|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
U.S. District Court Judge Michael Watson issued an injunction on August 31 against a provision of Ohio House Bill 1 (HB 1) that would have prohibited lawful permanent residents, but who are non-citizens, from contributing to ballot measure campaigns.
Watson said that while Ohio has a compelling interest in preventing foreign influence over state political processes, restricting speech around ballot initiatives does not achieve that interest. Watson wrote, “Lawfully resident foreign nationals also generally enjoy First Amendment rights … [and] it also protects U.S. citizens’ right to hear those foreign nationals’ political speech.”
George W. Bush (R) nominated Watson to the court in 2004.
On June 2, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) signed HB1, making Ohio the ninth state to overall ban foreign contributions from certain individuals or entities. Unlike the other eight states, Ohio also included lawful permanent residents in the ban. The bill made it through the state legislature along party lines, with Republicans and Democrats voting unanimously for against the bill, respectively. A few months later on September 1, more portions of HB 1 took effect.
This map below shows the states that had bans on foreign nationals contributing to ballot measure campaigns by Ohio’s August 31 injunction reversing theirs’. Five of the states have Democratic trifectas, three have Republican trifectas, and one has a divided government.
Regarding HB 1, several Ohio Republicans, including Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R), said Hansjörg Wyss, a Swiss citizen, is an example of a lawful permanent resident contributing to state ballot measure campaigns but through an organization. Wyss is a legal permanent resident who lives in Wyoming. He has contributed to the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which donated $13.4 million to ballot measure campaigns in Ohio in 2023. The Sixteen Thirty Fund has also provided $6.67 million to Citizens Not Politicians which is supporting this November’s Issue 1. Issue 1 would establish the Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission, a group responsible for adopting state legislative and state congressional redistricting plans and composed of a 15-member non-politician commission.
Later after HB 1’s conception, on June 27, five plaintiffs sued Attorney General Dave Yost (R) and LaRose, which resulted in the injunction. Plaintiffs included OPAWL–Building AAPI Feminist Leadership, Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, Elisa Bredendiek, Peter Quilligan, and John Gerrath. The lawsuit said, “The definition of this key term [‘foreign nationals’] in HB 1 is so broad that it includes lawful permanent residents, threatening them with criminal prosecution and substantial fines for any amount of election-related spending—no matter how de minimus or indirect. In contrast, federal campaign finance law permits lawful permanent residents to contribute even to candidates.”
Americans for Public Trust and Honest Elections Project submitted an amicus brief supporting Ohio. The brief said, “Ohio has undeniably gone farther than any other individual State in pursuit of this goal. H.B. 1 applies to every type of noncitizen contributor (including lawful permanent residents) and to every type of Ohio election (including ballot issue elections). Other States that have regulated in this area have chosen either the former or the latter, but not both. But the fact that Ohio has legislated up to the limits of its authority does not mean that it has overstepped constitutional bounds.”
Ohio House Minority Leader Allison Russo (D-7) said, “Ohio Republicans’ supermajority is drunk on power and hell-bent on rigging the rules against citizen-led ballot initiatives, even if it means likely violating the First Amendment and trampling our most fundamental American freedom.”
LaRose and Yost filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on September 3, with LaRose arguing, “The people of Ohio have made it clear that our elections are only for citizens. We’re especially not going to let foreign billionaires try to buy our constitution. It happened in two constitutional amendments on the ballot last year, and we’re seeing clear evidence that it’s happening again with another amendment on this November’s ballot.”
As of August 31, HB 1 was one of 37 ballot measure-related bills enacted into law this year in the country. State governments enacted an average of 26 ballot measure-related bills each in the even-numbered voting years from 2014 to 2024. The only other year in that timeframe with more enacted bills so far was 2018 with 39.
In November, voters in Utah will decide on a constitutional amendment that would prohibit foreign individuals, governments, and entities from supporting, opposing, or otherwise influencing ballot initiatives. The measure does not define foreign individual, but rather states that the legislature “may provide, by statute, definitions, scope, and enforcement of the prohibition.”
Produced in association with Ballotpedia. Edited for Zenger News by Kyana Rubinfeld.
Get news, handpicked just for you, in your box.
