Ohio Seeks To Uphold Ban On Foreign Money In Ballot Campaigns

Leading Ohio Republicans have asked a federal court to allow a law prohibiting foreign money in state ballot initiative campaigns to take effect for the 2024 election.

Filed on Tuesday by Secretary of State Frank LaRose and Attorney General Dave Yost, the filing asks the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division to place a stay on a preliminary injunction issued by Judge Michael Watson, a George W. Bush appointee, on Saturday. That ruling prevented the law — which was set to take effect on Sunday — from being enforced.

“The people of Ohio have made it clear that our elections are only for citizens,” LaRose said in a statement. “We’re especially not going to let foreign billionaires try to buy our constitution.”

Approved by lawmakers during Ohio’s special legislative session in May, HB 1 stipulates that foreign nationals are directly and indirectly prohibited from making “a contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure in support of or opposition to a statewide ballot issue or question, regardless of whether the ballot issue or question has yet been certified to appear on the ballot.” The legislation further barred foreign funds from being given to political parties, candidates, or campaigns — all of which are prohibited from “knowingly” accepting such monies.

The law was designed to stave off interference by foreign actors such as Hansjörg Wyss, a Swiss national whose Berger Action Fund has given hundreds of millions of dollars to the left-wing Sixteen Thirty Fund. The latter group poured $11.5 million into the coffers of organizations backing efforts to enshrine abortion into Ohio’s constitution and defeat a ballot measure raising the threshold to amend the state’s founding document last year.

In his decision, Watson claimed a provision of HB 1 including lawful permanent residents in its definition of “foreign nationals” is “likely unconstitutional,” arguing these individuals “have political speech rights” covered by the First Amendment. He also contended that the left-wing groups who sued to block the statute’s enforcement “are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment challenge” to that section of the law.

Watson did, however, acknowledge that “most of [HB 1] was constitutional” and “only issued a partial injunction which invalidates the law’s definition of ‘foreign nationals,’” according to Jurist News. The injunction prohibits the entire law from being enforced until the definition of “foreign national” is changed.

In their motion for stay, LaRose and Yost argue the district court’s injunction should be halted “pending appeal” because it would allow the appellate court an “opportunity to determine the level of scrutiny that applies to laws like HB 1.”

“In the alternative, the Court should stay the portions of its injunction that sweep more broadly than the constitutional injuries it identified, allowing the statute to be enforced in its constitutional applications,” the filing reads. “Because the State is now suffering irreparable injury from the injunction, Defendants respectfully request that the Court rule on this motion for stay by Thursday, September 5, 2024, so that, if necessary the State may seek relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of the United States in time to enforce its election rules during the 2024 General Election.”

LaRose Deputy Communications Director Dan Lusheck told The Federalist the district court “set an expedited briefing schedule” in response to their request to rule on the motion by Thursday.

“As I understand it, the opposition filed their briefing [Thursday], and we are preparing our response currently,” Lusheck said.

He also said LaRose and Yost have filed a one-page notice informing the district court it is appealing the injunction to the 6th Circuit Court.

Ohio Motion to Stay Foreign Funding Ruling by The Federalist on Scribd