Biden can now basically raise money for a ground game, meaning door to door, phone calls, etc. about whatever pro-abortion or pro-choice initiatives the states are putting together, and the money can come from almost anywhere .’

By 2024, 15 states may have abortion measures on their ballots.

Republicans are certainly more upset about the measure than Democrats. The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) objected to a draft of the recommendation a day before the recommendation was finalized. They argued that close coordination between candidates and outside groups on ballot measures meant the advice could translate into a get-out-the-vote effort in Nevada.

“The risk of corruption inherent in direct foreign contributions to candidates would simply metastasize to the context of the ballot initiative, with the same damaging effect,” the NRSC wrote.

A number of lawmakers from both sides have proposed legislation to halt foreign spending on state and local ballot measures.

Dornan equated the new decision with Citizens United, a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that upended a century of election law, saying companies can spend “unlimited money” on campaign advertising if they don’t “formally” work with a candidate or side.

That decision led to the rise of super PACS, third-party groups that empower wealthy donors without donation limits. Wealthy donors who do not want to be identified can channel the money through dark money groups or shell companies. Super PACs can still spend money on political ads to attack or promote a particular candidate.

“It’s a massive change along the lines of what Citizens United did, which is completely up for grabs in our campaign finance system, and it’s not going to go well,” Dornan warned.