Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Foreign Funding Ban topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to Bar Foreign Money From Ballot Measures Draws Lengthy Debate Over Scope and Enforcement
Summary
SB534 would ban foreign nationals from funding ballot questions and constitutional amendments; sponsors and conservative groups said the bill closes a loophole, while some legal and policy witnesses urged clarifying language around definitions and applicability to local warrant articles.
Senator Kevin Abard introduced SB534, saying the bill aims to close a perceived gap in New Hampshire law that allows foreign‑sourced funds to influence ballot measures and constitutional amendments. Abard said the measure would ‘‘make it clear no foreign money in local ballot questions or constitutional amendments’’ and emphasized he was open to technical fixes.
Co‑sponsors and supporters argued the bill mirrors protections already in place for candidate elections and would require committees proposing measures to certify they are free from foreign influence. Representative Jim Kofalt, a co‑sponsor, told the committee that the bill would require certification and focus on knowing or willful violations while protecting domestic advocacy.
Supporters including Corey Kendig of Heritage Action framed the bill as a necessary protection against foreign efforts to shape local outcomes; Kendig cited examples of large foreign purchases and alleged influence campaigns in the region as part of his rationale.
Committee members pressed sponsors on several technical points: whether existing statutes (RSA chapter 664 and related sections) already prohibit the expenditures described; how the bill would define “measure” and whether local warrant articles or school‑district votes would be covered; and whether penalties (including refund provisions) might be unduly harsh for inadvertent errors. Testimony from Open Democracy representatives urged the committee to refine definitions, particularly the applicability of state‑level prohibitions to local ballots and warrant articles, and to reconcile conflicting sections in RSA 664.
Supporters provided examples of intermediary organizations and fundraising channels they said could be used to funnel foreign dollars into state campaigns; sponsors proposed certification and disclosure requirements as part of the remedy.
Public testimony tallies reported by the chair showed seven online support submissions and 44 online oppositions; in‑person written testimony forms were effectively blank. The committee closed the public hearing and members recommended forming a subcommittee or work session to refine statutory language and address applicability to municipal and school‑district processes before taking further action.
What happens next: Lawmakers signaled they will form a subcommittee to address definitional and applicability issues — especially whether the prohibition should be extended to local ballots and how to identify and penalize indirect funding through intermediaries.
