Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Get Foreign Money Out of U.S. Elections Act
A Democratic bill with 13 Democratic cosponsors · See all 14 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "Get Foreign Money Out of U.S. Elections Act" expands the ban on foreign national contributions and expenditures to include domestic business entities that are foreign-controlled, foreign-influenced, or foreign-owned. It requires the chief executive officer of such entities to file a certification under penalty of perjury stating the entity is not a foreign national. The bill also prohibits the use of funds from business entities that fail to provide this certification. Additionally, it extends the foreign money ban to state and local ballot initiatives and disbursements to Super PACs. Finally, it sets specific requirements for corporate PACs to ensure foreign nationals are not involved in decision-making processes.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +8
Does this make elections run better?
Increases transparency and prevents foreign financial influence in U.S. elections.
- Scored +8
Does this limit or expose the money behind campaigns?
Closes loopholes that allow foreign-influenced entities to contribute to elections.
- Scored +7
Does this protect the right to vote?
Reduces the potential for foreign interference in domestic elections and ballot initiatives.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
Imposes federal restrictions on foreign contributions to state and local ballot initiatives.
- Scored -3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Increases compliance costs and legal liabilities for business owners of foreign-influenced entities.
- Scored -2
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
Increases administrative and legal burdens on business executives regarding compliance certifications.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Reduced Foreign Influence in Elections: By extending the ban to domestic business entities that are foreign-owned or controlled, the bill aims to prevent foreign nationals from using these entities to influence U.S. elections (Sec. 2(a)).
-
Increased Accountability for Executives: The requirement for the chief executive officer to file a certification under penalty of perjury ensures that high-ranking officials are held personally accountable for the legality of their entity's political spending (Sec. 2(b)(1)).
-
Protection of Local Democratic Processes: The bill expands the ban to include state and local ballot initiatives, referendums, and recall elections, preventing foreign money from influencing local policy decisions (Sec. 3(a)).
-
Stricter Corporate PAC Oversight: The bill ensures that corporate PACs are managed by U.S. citizens or permanent residents and that foreign nationals cannot participate in or recommend contributions and expenditures (Sec. 3(b)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Legal Burden on Business Executives: The requirement to conduct a "due inquiry" and file certifications under penalty of perjury may place a legal and administrative burden on company leaders (Sec. 2(b)(1)).
-
Operational Constraints for Recipients: People or committees receiving funds must separately designate, record, and account for contributions to ensure they comply with the certification requirements, or they risk unlawful use of funds (Sec. 2(c)(2)(C)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this limit or expose the money behind campaigns? — Closes loopholes that allow foreign-influenced entities to contribute to elections. Does this make elections run better? — Increases transparency and prevents foreign financial influence in U.S. elections. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires CEO certifications under penalty of perjury for political spending. Does this give the federal government more power? — Expands federal oversight of foreign spending in state and local elections. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Imposes federal restrictions on foreign contributions to state and local ballot initiatives.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this protect the right to vote? — Reduces the potential for foreign interference in domestic elections and ballot initiatives.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Increases compliance costs and legal liabilities for business owners of foreign-influenced entities.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Increases administrative and legal burdens on business executives regarding compliance certifications.
- 11/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/22/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
- 12 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
4 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Kirsten GillibrandDemocrat · New York
Ruben GallegoDemocrat · Arizona
John HickenlooperDemocrat · Colorado
Maggie HassanDemocrat · New Hampshire
Mark KellyDemocrat · Arizona
Andy KimDemocrat · New Jersey
Alex PadillaDemocrat · California
John ReedDemocrat · Rhode Island
Bernie SandersIndependent · Vermont
Adam SchiffDemocrat · California
Elissa SlotkinDemocrat · Michigan
Peter WelchDemocrat · Vermont
Elizabeth WarrenDemocrat · Massachusetts