CHARLESTON — A bill advancing in the West Virginia Legislature would prohibit foreign nationals from contributing to or participating in state and local ballot measure campaigns, while imposing new certification, enforcement and litigation requirements on organizations involved in election-related activity.
The proposal, House Bill 4522, creates a new section of state election law banning foreign-backed spending on ballot issues and election administration. Supporters say the measure is intended to prevent foreign influence in West Virginia elections, but critics warn the bill could chill constitutionally protected political speech and association.
Under the bill, “foreign nationals” — defined to include non-U.S. citizens, foreign governments, political parties and foreign-based entities that do not do business in the state would be barred from contributing to or participating in any ballot measure campaign. The definition of ballot measure includes statewide constitutional amendments, county and municipal initiatives, bond issues and levies.
Legal analysts note that this language could extend to Catholic organizations that advocate on pro-life ballot measures and receive funding or financial support originating from the Vatican, which is a foreign sovereign entity. Even if such funds are unrelated to ballot advocacy or segregated for religious or charitable purposes, the bill’s inclusion of “indirect” donations and its willful blindness standard could expose organizations to enforcement actions.
Because the bill requires organizations to certify under penalty of perjury that they do not knowingly receive foreign donations, religious nonprofits could face pressure to examine, document or disclose donor sources in order to participate in ballot initiatives. Critics warn this could chill faith-based advocacy on moral or social issues traditionally protected under the First Amendment.
The bill’s reach is not limited to religious organizations. Analysts also note it would apply to advocacy groups focused on combating antisemitism or supporting Jewish causes if those groups receive donations from Israeli citizens or Israeli-based organizations. Israel is a foreign nation under the bill’s definitions, and contributions from Israeli donors could qualify as foreign donations even when used for domestic educational or advocacy efforts.
The bill also regulates election administration by requiring any non-government entity that provides funds, goods or services related to conducting elections to certify to the Secretary of State that it does not knowingly receive foreign donations, directly or indirectly. That certification must be renewed annually, updated within five business days of new information and sworn under penalty of perjury.
Failure to provide an accurate certification could result in misdemeanor charges, fines equal to three times the amount of the donation, invalidation of government contracts and a prohibition on future agreements with state or local governments.
The bill’s enforcement provisions extend beyond state officials. The Attorney General would be authorized to investigate violations, issue subpoenas, demand records and seek injunctions and civil penalties. Any registered voter in West Virginia would also be permitted to file a civil lawsuit to enforce the law.
That private cause of action has drawn particular concern from legal analysts, who warn it could encourage ideologically motivated lawsuits and expansive discovery requests unrelated to actual foreign influence.
Critics say the bill’s language banning participation by organizations that “knowingly receive” foreign funds, including funds received “indirectly”, raises additional constitutional issues. The bill defines “knowingly” to include willful blindness and failure to conduct a “reasonable inquiry” into the source of funds.
As a result, non-profit organizations and social welfare groups that engage in ballot issue advocacy could face pressure to disclose donor information in order to defend themselves against enforcement actions or private lawsuits, even when no foreign funding is credibly alleged.
While the bill does not explicitly require donor disclosure, opponents argue it could function as a mechanism to obtain donor lists through subpoenas, litigation discovery or compliance audits. In practice, subpoenas issued by the Attorney General could seek donor identities, donation amounts, due-diligence records and internal compliance policies.
Even if donor information is not made public, critics note that compelled disclosure to government officials can chill political participation and association, particularly where enforcement actions are initiated without evidence of wrongdoing.
Legal scholars point to U.S. Supreme Court precedents including NAACP v. Alabama and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, which held that compelled disclosure of donors can violate the First Amendment’s freedom of association by exposing supporters to harassment or retaliation.
Opponents also argue the bill risks imposing what courts have described as “guilt by association” funding rules, potentially penalizing organizations for unrelated or segregated donations without proof that foreign funds were used to influence ballot measures.
Supporters of the bill counter that preventing foreign interference in elections is a compelling state interest.
The Secretary of State would be required to publish certifications online, collect quarterly reports from government entities on election administration partnerships and audit those reports for compliance. Any local ordinances conflicting with the bill would be void.
The bill’s ultimate constitutionality, critics say, may depend on how aggressively its enforcement mechanisms are used and whether courts narrow its application in response to legal challenges.
HB 4522 is scheduled to be read in House Judiciary, as lawmakers debate whether its safeguards against foreign influence outweigh potential impacts on domestic political speech and association.
