Disclosing Foreign Influence in Lobbying Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/856
Last Updated: July 23, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]

ID: G000386

Follow the money

The bill

Disclosing Foreign Influence in Lobbying Act

S. 856, 119th Congress — read as touching Lobbying & Law Firms.

The sponsor

Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$82,472 raised

23 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Intelligence Community" section, p. 248-250 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Held at the desk.

December 16, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another bill, another exercise in futility. Let's dissect this farce.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** Ah, the title says it all - "Disclosing Foreign Influence in Lobbying Act". How quaint. The main purpose is to pretend that Congress cares about transparency and accountability when it comes to foreign influence peddling on Capitol Hill. In reality, this bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 by adding a new provision (Section 4(b)(8)) that requires lobbyists to disclose the names and addresses of foreign governments or parties involved in directing, planning, supervising, or controlling their lobbying activities. Wow, what a bold move! Now we'll finally know who's pulling the strings... just kidding.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Lobbyists, foreign governments, and politicians will be affected by this bill. But let's not kid ourselves - the real stakeholders are the ones with deep pockets and a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. This bill won't change a thing for them; it's just a PR stunt.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this bill will be negligible, at best. It's a minor tweak to an existing law that has been largely ineffective in preventing foreign influence peddling. The real disease here is corruption, and this bill doesn't even scratch the surface. In fact, it might make things worse by creating a false sense of security among voters.

Diagnosis: This bill suffers from "Legislative Lip Service Syndrome" (LLSS), a chronic condition characterized by empty promises, watered-down provisions, and a complete disregard for actual change. The symptoms include:

* A title that sounds good but means nothing * Provisions that are too vague or narrow to be effective * Politicians who pretend to care about transparency while secretly taking money from special interests

Treatment: None needed. This bill will die on the vine, and business as usual will continue in Washington. Voters will remain clueless, politicians will keep lining their pockets, and lobbyists will continue to pull the strings.

Prognosis: Grim. The patient (our democracy) is terminal, and this bill is just a palliative measure designed to make us feel better while we slowly succumb to the disease of corruption.

Related Topics

Federal Budget & AppropriationsForeign Aid & Diplomacy
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$130,307
63 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$0
Committees
$3,000
Individuals
$127,307

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

1
SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA
1 transaction
$2,000
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
1 transaction
$1,000
1
KUMAR, SHALLI
2 transactions
$9,900
2
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
2 transactions
$9,900
3
SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN
2 transactions
$9,900
4
ARVIG, ALLEN
3 transactions
$6,710
5
STARRETT, RONALD
2 transactions
$5,800
6
COLLINS, RICHARD
1 transaction
$5,523
7
MALONE, KIP
6 transactions
$4,520
8
DETERMAN, MARK
1 transaction
$3,300
9
MCKEE, JACK C
1 transaction
$3,300
10
WEISS, LUKE
1 transaction
$3,300
11
PECK JR, JOHN
1 transaction
$2,900
12
LEIGH, JOHN
4 transactions
$2,715
13
COLLINS, III, HENRY L.
1 transaction
$2,601
14
POSNER, IDA MOLLOY
1 transaction
$2,500
15
VANDERHAAG, JOHN
3 transactions
$2,500
16
DIMARE, SCOTT
3 transactions
$1,500
17
RADY, PAUL
2 transactions
$1,500
18
VANDER HAAG, JOHN C
1 transaction
$1,500
19
RICHARDS, MARY
2 transactions
$1,435
20
NWANERI, MATTHEW
1 transaction
$1,200
21
FRENCH, ARTHUR
1 transaction
$1,000
22
JUCKETTE, LINDA
1 transaction
$1,000
23
KOROLOGOS, TOM C
1 transaction
$1,000
24
LARSON, ELLEN T
1 transaction
$1,000
25
MANATOS, ANDREW E
1 transaction
$1,000
26
MERCHANT, AHMED
1 transaction
$1,000
27
PATRICK, CHRIS MR..
1 transaction
$1,000
28
ROGERS, DIRKSEN
1 transaction
$1,000
29
SABIN, DANIEL
2 transactions
$1,000
30
SCUDDER, JACK
1 transaction
$1,000
31
SMITH, JAMES A
1 transaction
$1,000
32
SMITH, THOMAS STUART MR..
1 transaction
$1,000
33
VANDERPOOL, MARYLEE
1 transaction
$1,000
34
JOHNS, SUSAN
1 transaction
$990
35
PHELPS, DICK
1 transaction
$910
36
HESS, CURTIS
1 transaction
$750
37
LUO, KERRI
1 transaction
$750
38
WILLIAMS, ANGELA
1 transaction
$630
39
AXMEAR, FRED
1 transaction
$500
40
FRANKEN, KEN
1 transaction
$500
41
HARKEN, MARY J
1 transaction
$500
42
HASKENHOFF, TINA
1 transaction
$500
43
HILL, VERNON
1 transaction
$500
44
HUSSAIN, SULEMAN
1 transaction
$500
45
JOHNSON, WAYNE
1 transaction
$500
46
KOESTNER, RICHARD
1 transaction
$500
47
LILLIS, TERRY
1 transaction
$500
48
MCKEON, PATRICIA
1 transaction
$500
49
MCMICKLE, JOHN
1 transaction
$500
50
MOGLER, DEVIN
1 transaction
$500
51
PECK, JOHN
1 transaction
$500
52
RITTS, SUSAN BUTLER
1 transaction
$500
53
SUTTER, THEODORE
1 transaction
$500
54
VANDER HAAG, RUTH
1 transaction
$500
55
VANKERCKHOVE, BRUCE
1 transaction
$500
56
VIGO, JUDITH
1 transaction
$500
57
WHITCOMB, STANLEY
1 transaction
$500

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 5 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]

ID: P000595

Top Contributors

43

1
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
2
STRATEGIC LINK CONSULTING, LP
OrganizationKENNESAW, GA
$3,300
May 28, 2024
3
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationAUBURN, WA
$3,300
Aug 11, 2023
4
OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationRED ROCK, OK
$2,900
May 29, 2024
5
HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$2,900
May 29, 2024
6
TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA TRIBE OF NORTH DAKOTA
OrganizationBELCOURT, ND
$2,900
May 28, 2024
7
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$2,500
Jan 9, 2024
8
HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$2,500
Jun 30, 2024
9
OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationRED ROCK, OK
$2,500
Jun 30, 2024
10
TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA TRIBE OF NORTH DAKOTA
OrganizationBELCOURT, ND
$2,500
Jun 30, 2024

Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]

ID: C001056

Top Contributors

21

1
WINRED
COMARLINGTON, VA
$47
Jul 10, 2024
2
WEEKLEY, RICHARD W
WEEKLEY PROPERTIES • REAL ESTATE BROKER/DEVELOPER
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$100,000
Dec 27, 2023
3
MCINGVALE, JAMES F
GALLERY FURNITURE • OWNER/OPERATOR
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$50,000
Feb 27, 2023
4
MCINGVALE, LINDA
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$50,000
Feb 27, 2023
5
DUNN, TIMOTHY
CROWN QUEST OPERATING • EXECUTIVE
IndividualMIDLAND, TX
$45,000
Apr 4, 2023
6
MARTIN, KIMBERLY R
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$20,000
Mar 13, 2023
7
BLAINE, JAY C.
N/A • N/A
IndividualROCKWALL, TX
$16,478
Oct 11, 2024
8
THOMPSON, JERE W. MR. JR.
AMBIT ENERGY • CEO
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$13,200
Mar 15, 2023
9
MIDDLETON, MAYES
MIDDLETON OIL CO • OIL AND GAS
IndividualGALVESTON, TX
$12,500
Jan 7, 2023
10
MIDDLETON, MACEY
IndividualGALVESTON, TX
$12,500
Jan 7, 2023

Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]

ID: D000563

Top Contributors

23

1
MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationMIAMI, OK
$1,700
Mar 29, 2024
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
May 17, 2024
3
MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationMIAMI, OK
$800
Mar 29, 2024
4
KUJAWSKI, JOHN
SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$5,000
May 28, 2024
5
KUJAWSKI, JOHN
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$5,000
Jun 4, 2024
6
KUJAWSKI, JOHN
SELF-EMPLOYED • ATTORNEY
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$3,600
May 29, 2024
7
KUJAWSKI, JOHN
IndividualSAINT LOUIS, MO
$3,600
Jun 4, 2024
8
BARKER, MARA MILLS
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$3,300
Dec 26, 2024
9
BARKER, MARA MILLS
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualCHICAGO, IL
$3,300
Dec 26, 2024
10
CHOWDHURY, SHUVRO
BOWERY ENGINE • ENGINEER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024

Sen. Hassan, Margaret Wood [D-NH]

ID: H001076

Top Contributors

20

1
WOODS, ANDREW L.
LIBERTY PARTNERS GROUP • ATTORNEY
IndividualFORT MYERS, FL
$4,300
Jun 29, 2023
2
WOODS, ANDREW L.
IndividualFORT MYERS, FL
$3,900
Jul 12, 2023
3
BEKENSTEIN, ANITA
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualWAYLAND, MA
$3,300
Oct 4, 2023
4
BEKENSTEIN, JOSH
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualWAYLAND, MA
$3,300
Oct 4, 2023
5
HUNTER, DANIEL
SELF-EMPLOYED • PLAYWRIGHT & TEACHER
IndividualCAMBRIDGE, MA
$3,300
Dec 6, 2023
6
KLARMAN, SETH
THE BAUPOST GROUP • CEO
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$3,300
Dec 18, 2023
7
SCHWARTZ, GABRIEL
DAVIDSON KEMPNER • INVESTMENT MANAGER
IndividualBROOKLYN, NY
$3,300
Oct 16, 2023
8
SWINDELL, C. DAVID
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualBOSTON, MA
$3,300
Oct 10, 2023
9
KORN, WILLIAM T.
NSRA • RADIOLOGIST
IndividualWABAN, MA
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
10
KORN, WILLIAM T.
NSRA • RADIOLOGIST
IndividualWABAN, MA
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023

Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO]

ID: H001089

Top Contributors

24

1
R&W TOWING & RECOVERY
OrganizationST JOSEPH, MO
$3,300
Sep 18, 2024
2
SOUTHERN MISSOURI REAL ESTATE LLC
OrganizationAURORA, MO
$1,000
Jun 28, 2023
3
ST LOUIS CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP PAC
OrganizationCHESTERFIELD, MO
$914
Oct 31, 2024
4
MARK FAUGHN CONSTRUCTION LLC
OrganizationPOPLAR BLUFF, MO
$250
May 22, 2023
5
SCHELL, MARK CHRISTOPHER
DIAMOND PET FOOD • MANAGER
IndividualLOHMAN, MO
$13,200
Apr 13, 2023
6
CARR, GEORGE T.
THE DURHAM CO • MANAGEMENT
IndividualSPRINGFIELD, MO
$12,200
Apr 21, 2023
7
RUSSELL, DOUG MR.
DURHAM COMPANY • PRESIDENT
IndividualLEBANON, MO
$7,400
Apr 21, 2023
8
SHELTON, GREGORY P. MR.
SHELTON WHOLESALE • OWNER
IndividualEAGLEVILLE, MO
$6,600
Mar 11, 2024
9
WALDEN, MICHAEL
SHOOK HARDY BACON • ATTORNEY
IndividualMISSION HILLS, KS
$6,600
Mar 31, 2023
10
WILLARD, BRADLEY
WILLARD ASPHALT PAVING • PRESIDENT
IndividualLEBANON, MO
$6,600
Mar 31, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 42 nodes and 59 connections

Total contributions: $59

Top Donors - Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]

Showing top 15 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC2 Committees12 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.

  • Section 2 amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act to require registrants to disclose the name and address of each foreign government or political party participating in lobbying activities, which may increase regulatory burden on lobbying firms.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Intelligence Community

Moderate
Vector: 59%
Pages: 248-250AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on increasing transparency of foreign government involvement in lobbying, which aligns with Project 2025's broader concerns about foreign influence and the need for accountability in national security-related activities, though it does not directly address intelligence community politicization or FISA reforms."

Key themes:foreign influencetransparencyaccountabilitynational securityoversight

— 215 — Intelligence Community Hill who attempt to weaponize the use of selective intelligence to feed political narratives. l Political leaders should avoid “manipulation-by-appointment,” a practice by which intelligence leaders are selected for their policy views or political loyalties instead of their skilled expertise.24 Presidents should also avoid public rebukes and pressure from the intelligence profession, which can include intimidation and bullying, to shape IC analysis. This will be easier if IC leaders live by the norms of neutrality and thus are not seen as political actors, for whom political responses are deemed necessary. l Intelligence leaders and professionals should never “cook the books” for Presidents or change or shape their analysis to preserve access or status.25 FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT (FISA) A future President should understand the importance of FISA26 while also seek- ing reforms and accountability for any abuses of its authorities. When discussing FISA and what changes may need to be made, it is important to note and recognize that there are stark differences among the individual FISA authorities. Section 702 of FISA, for example, allows the IC to target foreign terrorists, spies, cyber hackers, and other bad actors (but only if they are non-U.S. persons) when their communications pass through the United States. While this authority may lapse if Congress does not resolve the issue by the end of 2023, Section 702 should be understood as an essential tool in the fight against terrorism, malicious cyber actors, and Chinese espionage. These are two major national security priorities for an incoming President, and it is imperative that the need to use properly main- tained and accountable authorities to counter these challenges be recognized. Section 702 is a vital program that often provides the lion’s share of intelligence used in the President’s Daily Brief (PDB).27 An independent review by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) found that it was not abused. Nev- ertheless, Congress should review the PCLOB’s upcoming 2023 report to help it determine whether any reforms or codification of recent administrative changes in FISA processes are needed. Other authorities in Title I and Title III, often referred to as “traditional” FISA, have elicited valid concerns about the politicization of intelligence collection authority in recent years. When seeking surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, for example, the FBI and the Department of Justice concealed vital information from a specialized court and submitted applications that were riddled with errors. An incoming conservative President should consider reforms designed to prevent future partisan abuses of national security authority. A package of strong provisions to protect against such partisanship might include:

Small Business Administration

Weak
Vector: 60%
Pages: 783-785AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the SBA policy stress transparency and accountability, but the bill addresses foreign lobbying disclosure while the SBA policy focuses on internal SBA modernization, advocacy, and regulatory flexibility, resulting only a weak thematic overlap."

Key themes:transparencyaccountability

— 751 — Small Business Administration implement relevant initiatives to reach small businesses. Programs would be nonduplicative and implemented on a first-come, first-served basis. l A modern, revamped, and streamlined SBA that better utilizes current technology and platforms for operations, for reporting, and in its programs to reach, service, and engage small businesses. l An Office of Advocacy that is strengthened by a renewed mandate and additional resources to protect against overregulation along with a research agenda that includes measuring the total cost that federal regulation imposes on small businesses. Accountability and Managerial Practice. The SBA lacks accountability and managerial practices to measure the effectiveness, success, and integrity of its various programs. As a future Administration evaluates agency structure and the particulars of how the SBA is spending appropriated funds, it should immediately require actions and procedures to compel a culture of accountability and perfor- mance. Specifically: l Require performance metrics and internal procedures to safeguard taxpayer dollars and program integrity. As noted in an October 2022 IG report, failure to adopt procedures that would reliably capture data and information for various programs, coupled with significant challenges and weaknesses regarding IT investments, systems development, and security controls, presents significant risks to program integrity and increased risk of waste, fraud, and abuse.34 Addressing these shortcomings and risks should be a priority challenge and action item for the next Administration. As underscored by the Inspector General in his introduction to the report, “Pandemic response has, in many instances, magnified the challenging systemic issues in SBA’s mission-related work.”35 l Review all internal government watchdog recommendations and require that SBA management implement or address outstanding and ongoing OIG and GAO recommendations within a specified time frame (ideally within 90 days of a recommendation) and on an ongoing basis. Strengthening the Office of Advocacy. The SBA Office of Advocacy (Advo- cacy) is “an independent office” within the SBA.36 It accounts for about one one-thousandth of SBA spending and 0.75 percent of SBA personnel. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, both under its current authority and with suggested — 752 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise reforms, the Office of Advocacy could be a powerful weapon against the adminis- trative state’s regulatory extremism. l Amend the RFA so that all agencies are required to provide a copy of any proposed rule (other than bona fide emergency rules) along with initial regulatory flexibility analysis to the Office of Advocacy at least 60 days before a notice of proposed rulemaking is submitted for publication in the Federal Register. The Office of Advocacy would submit comments to agencies within 30 days, and each agency would have to consider these comments, make changes in the proposed rule based on those comments, or explain in a revised regulatory flexibility analysis why it chose not to change the proposed rule. The Office of Advocacy’s pre-proposing comments would be published on the agencies’ and its own websites. RFA economic analysis should be expanded to include indirect costs along with direct costs. In addition, the next Administration should require other agencies to seek Advocacy’s input. Currently, other agencies deny Advocacy the ability to enforce their duty to consider the effect of regulations on small entities by construing their regulations as not having significant economic impact, which would otherwise serve as a trigger for Advocacy’s input. Congress should presumptively exempt small businesses from new agency rules to force agencies to seek Advocacy’s input and permit new rules to apply to small businesses only with Advocacy signoff under specified criteria. l Increase the Office of Advocacy’s budget by at least 50 percent ($4.6 million). This would allow Advocacy to hire approximately 25 attorneys, economists, and scientists and enhance its role in the regulatory process. l Explicitly direct federal agencies to comply with the RFA. This would be similar to the approach adopted by President Trump in his January and February 2017 executive orders directing agencies to relieve the cost and burden of regulation on business.37 Advocacy should organize regional roundtables, onsite small-business visits, and an online platform to hear directly from small businesses and entities as it did from June 2017 through September 2018.38 This activity produced 26 letters to federal agencies and highlighted specific regulations that need reform and how Congress had addressed the most burdensome rules through the Congressional Review Act.39

Federal Election Commission

Weak
Vector: 59%
Pages: 898-900AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 FEC section aim to increase transparency and reduce undue influence in the political process, but the bill targets foreign lobbying disclosure while the Project 2025 recommendations focus on FEC structure, litigation authority, and campaign finance rules, resulting only tangential overlap."

Key themes:transparencyaccountabilityforeign influencepolitical integrityregulatory oversight

— 865 — Federal Election Commission l As a legislative matter and given this abuse, the President should seriously consider recommending that Congress amend FECA to remove the agency’s independent litigating authority and rely on the Department of Justice to handle all litigation involving the FEC. There are also multiple instances of existing statutory provisions of FECA and the accompanying FEC regulations having been found unlawful or unconstitu- tional by federal court decisions, yet those statutory provisions remain in the U.S. Code and the implementing regulations remain in the Code of Federal Regula- tions.12 In such instances, those regulated by the law, from candidates to the public, have no way of knowing (without engaging in extensive legal research) whether particular statutory provisions and regulations are still applicable to their actions in the political arena. l The President should request that the commissioners on the FEC prepare such guidance. l In the event that the FEC fails to act, the President should direct the attorney general to prepare a guidance document from the Department of Justice for the public that outlines all of the FECA statutory provisions and FEC regulations that have been changed, amended, or voided by specific court decisions. Legislative Changes. While a President’s ability to make any changes at an independent agency like the FEC is limited,13 the President has the ability to make legislative recommendations to Congress. One of the most obvious changes that is needed is to end the current practice of allowing commissioners to remain as serving commissioners long after their term has expired, defying the clear intent of Congress in specifying that a commissioner can only serve a single term of six years. l The President should prioritize nominations to the FEC once commissioners reach the end of their terms and should be assisted by legislative language either eliminating or limiting overstays to a reasonable period of time to permit the vetting, nomination, and confirmation of successors. l The President should vigorously oppose all efforts, as proposed, for example, in Section 6002 of the “For the People Act of 2021,”14 to change the structure of the FEC to reduce the number of commissioners from six to five or another odd number. The current requirement of four votes to authorize an enforcement action, provide — 866 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise an advisory opinion, or issue regulations, ensures that there is bipartisan agreement before any action is taken and protects against the FEC being used as a political weapon. With only five commissioners, three members of the same political party could control the enforcement process of the agency, raising the potential of a powerful federal agency enforcing the law on a partisan basis against the members of the opposition political party. Efforts to impose a “nonpartisan” or so-called “inde- pendent” chair are impractical; the chair will inevitably be aligned with his or her appointing party, at least as a matter of perception. There are numerous other changes that should be considered in FECA and the FEC’s regulations. The overly restrictive limits on the ability of party com- mittees to coordinate with their candidates, for example, violates associational rights and unjustifiably interferes with the very purpose of political parties: to elect their candidates. l Raise contribution limits and index reporting requirements to inflation. Contribution limits should generally be much higher, as they hamstring candidates and parties while serving no practical anticorruption purpose. And a wide range of reporting requirements have not been indexed to inflation, clogging the public record and the FEC’s internal processes with small-dollar information of little use to the public. CONCLUSION When taking any action related to the FEC, the President should keep in mind that, as former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith says, the “greater problem at the FEC has been overenforcement,” not underenforcement as some critics falsely allege.15 As he correctly concludes, the FEC’s enforcement efforts “place a substan- tial burden on small committees and campaigns, and are having a chilling effect on some political speech…squeezing the life out of low level, volunteer politi- cal activity.”16 Commissioners have a duty to enforce FECA in a fair, nonpartisan, objective manner. But they must do so in a way that protects the First Amendment rights of the public, political parties, and candidates to fully participate in the political process. The President has the same duty to ensure that the Department of Justice enforces the law in a similar manner.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills