Key Takeaways:
- A growing number of states are limiting political spending by foreign nationals and “foreign-influenced” entities, with some proposals sweeping far beyond existing federal standards.
- Determining whether an entity is foreign-influenced can require detailed and ongoing ownership analyses, creating significant risk for corporations, trade associations and media platforms involved in political or issue advocacy.
- States are also considering and enacting “state FARA” regimes that regulate entities acting on behalf of foreign actors or adversaries – often without the exemptions found in federal law – creating new reporting and disclosure obligations for global businesses.
An expanding wave of state legislation is redefining how foreign corporate ownership and influence are treated with respect to political and issue speech. Over the past two years, numerous states have advanced measures to restrict foreign nationals and foreign-influenced entities from spending in state and local elections. These efforts carry significant implications for domestic corporations, trade associations and the media and technology platforms that disseminate their messages.
The scope of these restrictions varies widely from state to state. Many state laws mirror federal law, covering individuals who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents, foreign governments and political parties, and corporations formed or headquartered abroad. Others sweep more broadly, extending the definition of “foreign-influenced” to include U.S. companies with modest or passive foreign ownership.
Recent proposals illustrate the range of approaches. In Massachusetts, lawmakers considered a bill limiting corporate political spending when a single foreign investor holds as little as 1 percent of ownership. Connecticut legislators proposed similar limits on entities with minimal foreign investment. Maine voters went further, adopting a ballot initiative that broadly barred political spending by “foreign government-influenced” entities with minimal foreign ownership or control – a measure later enjoined on First Amendment grounds by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
For corporations and communication platforms, these proposals present complex compliance challenges. Determining whether an entity is foreign-influenced requires detailed knowledge of ownership, control, and governance structures that may change frequently, or that are difficult to verify. The uncertainty surrounding these definitions risks chilling corporate participation in political and issue speech, as companies and media outlets choose silence over potential liability.
States are also extending this focus beyond campaign finance into foreign agent registration. Since early 2025, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Nebraska and Texas have enacted state laws modeled on the federal Foreign Agents Registration Act, and Florida amended its charitable solicitation law to include a provision prohibiting nonprofits from soliciting or accepting contributions from “foreign sources of concern.”
Though varying in scope, these state FARA laws have a common theme: expanding state oversight of foreign influence while omitting many of the commercial or lobbying exemptions found in federal law. They generally require individuals or entities acting on behalf of foreign governments or certain foreign adversaries to register with state officials and, in some cases, pay fees or complete training. Similar proposals have been considered in Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, New York, Tennessee and West Virginia.
As more states pursue similar legislation, foreign companies (and their U.S. subsidiaries and affiliates) may face new registration, disclosure and reporting obligations. Multinational corporations, advocacy organizations and media platforms should closely track these developments and assess whether their operations or advocacy efforts trigger state-level compliance requirements.
[View source.]
