SECTION 1.
(a) This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the “Get Foreign Money Out of California Elections Act.”(b) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1) The State of California welcomes immigrants, visitors, and investors from around the world. However, its elections should be decided by the people of California and not by foreign investors or the business entities over which they exert influence.
(2) The United States Securities and Exchange Commission, major capital investors, corporate managers, and corporate governance experts broadly agree that ownership or
control of one percent or more of shares can confer substantial influence on corporate decisionmaking. For similar reasons, ownership or control of five percent of shares by multiple foreign investors can affect corporate decisionmaking.
(3) Corporations with partial foreign ownership have been spending money to influence state and local elections in California and around the country.
(4) Investors are the ultimate beneficiaries of corporate interests. According to the California Court of Appeal, “it is the shareholders who own a corporation, which is managed by the directors” and “when a corporation is solvent, it is the shareholders who are the residual claimants of the corporation’s assets.” Berg & Berg Enter., LLC v. Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1039. Where part of the shareholders’ equity is attributable to foreign investors, spending corporate treasury funds on
California elections means spending the equity of foreign entities on California elections.
(5) Corporations and similar entities have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, including investors around the world, and generally prioritize the interests of such shareholders, which may diverge substantially from the interests of the people of California and the United States.
(6) The United States government has concluded that Russia, China, Iran, and other foreign actors are engaged in ongoing campaigns to undermine democratic institutions, as set forth in the joint statement “Combating Foreign Influence in US Elections,” issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Department of Homeland Security on October 19, 2018.
(7) The FBI has concluded that foreign influence activities include “criminal efforts to suppress voting and provide illegal campaign financing,” as set forth in FBI Director Christopher Wray’s press briefing on election security on August 2, 2018.
(8) Aside from active measures by hostile intelligence services, the explicit or implicit influence of major foreign investors subjects corporate decisionmaking to foreign influence as executives consider interests of foreign investors. Domestic corporate political spending by such corporations threatens democratic self-government.
(9) The United States Congress and the United States Supreme Court have recognized the need to protect American elections from foreign influence through the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals imposed by 52 U.S.C. Sec. 30121 and upheld by the Supreme Court in Bluman v.
Federal Election Commission (D.D.C. 2011) 800 F.Supp.2d 281, aff’d. (2012) 565 U.S. 1104.
(10) Current law does not adequately protect against foreign interference through corporate political spending by United States corporations with significant foreign ownership, as explained by Federal Election Commissioner Ellen Weintraub in their May 22, 2019, written testimony to the United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform’s Subcommittee on National Security.
(11) Political spending by foreign-influenced corporations can weaken, interfere with, or disrupt California’s democratic self-government and the trust that the electorate has in its elected representatives.
(12) To protect the integrity of California’s democratic self-government, it is necessary to prevent foreign-influenced business
entities from influencing California elections through political spending.