Despite federal laws that prohibit campaign contributions by people who are not United States citizens, foreign-influenced corporations and their subsidiaries have found ways to pour millions of dollars into political campaigns, according to a new OpenSecrets report.

Anna Massoglia, editorial and investigations manager and report co-author with Open Secrets, said that's a problem because foreign owners do not necessarily share the nation's best interests.

"It really underscores the need for transparency to address the challenges posed by these companies that are at least in part foreign owned, and more need for examination of the influence that they wield, as well as who's pulling the strings behind the scenes," she explained.

Researchers studied state-level campaign donations made by more than 800 companies with at least 5% foreign ownership, or an individual foreign owner over 1%, between 2018 and 2022. The fossil-fuel sector was the largest campaign contributor in Colorado, with Noble Energy on top at $7.5 million.

Including Colorado, researchers found that foreign-influenced corporations contributed more than $163 million to political campaigns in Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York and Washington.

"Some states attracted much more money from foreign-influenced companies going into political contributions than others," Mossoglia continued. "Washington was the top state; Colorado came in second with more than $44 million. And so, we're seeing huge money pouring into very specific states."

Before 2010, corporations were prohibited from contributing to independent expenditures - such as super PACS - campaigning for or against candidates. But Massoglia said that all changed when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporate money deserved the same protections as speech in its Citizens United ruling.

"It ended up invalidating a number of state laws, leaving it up to them to regulate spending by corporations and giving by corporations. It opened the door for foreign-influenced companies to be able to pour money into state elections," she explained.


get more stories like this via email

This week marks 15 years since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The ruling reshaped campaign finance by allowing unlimited corporate and union spending in elections. The decision has left a profound mark on states like Ohio.

Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, highlighted its local impact at a roundtable discussion this week. But first, he remarked on the presence of billionaire donors at Monday's presidential inauguration.

"Oligarchy in America, boy, yesterday was a portrait of that," Morelle observed. "In Ohio, for example, an electric utility used dark money to cause state House lawmakers to ensure passage of a bill which bailed out the coal and nuclear plants, while rolling back clean energy standards."

American Electric Power reached a multimillion-dollar settlement after a federal investigation into its role in Ohio's House Bill 6 scandal. The Columbus-based utility announced it will pay a $19 million fine to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of Common Cause, underscored the national and local consequences of unchecked political spending.

"Since the Citizens United decision happened, they have spent now 13 times the amount this election," Solomón pointed out. "It's no wonder that you have people who are nurses, teachers, firefighters, everyday Americans who are running for office and just simply can't compete, or who have opted out."

Beyond corporate influence, Solomon mentioned the unmeasured effect of in-kind contributions, such as media control and algorithmic bias. The panel members warned Citizens United has undermined democratic representation, even as proponents defend it as free speech.

Tiffany Muller, president of the advocacy group End Citizens United, was also critical of Ohio's controversial House Bill 6, legislation to secure financial support for the state's aging power plants. She suggested it exemplifies how dark money can influence state policy.

"FirstEnergy paid $60 million to get a $1.3 billion bailout," Muller noted. "The largest pay-to-play corruption scandal in that state's history."

She added the Ohio scandal is just one example of how money can shift priorities toward corporate interests at the expense of voters.


get more stories like this via email

Ohio's U.S. Senate race between the incumbent, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Republican Bernie Moreno has become one of the most expensive in American history, now totaling more than $400 million.

At the heart of the high-stakes election is the role of cryptocurrency. Its backers' financial influence has ignited debate over regulation and transparency. Both sides have been vocal on what it could mean, not only for Ohioans but for the future of cryptocurrency regulation across the country.

Mark Hays, senior policy analyst at Americans for Financial Reform and the advocacy group Demand Progress, shared his skepticism about the money flowing from the crypto sector.

"The money that's being spent is an effort to punish those politicians for trying to maintain strong regulatory standards," Hays explained.

Moreno has gained substantial backing from the Defend American Jobs super PAC, a group aligned with pro-crypto interests. This PAC has launched a $41 million ad campaign promoting him. Hays argued it is all part of a broader push for lenient crypto regulations in Congress, which Brown strongly opposes.

At a campaign stop in Columbus on Monday, Moreno defended the support from crypto backers, stating, "The reason they supported me is because they agree with me, not because I agree with them." He also addressed questions about his personal connection to cryptocurrency.

"I sold my Bitcoin, so I didn't want to have any nonsense from liberal reporters saying that I'm pro-crypto because of financial interest," Moreno asserted. "And the crypto community understands that this election is an existential threat to their existence here in America."

Brown, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, has been a key figure in Congress advocating for strong regulatory oversight of the crypto industry. He has not shied away from addressing what he sees as significant risks posed by digital assets.

"The fraud, the scams and the outright theft; you can lose big in crypto's huge price swings," Brown pointed out. "They didn't tell you about the high fees pocketed by the crypto companies. Without regulation, stablecoins can endanger our economy, our payment system, our hard-earned money."

With control of a Senate seat in play and unprecedented levels of funding, Ohio voters are seeing firsthand how digital currency backers can shape political discourse.

Election Day is inching closer and the battleground state of Wisconsin will see more visits from the two main party presidential campaigns.

It was also the setting of a forum featuring a popular historian linking past events to the current debate over democracy.

Doris Kearns Goodwin, the renowned presidential historian, was the featured guest earlier this week at a discussion in suburban Milwaukee hosted by the United to Preserve initiative. When asked about present-day divisions and how they compare with similar turmoil in U.S. history, Goodwin pointed to the Industrial Revolution, noting it had the same effect on society as today's tech boom has.

"Globalization and the tech revolution have shaken up the economy, much as the Industrial Revolution did at the turn of the 20th century," Goodwin explained. "Think of what we went through then: It was the first time, really, that there was a gap between the rich and the poor, the first time, really, that people were from moving from the farms into the cities in record numbers."

She pointed out it fueled resentment among smaller communities, paving the way for an urban/rural divide seen today. Goodwin noted it took leaders such as former President Teddy Roosevelt, who had dealt with adversity in his own life, to channel that reflection and moderate his tone in a way that resonated with Americans from all kinds of backgrounds.

Goodwin said down the road, Lyndon Johnson had a heart attack while serving as a U.S. Senator. She said recovering from the medical scare inspired him to balance the quest for power with the need to serve the people.

"All of a sudden, one day, he just woke up and he said, 'Get me shaved, I'm ready to be back.' And he (a staffer) said, 'Well, what happened?' And he (Johnson) said, 'Well, I was lying here thinking what if I died now, what would I be remembered for? I have accumulated a lot of power, I've accumulated wealth, but have I really done something to make a difference in people's lives?'" Goodwin recounted.

Goodwin emphasized Johnson then became laser focused on advancing civil rights policy, even when the odds were stacked against him while serving as president. She noted it does not mean there weren't hard lessons learned along the way, with Johnson known for sometimes yelling at colleagues in humiliating fashion and regretting it the next day. Conversely, she pointed out Abraham Lincoln would write out a letter in anger but would set it aside and never have it delivered to the recipient, with it serving as a "cooling off" tool.


get more stories like this via email