In Topeka, Kansas, a significant legal challenge is unfolding against a recently enacted state law designed to curb foreign influence in election campaigns. The lawsuit, initiated by Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, argues that the law infringes on free speech rights and threatens to impede the group’s ability to participate in future campaigns. The law is set to go into effect on July 1, and the group asserts it is a direct reaction to their successful opposition to a proposed amendment in August 2022 which sought to curtail abortion rights.
Kansans for Constitutional Freedom had rallied against the amendment, which aimed to empower the Kansas Legislature to impose stringent abortion regulations or outright bans. Their campaign was notably supported by the Sixteen Thirty Fund, connected to Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss, known for supporting liberal causes. The lawsuit was lodged in federal court in Kansas with the organization claiming the state has implemented overreaching and vaguely defined restrictions on advocacy speech, thus stifling important public policy debates.
Kansas’s maneuver comes in the wake of Ohio’s legislative move last year to prevent foreign money from influencing its elections. Kansas lawmakers consulted the Ohio Secretary of State, Frank LaRose, and conservative organizations, highlighting Wyss as a justification for implementing similar legal measures. Ohio faces its own legal challenge over its law but received approval from a federal appeals court to enforce it prior to trial.
Under U.S. federal law, foreign nationals are prohibited from contributing to political campaigns or committees. However, Kansas’s new legislation expands this restriction by preventing organizations from campaigning for or against constitutional amendments if they accept any foreign national contributions, even indirectly. Moreover, these groups are required to certify that no donors have received over $100,000 from foreign nationals in the last four years, with non-compliant organizations facing prohibitions on electioneering for four years.
Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, seeking to gear up for a campaign in 2026 against a Republican proposal to elect state Supreme Court justices rather than appoint them, has expressed concern over the law’s impact on their fundraising activities. This initiative is perceived by the group as a threat to judicial independence. In the past, the group amassed nearly $11 million for the anti-abortion ballot initiative, including substantial support from the Sixteen Thirty Fund.
The Kansas Legislature, predominantly Republican, passed the law with sufficient majority to overcome a gubernatorial veto. Democratic Governor Laura Kelly acknowledged the law’s extremity but refrained from blocking it, allowing it to become law without her signature. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, named as a defendant along with state ethics commission members, remarked on the law’s bipartisan endorsement, emphasizing the importance of shielding Kansas constitutional amendments from external influences.
As the legal battle unfolds, the debate hinges on the balance between safeguarding elections from foreign intervention and upholding free speech rights. The lawsuit criticizes the law for impinging on advocacy groups by barring them from accepting federal funds and imposing stringent disclosure requirements on their donors. The suit argues these measures violate the First Amendment by forcing confidential disclosure of a donor’s financial backing.