Federal and State Transparency Reforms to Expose Malign Foreign Influence–Part II
By Dan Lips, NSI CTC Fellow
This piece is the second of a two-part series exploring how federal and state efforts to reform transparency rules to expose malign foreign influence in policy discussions. The first article, published on April 24, examined federal reforms. This article examines state efforts.
While Congress works to strengthen foreign representation and lobbying rules, state lawmakers are also considering legislation to increase transparency and curb malign foreign influence. To begin, states have varying definitions of lobbyist and disclosure rules that differ from federal regulations. According to the National Council of State Legislatures’ analysis of state lobbying registration requirements, no state has specific requirements for lobbyists representing foreign governments or interests. That may soon change however as states are now considering passing state FARA laws with much more extensive disclosure requirements.
In Arizona, state Rep. Matt Gress has introduced legislation that would require extensive new disclosures from people acting as agents of foreign governments or entities from countries of concern, such as China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela. The law requires detailed disclosures about financial relationships, the people involved with the organization being represented, and activities that the agent will be undertaking. The law also covers a broad range of activities beyond lobbying, including conveying or transmitting propaganda, and it also extends to students and employees of colleges and universities, requiring them to register if they are acting as foreign agents. People who violate the law would face felony charges and $50,000 or $100,000 fines. Postsecondary school students or employees could also be dismissed or expelled if they violate the law.
“While the federal FARA has its merits, our state legislation aims to close existing loopholes that have allowed foreign agents to operate unnoticed,” Rep. Gress stated in January. “As foreign nations increasingly attempt to exert influence on American soil, it is important that we take proactive measures to ensure we protect Arizonans from efforts to compromise our freedom and security.”
Oklahoma House Speaker Charles McCaul has also introduced a bill similar to Rep. Gress, though McCaul’s bill includes some notable exceptions, including applying a narrower exemption for media organizations by requiring a majority American ownership, and requiring retroactive filings for disclosures to 2014.
State lawmakers in Tennessee are also considering similar legislation, which mirrors aspects of the Arizona and Oklahoma bill while also leveraging the federal law’s definition of foreign adversaries to inform its list of countries of concern.
While it remains to be seen whether any of these bills become law, the new movement to establish foreign influence transparency measures could gain momentum in the coming years as more state lawmakers become aware of ongoing efforts at both the state and federal levels.
Why Additional Transparency is Needed
In its 2024 global threat assessment, the Intelligence Community (IC) warned about the ongoing threat of malign foreign influence operations in the United States. For example, the IC assessed that China will continue to use influence operations to counter American policies that pose a threat to Beijing’s interests. The report further describes how China and Russia may use new technologies, including generative artificial intelligence, to increase the impact of their influence activities.
“FARA is one of the most important tools the U.S. government has in its arsenal to respond to these threats,” reasoned Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eun Young Choi from the U.S. Department of Justice in December 2023. “Simply put, the extent to which foreign governments and foreign interests have tried to shape our public policy in recent years underscores the importance of ensuring that we uphold FARA’s transparency goals.”
Legislative reforms to improve FARA and LDA would help the Department of Justice enforce these laws and ensure that Congress, the federal government, state governments, and the public can identify foreign influence efforts. For lawmakers in Washington and state capitals around the country, stronger FARA and lobbying disclosure rules would ensure that lawmakers understand who they are meeting with and hearing from as they consider legislation that affects national security.
“Foreign influence on the political process as well as on our academic institutions is a more serious threat now than at any time since World War II and the Cold War,” University of Minnesota Law School Professor Richard Painter recently told me. “Congress should act quickly to investigate foreign funding of American universities and other nonprofits, as well as foreign interference in American elections. Amendments to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 and other laws are needed to protect our national security.”
With November’s elections fast approaching, there may be limited interest in significant legislative reform of FARA and lobbying disclosure laws at the federal and state level. However, improving transparency of how foreign influence may be influencing American policymaking should be an area of bipartisan agreement in 2024 and into the future.
Dan Lips is a Fellow with the National Security Institute Cyber and Tech Center at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School and he is the Head of Policy at Foundation for American Innovation.
