[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                   AMERICAN CONFIDENCE IN ELECTIONS:
                    PROHIBITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE

=======================================================================





                                HEARING

                               before the

                           COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                             ADMINISTRATION

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                           DECEMBER 18, 2024
                               __________


      Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
      
      
      
   
 
               [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





                             www.govinfo.gov
                           www.cha.house.gov



                                 ______

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

57-808                     WASHINGTON : 2025                           
                           
                           
                           























                           
                           
                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                    BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia            JOSEPH MORELLE, New York,
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia           Ranking Member
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina          TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma             NORMA TORRES, California
MIKE CAREY, Ohio                     DEREK KILMER, Washington
ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, New York
LAUREL LEE, Florida

                      Mike Platt,  Staff Director 
                 Jamie Fleet,  Minority Staff Director
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 

                 
                 
                 
                 
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                               ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                           Opening Statements

Chairman Bryan Steil, Representative from the State of Wisconsin.     1
    Prepared statement of Chairman Bryan Steil...................     3
Ranking Member Joseph Morelle, Representative from the State of 
  New York.......................................................     5
    Prepared statement of Ranking Member Joseph Morelle..........    48

                               Witnesses

Matthew K. O'Neill, co-founder and partner, 5OH Consulting.......    50
    Prepared statement of Matthew K. O'Neill.....................    52
Caitlin Sutherland, executive director, Americans for Public 
  Trust..........................................................    59
    Prepared statement of Caitlin Sutherland.....................    61
Bradley Bowman, senior director, Center on Military and Political 
  Power, Foundation for Defense of Democracies...................    68
    Prepared statement of Bradley Bowman.........................    70
Derf Johnson, deputy director, Montana Environmental Information 
  Center.........................................................    81
    Prepared statement of Derf Johnson...........................    83

                       Submissions for the Record

CNN article......................................................     8
Washington Post article..........................................    44
Business Insider article.........................................    94
Montana Supreme Court decision...................................   101
MUR 6678 vote certification......................................   181
Yes for Responsible Mining complaint filing......................   183
Commissioner Ellen Weintraub statement...........................   188
Americans for Public Trust report................................   193
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington statement...   203
People United for Privacy letter.................................   212

 
                    AMERICAN CONFIDENCE IN ELECTIONS:
                    PROHIBITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE

                              ----------                              

                           December 18, 2024

                 Committee on House Administration,
                                  House of Representatives,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 
room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bryan Steil 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Steil, Griffith, Bice, Carey, 
D'Esposito, Lee, Morelle, Torres, and Kilmer.
    Staff present: March Bell, General Counsel; Jackie Bossman, 
Counsel; Annemarie Cake, Professional Staff and Deputy Clerk; 
Alexander Deise, Counsel; Thomas Lane, Elections Counsel and 
Director of Elections Coalitions; Kristen Monterroso, Director 
of Operations and Legislative Clerk; Marissa Mullen, Deputy 
Director of Member Services; Michael Platt, Staff Director; 
Jordan Wilson, Director of Member Services; Khalil Abboud, 
Minority Deputy Staff Director; Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff 
Director; Sarah Nasta, Minority Senior Advisor and Director; 
Owen Reilly, Minority Professional Staff; Matt Schlesinger, 
Minority Senior Counsel; and Sean Wright, Minority Chief 
Counsel.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRYAN STEIL,  CHAIRMAN OF
     THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REP-
     RESENTATIVE FROM WISCONSIN

    Chairman Steil. The Committee on House Administration will 
come to order.
    I note that a quorum is present. Without objection, the 
chair may declare a recess at any time.
    Also without objection, the hearing record will remain open 
for 5 legislative days so Members may submit any materials they 
wish to be included therein.
    Thank you, Ranking Member Morelle, Members of the 
Committee, and our witnesses, for participating at today's 
hearing.
    Today, the Committee on House Administration is continuing 
our oversight of Federal elections.
    For too long now, Americans have been concerned about the 
threat of foreign interference in our elections and attempts to 
destabilize the democratic processes. As Chairman of the 
Committee, I have worked to restore Americans' faith in our 
elections, but foreign adversaries still have loopholes they 
can exploit to influence American elections.
    Today, we will explore two key things: There are current 
laws on the books that prohibit foreign interference. We will 
explore how these laws are working in practice and how they are 
enforced. There are also loopholes that exist under current law 
that still allow foreign actors to influence U.S. elections.
    Let us dive into how that is possible. Federal law 
generally prohibits non-citizens or foreign businesses from 
directly giving to candidates' campaigns, super-PACs, or 
running ads in support for or against candidates. However, it 
is currently legal for foreign nationals to indirectly funnel 
money through 501(c) organizations. These organizations can 
then channel that money to super-PACs or another 501(c) to 
directly help a candidate or influence a policy.
    As Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, I 
introduced, and the Committee passed, the Preventing Foreign 
Interference in American Elections Act that closes this 
specific loophole.
    It is important that we continue to evaluate the current 
legal system and focus on strengthening and enforcement of our 
laws to prevent foreign interference in American elections.
    On the other hand, we have also had to address the illegal 
methods utilized by foreign adversaries to funnel illicit money 
into U.S. campaigns.
    For example, it is currently illegal for someone to donate 
to a political campaign in the name of another person; yet 
there are concerns foreign adversaries are utilizing identities 
of unwitting U.S. citizens in order to donate to U.S. 
campaigns. We have shown that there are vulnerabilities in our 
campaign finance system that will allow a foreign actor to use 
a U.S. citizen as a straw donor in order to contribute. This 
method would be very challenging to detect but may involve the 
use of gift cards in the name of an unwitting straw donor to 
avoid detection when facilitating such transactions.
    Bad actors may also illegally exploit multiple unwitting 
identities to break large donations into smaller amounts, 
allowing them to circumvent individual contribution limits.
    These efforts effectively disguise illegal donations and 
allow foreign actors to violate campaign finance laws that are 
currently in place.
    In the last year, the Committee on House Administration has 
been reviewing online donation platform policies that have 
vulnerabilities that may allow foreign interference to occur. I 
uncovered recently that major Democratic fundraising platform 
ActBlue did not automatically reject the use of prepaid gift 
cards or require users input the card verification value, the 
CVV--that is that three-or four-digit code on the back of your 
credit card--that could have been creating a loophole that 
foreign bad actors could have exploited.
    In August of this year, I wrote a letter to the Financial 
Crimes Enforcement Network, FinCEN, requesting information on 
its work to combat illicit election funding efforts, 
particularly from foreign actors. To this day, the Committee 
has not yet received a response to our questions or a briefing 
from FinCEN. This is unacceptable.
    In October, I requested information from the Treasury 
Department on potential election interference through 
fraudulent donations and asked to review any suspicious 
activity reports related to ActBlue. The Treasury Department 
has yet to allow this Committee or the Committee on Oversight, 
chaired by James Comer, to review those SARs.
    Following my investigation into the methods used by foreign 
adversaries to funnel money into U.S. elections, I introduced 
the SHIELD Act, which will prohibit political committees from 
accepting contributions without the disclosure of the CVV or 
from gift cards. I am pleased to say that this bill passed the 
House and now awaits Senate passage.
    Unfortunately, foreign interference in U.S. elections is 
not confined to the campaign finance space. We have also seen 
foreign actors try to influence our elections through 
disinformation campaigns and cyber attacks.
    Foreign-backed disinformation campaigns take advantage of 
First Amendment protections and spread false and misleading 
narratives to undermine trust, polarize voters, and sway public 
opinion. This is a serious vulnerability.
    Cyber attacks can illegally target election infrastructure, 
including voter registration data bases or email systems of 
political campaigns, in an attempt to disrupt processes or 
steal sensitive information. We saw an example of this during 
the most recent Presidential election when President-elect 
Trump's campaign was allegedly hacked by Iranian nationals.
    We must ensure that America's election system is secure and 
fair. Democrats and Republicans agree that elections should be 
free from foreign interference. This should not be a partisan 
issue. It is imperative that we continue working to prevent 
foreign interference, and it starts with closing the loopholes 
that exist under current Federal law.
    Throughout this Congress, this Committee has worked to 
improve Americans' confidence in our elections system. Again, 
today, we will focus on laws that are currently on the books to 
prevent foreign interference as well as explore current 
loopholes that exist. There is more work to be done.
    I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us today, 
and I look forward to a robust conversation on these critical 
issues.
    I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, for 5 
minutes for the purpose of providing an opening statement.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Steil follows:]

       PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE 
             ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION BRYAN STEIL

    Today, the Committee on House Administration is continuing 
our oversight of Federal elections.
    For too long now, Americans have been concerned about the 
threat of foreign interference in our elections and attempts to 
destabilize the democratic processes. As Chairman of the 
Committee, I have worked to restore Americans' faith in our 
elections, but foreign adversaries still have loopholes they 
can exploit to influence American elections.
    Today, we will explore two key things: There are current 
laws on the books that prohibit foreign interference. We will 
explore how these laws are working in practice and how they are 
enforced. There are also loopholes that exist under current law 
that still allow foreign actors to influence U.S. elections.
    Let us dive into how that is possible. Federal law 
generally prohibits non-citizens or foreign businesses from 
directly giving to candidates' campaigns, super-PACs, or 
running ads in support for or against candidates. However, it 
is currently legal for foreign nationals to indirectly funnel 
money through 501(c) organizations. These organizations can 
then channel that money to super-PACs or another 501(c) to 
directly help a candidate or influence a policy.
    As Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, I 
introduced, and the Committee passed, the Preventing Foreign 
Interference in American Elections Act that closes this 
specific loophole.
    It is important that we continue to evaluate the current 
legal system and focus on strengthening and enforcement of our 
laws to prevent foreign interference in American elections.
    On the other hand, we have also had to address the illegal 
methods utilized by foreign adversaries to funnel illicit money 
into U.S. campaigns.
    For example, it is currently illegal for someone to donate 
to a political campaign in the name of another person; yet 
there are concerns foreign adversaries are utilizing identities 
of unwitting U.S. citizens in order to donate to U.S. 
campaigns. We have shown that there are vulnerabilities in our 
campaign finance system that will allow a foreign actor to use 
a U.S. citizen as a straw donor in order to contribute. This 
method would be very challenging to detect but may involve the 
use of gift cards in the name of an unwitting straw donor to 
avoid detection when facilitating such transactions.
    Bad actors may also illegally exploit multiple unwitting 
identities to break large donations into smaller amounts, 
allowing them to circumvent individual contribution limits.
    These efforts effectively disguise illegal donations and 
allow foreign actors to violate campaign finance laws that are 
currently in place.
    In the last year, the Committee on House Administration has 
been reviewing online donation platform policies that have 
vulnerabilities that may allow foreign interference to occur. I 
uncovered recently that major Democratic fundraising platform 
ActBlue did not automatically reject the use of prepaid gift 
cards or require users input the card verification value, the 
CVV--that is that three-or four-digit code on the back of your 
credit card--that could have been creating a loophole that 
foreign bad actors could have exploited.
    In August of this year, I wrote a letter to the Financial 
Crimes Enforcement Network, FinCEN, requesting information on 
its work to combat illicit election funding efforts, 
particularly from foreign actors. To this day, the Committee 
has not yet received a response to our questions or a briefing 
from FinCEN. This is unacceptable.
    In October, I requested information from the Treasury 
Department on potential election interference through 
fraudulent donations and asked to review any suspicious 
activity reports related to ActBlue. The Treasury Department 
has yet to allow this Committee or the Committee on Oversight, 
chaired by James Comer, to review those SARs.
    Following my investigation into the methods used by foreign 
adversaries to funnel money into U.S. elections, I introduced 
the SHIELD Act, which will prohibit political committees from 
accepting contributions without the disclosure of the CVV or 
from gift cards. I am pleased to say that this bill passed the 
House and now awaits Senate passage.
    Unfortunately, foreign interference in U.S. elections is 
not confined to the campaign finance space. We have also seen 
foreign actors try to influence our elections through 
disinformation campaigns and cyber attacks.
    Foreign-backed disinformation campaigns take advantage of 
First Amendment protections and spread false and misleading 
narratives to undermine trust, polarize voters, and sway public 
opinion. This is a serious vulnerability.
    Cyber attacks can illegally target election infrastructure, 
including voter registration data bases or email systems of 
political campaigns, in an attempt to disrupt processes or 
steal sensitive information. We saw an example of this during 
the most recent Presidential election when President-elect 
Trump's campaign was allegedly hacked by Iranian nationals.
    We must ensure that America's election system is secure and 
fair. Democrats and Republicans agree that elections should be 
free from foreign interference. This should not be a partisan 
issue. It is imperative that we continue working to prevent 
foreign interference, and it starts with closing the loopholes 
that exist under current Federal law.
    Throughout this Congress, this Committee has worked to 
improve Americans' confidence in our elections system. Again, 
today, we will focus on laws that are currently on the books to 
prevent foreign interference as well as explore current 
loopholes that exist. There is more work to be done.
    I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us today, 
and I look forward to a robust conversation on these critical 
issues.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MORELLE, RANKING
         MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION,
         A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK

    Mr. Morelle. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Steil.
    Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here, 
particularly so close to the holidays. We greatly appreciate 
your participation.
    At the outset, let me say, House Democrats care deeply 
about the integrity of our elections. That will always be our 
North Star. Foreign interference in our elections strikes at 
the very heart of democratic self-government. When we find 
opportunities to deter foreign interference and protect the 
integrity of our elections, House Democrats have worked and 
will continue to work to find bipartisan solutions.
    As the chair referenced, earlier this week I was proud to 
support him in passage of H.R. 9488, the SHIELD Act, which will 
provide additional privacy and security protections for 
Americans who donate to political campaigns online. The final 
bill was a product of extensive bipartisan negotiations and 
reflects, I think, critical revisions that had been secured by 
Committee Democrats as we worked through the process. Again, 
grateful to him and to the staff for that work.
    Regrettably, however, today's hearing is not truly about 
only protecting and promoting election integrity but an effort 
at additional partisan posturing, as the majority appears 
fixated on ActBlue, the prominent fundraising platform, and the 
majority has made in the past some specious claims 
unaccompanied by facts--all smoke, in many respects, no fire.
    If we truly care about deterring election interference, we 
would look in everyone's backyard. We would look in--and the 
Republicans would look in their own backyard. I will apologize 
if I missed this, but I have not seen an oversight letter or 
subpoena to WinRed, the prominent conservative fundraising 
platform which was created in response to the tremendous 
success of ActBlue.
    According to CNN, WinRed had nearly seven times more 
Federal Trade Commission complaints than ActBlue from January 
1922 through June 2024.
    One 82-year-old woman, who wore pajamas with holes in them 
because she did not want to spend money on new ones, did not 
realize she had given Republicans more than $350,000 while 
living in a 1,000-square-foot Baltimore condo since 2020. 
Committee Republicans have not said anything about that or the 
blatant scheme to swindle older Americans.
    Focusing on ActBlue is about politics, pure and simple. 
There are things to get to here, we agree, but not picking one 
side and ignoring entirely the actions of the other side.
    Now, my colleagues are also focused on foreign funding of 
ballot initiatives, and, to their credit, this is a very 
pressing issue. Some of the testimony before this Committee 
seeks to blame the problem squarely on the shoulders of a 
single donor, but, in my neighborhood, we would call that 
something else but here I will just refer to that approach as 
``malarkey.'' We all agree, ballot initiatives are a basic 
expression of our uniquely American expression of self-
government and experience with self-government.
    Without a doubt, ballot initiatives should be protected 
from foreign intervention, we agree. Federal campaign finance 
law bars foreign nationals from contributing or donating money 
in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.
    In 2015, I note, however, three Republican Commissioners on 
the FEC voted to dismiss an enforcement action brought against 
foreign corporate special interests who spent $327,000 to 
oppose a California public health ballot measure.
    In doing so, those Republican Commissioners opened a 
loophole foreign special interests have exploited. For example, 
in Maine, a Canadian-owned utility funneled over $20 million 
opposing a Maine citizen ballot initiative in 2020, dwarfing 
all other spenders on that campaign. Similar outside, foreign 
special-interest spending defeated a local Oregon ballot 
measure opposing the development of a natural gas pipeline in 
2017.
    As we will hear more today, foreign corporate money 
defeated a 2018 water quality ballot initiative in Montana. You 
will hear from a native Montanan about the harms foreign 
corporate spending poses in ballot initiatives--a disquieting 
story of a foreign company that donated $288,000 to oppose the 
ballot initiative, which, if passed, quote, ``would increase 
Montana's ability to avoid polluting the State's waters,'' end 
quote--to put profits over people.
    As one Democratic Federal Election Commissioner put it, a--
Commission Commissioner put it, ``A company based halfway 
around the world made a sizable donation, interjecting itself, 
in hopes of future profits, into a political debate in Montana 
over mining and the quality of Montana's waters.''
    This story has a lamentable but unsurprising ending: The 
FEC dismissed the matter, allowing the foreign corporation's 
spending to influence a local Montana election to go 
unpunished. This outcome has real-world consequences. Montana's 
water is now more likely to be less clean, harming public 
health, the environment, agriculture, ranching, the outdoor 
recreation industry, and everyday quality of life in Montana.
    Unfortunately, three Republican FEC Commissioners opened a 
loophole for foreign corporations to exploit. We need to close 
this loophole, we agree. We cannot stop there. Since the 
Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United decision, our 
campaign finance system, to put it lightly, has been broken, 
and it is going to continue to be broken until we make a fix.
    It is broken in a significant way. This year, one donor, 
one single donor, billionaire Elon Musk, spent at least $277 
million of his own money backing Donald Trump and other 
Republican candidates. Also this year, just coincidentally, 
Musk's net worth climbed by more than $200 billion, with the 
vast bulk of the increase, $170 billion, coming just since 
election day. According to OpenSecrets, five donors gave over 
$100 million during the 2024 election.
    We need to fix this broken special-interest big-money 
campaign finance system. The vast majority of Americans support 
that and understand that getting money--big money out of 
politics is important for them to have their influence over 
their Government.
    We need to stem all avenues of potential foreign 
interference. We need meaningful disclosure of campaign funds 
and a functioning FEC. That is why Democrats will continue to 
support the Freedom to Vote Act.
    If we are serious about preventing foreign interference, 
please, let us do this in a bipartisan manner. I welcome it, 
and I would urge us to do it together. Sadly, given some of the 
work as it relates to elections here, I suspect that will not 
happen.
    Before yielding back, I want to ask unanimous consent to 
enter into the record the CNN article titled ``How Elderly 
Dementia Patients Are Unwittingly Fueling Political 
Campaigns,'' which includes an observation that, quote, 
``elderly, vulnerable consumers have unwittingly given away 
six-figure sums to political campaigns--most often to 
Republicans.''
    I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a 
Washington Post article entitled ``Elon Musk Put $277 Million 
Into the Election. He's $200 Billion Richer This Year.''
    And, with that, I yield back my time.
    Chairman Steil. Without objection.
    [The CNN and Washington Post articles referred to follow:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
   
    
    [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Morelle follows:]

        PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE
     COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION JOSEPH MORELLE

    At the outset, let me say, House Democrats care deeply 
about the integrity of our elections. That will always be our 
North Star. Foreign interference in our elections strikes at 
the very heart of democratic self-government. When we find 
opportunities to deter foreign interference and protect the 
integrity of our elections, House Democrats have worked and 
will continue to work to find bipartisan solutions.
    As the chair referenced, earlier this week I was proud to 
support him in passage of H.R. 9488, the SHIELD Act, which will 
provide additional privacy and security protections for 
Americans who donate to political campaigns online. The final 
bill was a product of extensive bipartisan negotiations and 
reflects, I think, critical revisions that had been secured by 
Committee Democrats as we worked through the process. Again, 
grateful to him and to the staff for that work.
    Regrettably, however, today's hearing is not truly about 
only protecting and promoting election integrity but an effort 
at additional partisan posturing, as the majority appears 
fixated on ActBlue, the prominent fundraising platform, and the 
majority has made in the past some specious claims 
unaccompanied by facts--all smoke, in many respects, no fire.
    If we truly care about deterring election interference, we 
would look in everyone's backyard. We would look in--and the 
Republicans would look in their own backyard. I will apologize 
if I missed this, but I have not seen an oversight letter or 
subpoena to WinRed, the prominent conservative fundraising 
platform which was created in response to the tremendous 
success of ActBlue.
    According to CNN, WinRed had nearly seven times more 
Federal Trade Commission complaints than ActBlue from January 
1922 through June 2024.
    One 82-year-old woman, who wore pajamas with holes in them 
because she did not want to spend money on new ones, did not 
realize she had given Republicans more than $350,000 while 
living in a 1,000-square-foot Baltimore condo since 2020. 
Committee Republicans have not said anything about that or the 
blatant scheme to swindle older Americans.
    Focusing on ActBlue is about politics, pure and simple. 
There are things to get to here, we agree, but not picking one 
side and ignoring entirely the actions of the other side.
    Now, my colleagues are also focused on foreign funding of 
ballot initiatives, and, to their credit, this is a very 
pressing issue. Some of the testimony before this Committee 
seeks to blame the problem squarely on the shoulders of a 
single donor, but, in my neighborhood, we would call that 
something else but here I will just refer to that approach as 
``malarkey.'' We all agree, ballot initiatives are a basic 
expression of our uniquely American expression of self-
government and experience with self-government.
    Without a doubt, ballot initiatives should be protected 
from foreign intervention, we agree. Federal campaign finance 
law bars foreign nationals from contributing or donating money 
in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.
    In 2015, I note, however, three Republican Commissioners on 
the FEC voted to dismiss an enforcement action brought against 
foreign corporate special interests who spent $327,000 to 
oppose a California public health ballot measure.
    In doing so, those Republican Commissioners opened a 
loophole foreign special interests have exploited. For example, 
in Maine, a Canadian-owned utility funneled over $20 million 
opposing a Maine citizen ballot initiative in 2020, dwarfing 
all other spenders on that campaign. Similar outside, foreign 
special-interest spending defeated a local Oregon ballot 
measure opposing the development of a natural gas pipeline in 
2017.
    As we will hear more today, foreign corporate money 
defeated a 2018 water quality ballot initiative in Montana. You 
will hear from a native Montanan about the harms foreign 
corporate spending poses in ballot initiatives--a disquieting 
story of a foreign company that donated $288,000 to oppose the 
ballot initiative, which, if passed, quote, ``would increase 
Montana's ability to avoid polluting the State's waters,'' end 
quote--to put profits over people.
    As one Democratic Federal Election Commissioner put it, a--
Commission Commissioner put it, ``A company based halfway 
around the world made a sizable donation, interjecting itself, 
in hopes of future profits, into a political debate in Montana 
over mining and the quality of Montana's waters.''
    This story has a lamentable but unsurprising ending: The 
FEC dismissed the matter, allowing the foreign corporation's 
spending to influence a local Montana election to go 
unpunished. This outcome has real-world consequences. Montana's 
water is now more likely to be less clean, harming public 
health, the environment, agriculture, ranching, the outdoor 
recreation industry, and everyday quality of life in Montana.
    Unfortunately, three Republican FEC Commissioners opened a 
loophole for foreign corporations to exploit. We need to close 
this loophole, we agree. We cannot stop there. Since the 
Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United decision, our 
campaign finance system, to put it lightly, has been broken, 
and it is going to continue to be broken until we make a fix.
    It is broken in a significant way. This year, one donor, 
one single donor, billionaire Elon Musk, spent at least $277 
million of his own money backing Donald Trump and other 
Republican candidates. Also this year, just coincidentally, 
Musk's net worth climbed by more than $200 billion, with the 
vast bulk of the increase, $170 billion, coming just since 
election day. According to OpenSecrets, five donors gave over 
$100 million during the 2024 election.
    We need to fix this broken special-interest big-money 
campaign finance system. The vast majority of Americans support 
that and understand that getting money--big money out of 
politics is important for them to have their influence over 
their Government.
    We need to stem all avenues of potential foreign 
interference. We need meaningful disclosure of campaign funds 
and a functioning FEC. That is why Democrats will continue to 
support the Freedom to Vote Act.
    If we are serious about preventing foreign interference, 
please, let us do this in a bipartisan manner. I welcome it, 
and I would urge us to do it together. Sadly, given some of the 
work as it relates to elections here, I suspect that will not 
happen.

    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Without objection, all other Members' opening statements 
will be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted 
to the Committee clerk by 5 p.m. today.
    Today, we have one witness panel. We welcome Mr. Matthew 
O'Neill, Ms. Caitlin Sutherland, Mr. Bradley Bowman, and Mr. 
Derf Johnson.
    Our first witness, Matthew O'Neill, is a former managing 
director of the Secret Service Global Cyber Investigative 
Operations, a position in which he directed and participated in 
worldwide cyber investigations.
    Our next witness, Ms. Caitlin Sutherland, is the executive 
director for Americans for Public Trust. Americans for Public 
Trust has been at the forefront of reporting on foreign 
influence in U.S. elections.
    Our next witness, Mr. Bradley Bowman, is the senior 
director for the Center on Military and Political Power at the 
Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Mr. Bowman has expertise 
on the broad spectrum of actions undertaken by foreign state 
actors to influence American elections.
    Our last witness, Derf Johnson, is the deputy director for 
the Montana Environmental Information Center.
    We appreciate all of you being here today and look forward 
to your testimony.
    Pursuant to paragraph (b) of Committee Rule 6, the 
witnesses will please stand and raise their right hand.
    [Witnesses sworn.]
    Chairman Steil. Let the record show the witnesses all 
answered in the affirmative.
    You may be seated.
    Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written 
statements and they will appear in full in the hearing record. 
Under Committee Rule 9, you are to limit your oral presentation 
to a brief summary of your written statement.
    I will now begin and recognize Mr. Matthew O'Neill for 5 
minutes for an opening statement.

     STATEMENT  OF  MATTHEW K. O'NEILL,  CO-FOUNDER  AND 
      PARTNER, 5OH CONSULTING; CAITLIN SUTHERLAND, EXEC-
      UTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICANS FOR PUBLIC TRUST;  BRAD-
      LEY BOWMAN,  SENIOR DIRECTOR,  CENTER ON  MILITARY
      AND POLITICAL POWER, FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DE-
      MOCRACIES; AND DERF JOHNSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, MON-
      TANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER

                STATEMENT OF MATTHEW K. O'NEILL

    Mr. O'Neill. Good morning, Chairman Steil, Ranking Member 
Morelle, and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you 
for the opportunity to discuss the urgent threat----
    Chairman Steil. I am going to--would you just pull the 
microphone a little bit closer----
    Mr. O'Neill. Oh, I am sorry.
    Chairman Steil [continuing]. since--I want to make sure 
people online are able to hear you as well.
    Mr. O'Neill. Copy that.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you.
    Mr. O'Neill. OK.
    Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the urgent threat 
of financial interference in U.S. elections through financial 
crimes. Addressing this issue is not just about protecting our 
democracy; it is a national security imperative.
    Foreign actors exploit gaps in our financial systems to 
fund operations designed to disrupt U.S. elections. These 
efforts often overlap with broader financial crime schemes like 
money laundering and fraud, which cost the U.S. economy 
billions every year. In 2023 alone, Americans lost over $12.5 
billion to financial crimes----
    Chairman Steil. Apologies. The speaker in the room is what 
is low. We are going to turn it up.
    Mr. O'Neill. OK. I will speak louder.
    Chairman Steil. I apologize. A little bit louder----
    Mr. O'Neill. OK.
    Chairman Steil [continuing]. and I think some of us can----
    Mr. O'Neill. OK. Thank you.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you.
    Mr. O'Neill. The world once looked to the U.S. as a leader 
in combating financial crime, but, today, other countries are 
advancing faster, implementing modernized frameworks and 
technologies, while the U.S. struggles with outdated systems 
and insufficient collaboration. Without action, we risk falling 
further behind.
    Foreign actors exploit weaknesses in U.S. systems to fund 
election interference and other malign activities by leveraging 
shell companies; emerging platforms and digital ecosystems, 
such as crowdfunding sites and unregulated fintech platforms 
with minimal AML or KYC requirements; money mule networks. 
These networks launder money through witting and unwitting 
individuals, complicating traceability.
    Our key challenges include: Outdated systems. Tools like 
section 314(a) of the USA PATRIOT Act rely on slow batch 
processing, delaying law enforcement's ability to act. SARs 
often lack key metadata, such as IP addresses, that are 
critical to tracking cyber-enabled financial crimes.
    There are regulatory gaps such as: Platforms like 
crowdfunding sites and payment processors operate in a gray 
area with little or no oversight. Cryptocurrencies, while 
valuable for innovation, are being exploited to bypass 
traditional financial controls.
    There are limited incentives for financial institutions 
such as 314(b), which allows voluntary information-sharing. 
Participation is inconsistent because institutions lack 
tangible incentives to collaborate.
    To address these challenges, I recommend the following 
actions:
    One, modernize section 314(a) and 314(b). Fund FinCEN to 
implement real-time, automated query systems under 314(a) to 
enhance responsiveness. Expand 314(a) and 314(b) to include 
crowdfunding platforms, payment processors, and fintech 
companies, applying these updates across the Bank Secrecy Act. 
Incentivize financial institutions to engage in 314(b) 
information-sharing through tax breaks or grants.
    Close regulatory gaps. Extend AML and KYC requirements to 
include cryptocurrency exchanges, crowdfunding platforms, and 
payment processors. Mandate unique transaction identifiers to 
improve traceability across all payment systems.
    Enhance reporting standards. Require SARs to include 
metadata, such as IP addresses and geolocation data, for better 
traceability. Develop feedback mechanisms to show financial 
institutions how their reports contribute to investigations, 
encouraging more meaningful filings.
    Leverage advanced technology. Equip law enforcement with AI 
and blockchain analytics to identify patterns of illicit 
behavior. Support privacy-preserving technologies like fully 
homomorphic encryption to secure data-sharing without 
compromising privacy.
    Last and probably most important, encourage private-to-
private collaboration. Expand safe-harbor protections similar 
to 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act to include social media 
platforms, ISPs, telecommunications providers, domain 
registrars, and other technology companies.
    This would allow entities to lawfully share information 
with each other about suspicious activity, potential threats, 
and malicious actors, fostering collaboration across industries 
while mitigating liability concerns. Such a framework would 
significantly enhance the identification and disruption of 
election interference and other illicit activities.
    Addressing election interference through financial crime is 
not just about closing gaps; it is about reestablishing U.S. 
leadership on the global stage. The tools we need already 
exist, but modernization incentives are necessary to fully 
realize their potential.
    By expanding information-sharing frameworks, closing 
regulatory gaps, and leveraging technology, we can protect our 
democracy and restore public trust in our financial systems.
    Thank you for your time and attention, and I look forward 
to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. O'Neill follows:]

            PREPARED STATEMENT OF MATTHEW K. O'NEILL

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Neill.
    Ms. Caitlin Sutherland, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Before we begin, the speaker in the room is the challenge 
for us. We are used to having it incredibly loud. The 
microphones are working, and those watching online are able to 
hear.

                STATEMENT OF CAITLIN SUTHERLAND

    Ms. Sutherland. Chairman Steil, Ranking Member Morelle, and 
Members of the Committee, my name is Caitlin Sutherland. I am 
the founding executive director of Americans for Public Trust, 
a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to restoring 
trust in Government by holding politicians and political groups 
accountable.
    Since our inception, APT has devoted extensive resources to 
uncovering and publicizing outside money and influence in 
politics and policy, including tracing foreign dark money.
    I thank you for the invitation and opportunity to again 
join you to discuss the important topic of foreign interference 
in U.S. elections.
    The majority of Americans agree that foreign nationals 
should be prohibited from influencing our elections. In fact, 
that has been Federal law for 40 years. Unfortunately, Federal 
law is inadequate when defining what foreign nationals can and 
cannot do.
    Essentially, foreign nationals are only prohibited from 
contributing to a candidate, committee, or super-PAC or 
participating in a campaign's decision-making process. This 
means foreign nationals can largely still influence a whole 
host of other election-related vehicles with zero 
repercussions.
    It is currently legal for foreign nationals to pay for get-
out-the-vote operations, voter registration, issue advocacy, 
voter education, ballot harvesting, door-knocking--like how the 
U.K.'s Labour Party actively recruited British nationals to 
knock on doors to support Kamala Harris--and State and local 
ballot issue campaigns. Congress should act to close all these 
foreign influence loopholes.
    The issue of foreign nationals influencing our elections is 
not a hypothetical one but a real and ongoing threat made 
easier when organizations like ActBlue have failed to put basic 
protections in place.
    As I have testified before, a significant source of foreign 
cash is flowing into our politics from Swiss billionaire 
Hansjorg Wyss, who is not a U.S. citizen but whose goal is to, 
quote, ``reinterpret the American Constitution in the light of 
progressive politics,'' end quote.
    According to The New York Times, Mr. Wyss's, quote, 
``political activism is channeled through a daisy chain of 
opaque organizations that mask the ultimate recipients of his 
money,'' end quote. Through a detailed accounting of publicly 
available records, APT has been able to trace that at least a 
quarter of a billion dollars of this foreign money has been 
funneled through the Arabella Advisors-managed Sixteen Thirty 
Fund.
    Sixteen Thirty Fund--the, quote, ``indisputable heavyweight 
of Democratic dark money,'' end quote, according to The 
Atlantic--receives this foreign money and then turns around and 
bankrolls political battles all across the country.
    How much? Well, in the absence of laws restricting foreign 
nationals from contributing to ballot issue campaigns, Sixteen 
Thirty Fund has poured $130 million into ballot issue campaigns 
in 25 States. Ballot issues, while an important democratic 
tool, are also used to drive voter turnout to influence 
candidate races and often push the most extreme version of 
policies that would not withstand the legislative process.
    During the 2024 election cycle, Sixteen Thirty Fund spent 
over $37 million in foreign-backed cash targeting ballot issues 
in Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, 
Nevada, and Ohio.
    Sixteen Thirty Fund also heavily invests in super-PACs, 
with their total giving approaching $90 million over the last 
four cycles. During this year's elections, their millions went 
toward financing competitive U.S. House races in Nebraska, 
Iowa, Montana, and Wisconsin; supporting a so-called 
independent U.S. Senate candidate in Nebraska; as well as 
propping up a Libertarian Presidential candidate to act as a 
spoiler to Donald Trump.
    Mr. Wyss's foreign money has also been allocated to groups 
like Indivisible, known for disrupting congressional townhalls; 
to Eric Holder's National Redistricting Action Fund, which 
works to skew congressional maps to favor Democrats; to Climate 
Power, which ran television ads backing Biden's Build Back 
Better agenda and is now seeking to torpedo the nomination of 
Governor Doug Burgum for Interior Secretary; and even to fake 
news outlets, like States Newsroom, which operates under local-
sounding papers in your State, like Wisconsin Examiner, Florida 
Phoenix, Oklahoma Voice, and Ohio Capital Journal.
    Any vehicle that broadly influences the electoral process, 
from door-knocking to ballot issues, should not be paid for by 
foreign dollars. These are simple, commonsense loopholes to 
close. I think we can all agree, foreign billionaires, the 
U.K.'s Labour Party, and CCP officials should stay out of our 
politics.
    I look forward to discussing ways to prevent foreign 
influence in our elections.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Sutherland follows:]

            PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAITLIN SUTHERLAND

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Ms. Sutherland.
    Mr. Bowman, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF BRADLEY BOWMAN

    Mr. Bowman. Chairman Steil, Ranking Member Morelle, and 
distinguished Members of this Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today regarding efforts by foreign 
adversaries to undermine American democracy and the confidence 
we have in our elections. I applaud the Committee's focus on 
this important issue, and I welcome the opportunity to 
hopefully provide some useful context.
    China, Russia, and Iran are waging an information war 
against the United States that includes a focus on the U.S. 
electoral process, yet many Americans do not realize we are 
under attack. This lack of awareness is ideal for Beijing, 
Moscow, and Tehran. After all, predators like nothing better 
than hunting slumbering prey.
    In June, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies 
published a major report entitled ``Cognitive Combat: China, 
Russia, and Iran's Information War Against Americans.'' Much of 
my testimony is based on research conducted for that report, as 
well as the analysis of FDD's Center on Cyber and Technology 
Innovation, including the excellent work of Max Lesser, a 
senior analyst on emerging threats, who co-authored our written 
statement for today's hearing.
    I define ``information warfare'' as the messages and means 
to convey those messages that nation-states use to advance 
political, economic, and security objectives and to strengthen 
the Government's foundations of power, reinforce those of 
allies and partners, and undermine those of adversaries.
    By that definition, based on our research, Americans and 
our elections are already under attack by China, Russia, and 
Iran. Our authoritarian adversaries seek to divide Americans, 
pitting us against one another, so that we are as domestically 
dysfunctional as possible. Our adversaries hope we consume our 
finite time, energy, and resources fighting one another rather 
than working together to strengthen our country at home and 
defend our interests abroad.
    They also seek to degrade our democracy's reputation. They 
want our model of representative democracy to look less 
appealing compared to their authoritarianism and autocracy.
    Our adversaries also seek to deceive Americans into 
believing, falsely, that we have no important interests or 
values to defend in places such as Taiwan, Ukraine, and Israel. 
Authoritarian regimes hope to deprive our partners of American 
diplomatic, economic, and military support, thereby making 
those partners more vulnerable to aggression.
    Why do our adversaries focus so much on our elections?
    Carl von Clausewitz, the 19th-century Prussian military 
theorist, promulgated the concept of a center of gravity. He 
defined it as, quote, ``the hub of all power and movement, on 
which everything depends.'' Clausewitz's center of gravity is 
sometimes characterized by analysts as the source of power and 
strength, the point against which all effort should be directed 
or protected.
    The American center of gravity is our Constitution and the 
rule of law, as well as free, fair, and trusted elections and 
the peaceful transfer of power. That is the foundation for who 
we are as Americans, and it is a major reason why we enjoy such 
extraordinary freedom and stability. Our adversaries understand 
that, and that is why they target our elections.
    During this election cycle, Russia sought to undermine Vice 
President Harris's campaign and Iran attacked President-elect 
Donald Trump's campaign. China, for its part, attacked both 
candidates, in addition to some congressional candidates who 
are critical of China. In short, both parties were attacked, 
and all three adversaries sought to undermine the faith of 
Americans in our electoral process.
    It is difficult to define with precision the effects of 
these adversary efforts, but initial research by my colleague 
Max Lesser suggests that America proved remarkably resilient. 
In many instances, efforts of Federal and State governments, 
the private sector, and the research community appear to have 
thwarted Russian, Iranian, and Chinese efforts to shape voters' 
preferences and undermine Americans' faith in the fairness and 
integrity of the democratic process. A Reuters-Ipsos poll 
released several days after the election found that the 
majority of Americans believe the election was legitimate and 
accurate.
    That is the good news. We should not become complacent. We 
should expect China, Russia, and Iran to continue to attack our 
electoral process with increasing ferocity and AI-empowered 
effectiveness.
    What is to be done? In addition to strengthening our 
electoral defenses at home, the United States should go on the 
information-warfare offensive against China, Russia, and Iran 
to begin to shift their cost-benefit analysis as they 
contemplate future attacks on our democracy.
    Such a campaign could systematically expose each regime's 
corruption, lies, and oppression and help the Chinese, Russian, 
and Iranian people advocate for their own rights, including 
more representative governance. Such a campaign would seek to 
ensure their respective populations know the truth regarding 
each regime's foreign and domestic policies.
    If Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran do not like having to fend 
off offensive information-warfare operations in their 
respective countries, perhaps they should stop attacking us.
    There are more details in our written statement.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bowman follows:]

              PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRADLEY BOWMAN

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Mr. Bowman.
    Mr. Johnson, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF DERF JOHNSON

    Mr. Johnson. Chairman Steil, Ranking Member Morelle, and 
Members of the Committee on House Administration, my name is 
Derf Johnson, deputy director of the Montana Environmental 
Information Center.
    Thank you for the opportunity to offer my experience with 
foreign interference in U.S. elections today. I share your goal 
in assuring that Americans hold confidence in our electoral 
system.
    My comments will focus on the interference of an Australian 
corporation in a Montana ballot initiative.
    As a native Montanan, I hold a common sentiment of caring 
for and valuing the land we call home. Montana is the site of 
America's first national park and a robust flora and fauna that 
existed at the time of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. It is 
the setting of ``A River Runs Through It,'' which aptly 
summarize many Montanans' sympathies of no clear line between 
religion and fly fishing.
    Since territorial days, Montana has suffered from 
exploitation and corruption, owing in large part to a mineral 
wealth and high interest in corporate profiteering. This turn-
of-the-century stranglehold is often referred to in Montana as 
the ``Copper Caller,'' referencing the enormous control of 
Butte's copper barons and their exertion of political power 
over our media, our business, and our politics.
    Even today, Montana is vulnerable to unwarranted corporate 
and political influence. Our small population, our cheap media 
market, and interest from corporations in our natural resources 
can often lead to our local interests being trammeled.
    Over the centuries, Montana has also had an unfortunate 
relationship with hard rock mining, from the Berkeley Pit, the 
U.S.'s largest Superfund site, to the more recent developments 
such as Montana Tunnels, a defunct mine just south of my home 
which is now insufficiently bonded at $20 million in bankruptcy 
and responsible for destroying a trout stream.
    Pockmarks of defunct mining projects across the State 
demonstrate these failures and continue to represent an ongoing 
liability for our residents and sovereign Tribal nations.
    Due to our history, many Montanans are rightfully skeptical 
of mining proposals. Mining must contend with certain 
safeguards in Montana, including an environmental rights 
provision written into our constitution. Montana also has a 
ballot initiative process that we have used in the past for 
regulating hard rock mining, including a potential ballot 
initiative to protect the Smith River.
    Montana's Smith River flows 59 miles through a towering 
limestone canyon in central Montana. For that entire stretch, 
it does not have any public access points. Due to the largely 
undeveloped landscape, an excellent trout fishery, and a multi-
day float opportunity, people from all across the world, about 
10,000 folks, apply every year in a lottery in the hopes of 
being able to float down the river in some of Montana's wildest 
country.
    In 2015, an Australian mining corporation proposed a mine 
at the headwaters of Montana's Smith River, adjacent to and 
directly underneath Sheep Creek--and that is the Smith River's 
most important tributary--and we have been fighting this mine 
ever since.
    It is against this backdrop that a group of Montana 
citizens and organizations worked to pass a citizen-initiated 
ballot initiative, I-186. It would have required safeguards to 
prevent unnecessary impacts from mining by stopping what we 
call ``perpetual pollution,'' acid mine drainage. Acid mine 
drainage is an unfortunate common occurrence in Montana, both 
historically and in the current day, and has served as a death 
sentence for several of our rivers and steams.
    Sandfire took a high level of interest in I-186 due to its 
implications for the proposed mine, as the company has 
repeatedly acknowledged that the mine is being proposed in what 
we call a massive sulfide zone, which is the precursor to acid 
mine drainage. Sandfire donated $285,000 of treasury money to 
campaign against I-186, even though it acknowledged that it did 
not have any sources of revenue in the United States and a 
cash-flow of zero.
    Supporters of I-186 filed an FEC complaint in October 2018, 
which was dismissed. Commenting on the dismissal, one of the 
Commissioners expressed her alarm at her ``colleagues' voting 
to allow such foreign interference in American political 
life.''
    Following I-186, the Montana legislature tried to react, 
enacting a ban on foreign-national contributions to candidate 
elections, but that fell short of contributions to ballot 
campaigns due to intense lobbying from the mining industry.
    The universe of fundraising available for corporate 
participation in our ballot initiative process is much, much 
broader than it needs to be, and the interests that those funds 
serve is often far-flung from the concerns of everyday 
Montanans. These folks do not need to drink the water or 
breathe the air in Montana.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the 
Committee. I am available for any questions you might have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

               PREPARED STATEMENT OF DERF JOHNSON

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.
    I will begin our questions today. I will ask about 5 
minutes of question, and then we will alternate between the 
parties. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purpose 
of asking our witnesses questions.
    Let me get this straight, because I think this is really 
important to the American people. Do all of you agree that 
there is foreign influence in U.S. elections? You agree, yes?
    Ms. Sutherland. Yes.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes.
    Mr. Bowman. Yes.
    Mr. O'Neill. Yes.
    Chairman Steil. The record will reflect all four agree that 
there are.
    And, Mr. Bowman, you recognize that, in particular, there 
are certain countries that are uniquely interested in 
interfering in U.S. elections--in particular, Russia, Iran, and 
North Korea. Is that accurate?
    Mr. Bowman. That is accurate, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Steil. Also China.
    Mr. Bowman. Yes. Yes.
    Chairman Steil. If we think about this, we should be 
looking at, what are the ways that foreign interference could 
take place in the United States? One is through breaking 
current U.S. law. The other is through legal loopholes that 
exist under current law.
    First, on the illegal side, this Committee was working to 
make sure there was only U.S. citizens voting in U.S. 
elections. Under current law, that is required, but we were 
putting forward the SAVE Act to make sure that we are ensuring 
that is the case.
    As we look to online giving, we have seen significant 
vulnerabilities in online giving platforms and, in particular, 
ActBlue.
    Mr. O'Neill, would you agree that we should be working to 
close online vulnerabilities in an online giving platform, such 
as requiring a CVV number, banning the use of prepaid foreign 
gift cards? Are those logical steps that should be taken?
    Mr. O'Neill. Yes.
    Chairman Steil. Then, I think what really is surprising to 
the American people--because when I talk to people about this, 
they do not recognize that we have massive legal loopholes. 
And, Ms. Sutherland, you laid that out very clearly, as to how 
this can take place. Mr. Johnson recognized how it is impacting 
him in the State of Montana.
    Let us dive into this loophole. To confirm here, under 
current U.S. law, a foreign national can transfer money into a 
501(c) organization in the United States. That 501(c) 
organization can then transfer 40 percent of that money into 
another 501(c) that can operate as a super-PAC or directly 
engage in U.S. elections. Is that accurate?
    Ms. Sutherland. Yes.
    Chairman Steil. You think that that loophole should be 
closed?
    Ms. Sutherland. Absolutely.
    Chairman Steil. I 100 percent agree.
    Then we also look at another loophole that exists which 
allows foreign nationals to transfer funds directly into ballot 
initiatives.
    I think this is missed by a lot of people, because what we 
saw in the last election is very important ballot initiatives 
in States like Ohio, we saw an important ballot initiative in 
States like Florida, and we saw foreign funds coming into those 
elections.
    Is that accurate?
    Ms. Sutherland. Yes.
    Chairman Steil. How much went into the State of Ohio for 
the ballot initiative from foreign sources, in your estimates?
    Ms. Sutherland. We have been able to trace into Ohio 
millions coming from foreign-backed cash into Ohio. Ohio 
recognized the threat of that, and that is why they stepped up 
and they actually voted this year to ban foreign funding of 
other State ballot initiatives.
    Chairman Steil. To ban it going forward, but not to ban it 
historically.
    This money came into the State of Ohio, under your 
research. Is that accurate?
    Ms. Sutherland. Yes, that is accurate.
    Chairman Steil. Did this money come into the State of 
Florida?
    Ms. Sutherland. Yes.
    Chairman Steil. Is there any reason that Congress should 
not ban foreign money from coming into ballot initiatives in 
States across the country?
    Ms. Sutherland. Absolutely no reason not to ban it.
    Chairman Steil. Does anyone have an argument that we should 
not ban foreign funds from coming into ballot initiatives? Any 
of our witnesses?
    The record will reflect all of them agree that we should 
work to ban this.
    We have legislation to ban this at the Federal level, and 
we continue to get caught up in the gobbledygook. When you look 
at the impact that these foreign funds are having directly in 
U.S. elections, I think most Americans would be shocked.
    Because we know, on the books, a foreign national is not 
allowed to directly contribute into a U.S. candidate. Is that 
accurate, Ms. Sutherland?
    Ms. Sutherland. That is correct.
    Chairman Steil. All they have to do is simply use the 
workaround and implement their funds and channel it through a 
loophole that allows those funds to come in and directly impact 
U.S. elections, correct?
    Ms. Sutherland. Correct.
    Chairman Steil. As we look at the impact that this has in 
our elections, how much money have you identified just one 
foreign individual spending in the past handful of years?
    Ms. Sutherland. Yes, so Hansjorg Wyss, who is a Swiss 
billionaire and not a U.S. citizen, has contributed around a 
quarter of a billion dollars into the Sixteen Thirty Fund. Then 
the Sixteen Thirty Fund turns around and spends it on a whole 
host of activities.
    Chairman Steil. I think when the American people realize 
that this vulnerability exists in our U.S. elections system--
and, as Mr. Bowman pointed out, not only may there be rich 
billionaires across the globe but there could be state actors 
that could engage in this. We could completely envision this 
same technique being utilized by a Chinese national, a North 
Korean national, a Russian national who has a direct interest 
in U.S. policy.
    We go back and we look at the array of groups that were 
interested in killing the Keystone XL Pipeline, and we have 
seen Russian action as it relates to energy production across 
the globe.
    Is that accurate, Ms. Sutherland?
    Ms. Sutherland. Yes.
    Chairman Steil. Now--we could look at a whole host of 
reasons.
    I think it is imperative of this Committee as we move 
forward to not only continue to work on the enforcement of our 
current law--which is including making sure that there are 
proper security procedures in place in ActBlue, that online 
giving platforms are blocking foreign funds from coming in.
    I think one of the real missed pieces of this is the proven 
millions of dollars that are coming in from foreign nationals 
directly impacting U.S. campaigns. We have an opportunity to 
close it. We have legislation to close it, and I think it is 
imperative that we actually pass this and it becomes law, as 
the State of Ohio did.
    I will now yield back.
    I will recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I do note, again, that it was the Republican members of the 
FEC who created the ballot-initiative loophole. They are now 
recommending we fix it. I agree. I think it was wrong when they 
made that decision in 2015, and I think it remains wrong today. 
Indeed, you will get our support as we work through this in the 
months ahead.
    I do want to--as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we all 
agree, again, foreign interests should have no say over the 
administration or outcome of American elections, that American 
elections--the decisions we make about our Government, how we 
organize our society, are the sole province of American 
citizens.
    The newfound attention that we are paying to foreign 
funding of ballot initiatives is late to the game, as I 
mentioned.
    What I just want to do is ask you, Mr. Johnson--because 
this does have a real-life impact, as you can see from photos 
taken from Montana. You know this far better than I do.
    If I could ask you--you know, obviously, I have enormous 
admiration and respect for not only your State but the land, 
which so many people hike, camp, hunt, fish, work. Can you tell 
us a little bit more about the risks that foreign corporations 
like Sandfire pose to the health of the people and the land of 
Montana?
    Mr. Johnson. Representative, as I mentioned both in my 
written and my oral testimony, Montana is not just a place 
where Montanans themselves can sort of enjoy the land and the 
place but we have 12 million visitors a year from all across 
the world. The land is basically an essential piece of our 
economy as well. Millions of dollars in GDP are generated every 
year in Montana from visitors.
    And, as I mentioned, we have had a lot of issues with hard 
rock mining. This ``perpetual pollution'' issue is not going 
away. The Federal Government has spent hundreds of millions of 
dollars to try and figure out how to address acid mine 
drainage, without being able to figure out how to accomplish 
that. It is still an issue in Montana and has caused a lot of 
pollution. That is why Montanans took it upon ourselves to try 
and address this issue.
    The photo that you see there is the Zortman-Landusky mine. 
That particular mine is a poster child for bad mining 
practices, something that we would have hoped to help address 
and to never permit again in Montana, this acid mine drainage 
problem, where we have spent approximately $80 million in 
taxpayer funds and $2 million every year, annually, in treating 
that water, which is flowing directly into the Fort Belknap 
Indian Community, impacting their teepee grounds and fouling 
what would otherwise be a good source of water quality for 
drinking water.
    Mr. Morelle. I-186 would have had a profound impact on 
this?
    Mr. Johnson. That is correct. For the way that it was 
written, it would have prevented any new mining permits from 
being permitted if there was evidence that there would be acid 
mine drainage, or require an associated management of that acid 
mine drainage.
    Because once acid mine drainage starts, it does not stop. 
There are, you know, mines from the Roman Empire that are still 
spilling out acid mine drainage at this point. You have to 
basically lock it up, button it up, and treat it forever. These 
are ongoing liabilities for thousands of years. I-186 would 
have prevented those from occurring again in Montana.
    Mr. Morelle. I think you said in your testimony, and I just 
want to make sure I understood, that the company, Sandfire, 
which was contributing nearly $300,000 to stop the ballot 
initiative, they did not have any interests in Montana at the 
time but were looking to get permits in the State? Is that--to 
continue this practice?
    Mr. Johnson. That is correct. They did not have any 
interest in North America, and my understanding is that they 
still do not.
    Mr. Morelle. Gotcha. Thank you for that testimony.
    Just one quick question. Mr. Bowman, I appreciate your 
testimony very much. I was surprised, I guess--I expected to 
see North Korea in the list. Do they not participate in these 
activities as well? Or it just was not the focus of the report?
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Ranking Member, for the question.
    North Korea does engage in some of these activities, but 
the research of my colleagues at FDD that focus on this really 
highlight that Russia, China, Iran are the ones that engage in 
it the most and are the most effective.
    Mr. Morelle. Then, it is not an exclusive list; it is just 
the ones you identified----
    Mr. Bowman. Not at all. We just focused on the three 
foreign adversaries we found most problematic.
    Mr. Morelle. Yes, no, I very much appreciate that. Thank 
you.
    Before I yield back, I would like to ask unanimous consent 
for the following items to be added to the record: a Business 
Insider article titled ``This Montana Man Spends His Day 
Shooting at Birds that Land on a Toxic Lake to Save Them from 
Burning Inside Out''; the Montana Supreme Court decision 
Western Tradition Partnership, Inc., versus the Attorney 
General of Montana, which includes an extensive discussion of 
Montana's history with well-financed corruption in the mining 
industry; a March 18, 2015, vote certification in MUR 6678, in 
which three Republican FEC Commissioners created the foreign-
money ballot-initiative loophole; the FEC enforcement complaint 
in MUR 7523 filed by Yes for Responsible Mining; and 
Commissioner Ellen Weintraub's statement of reasons lamenting 
the FEC's dismissal of the complaint in MUR 7523, without 
objection.
    Chairman Steil. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information referred to follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Morelle. I yield back the balance of my time. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Griffith is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you so much for calling this important hearing.
    A couple of comments in response to my friend and 
colleague, the Ranking Member, in his opening. If WinRed is 
doing something to make it easier for foreign actors to donate 
by having massive numbers of small donations sent in, more than 
happy to look into that; as well as ActBlue. Have no problem 
with that.
    Further, I would point out that, while you mentioned Elon 
Musk, who is a U.S. citizen, you did not mention George Soros, 
who also is a U.S. citizen, but both of those have given money, 
and each side gets one. Sometimes you all get more than we do. 
You know, when it is U.S. money, that is not the focus of this 
hearing.
    Ms. Sutherland, I was interested in your comments about the 
U.K. Labour Party recruiting and trying to send folks--or 
sending folks over here to work in the Harris campaign. Because 
it is interesting; in today's online version of The London 
Times, there is an article about how they are worried that we 
are going to return the favor and send money over to the Reform 
Party, and so now they are looking at tightening up their laws 
related to foreign activities in the U.K. I do not have 
personal knowledge, but that is according to my reading of this 
morning's London Times online edition.
    Speaking of your work, Ms. Sutherland, I would like to ask 
unanimous consent for Ms. Sutherland's report, Americans for 
Public Trust, ``Foreign Influence in State Ballot Issues: How 
Sixteen Thirty Fund's Pipeline of Foreign Cash Impacts State 
Politics,'' April 2024, be entered into the record.
    Chairman Steil. Without objection.
    [The report referred to follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Griffith. All right.
    That being said, Mr. O'Neill, the Virginia attorney 
general, Jason Miyares, is looking into ActBlue and whether 
online fundraising entities are following Federal law and 
preventing foreign actors and other prohibited donations from 
entering the U.S. elections process.
    Miyares is also looking into whether U.S. citizens' 
identities are being fraudulently used to make donations in 
their name without their approval to various candidates. This 
touches on something else that Mr. Morelle was talking about, 
if somebody really knows that their money is being given in 
their name.
    Miyares's team informed my office that, while the attorney 
general is receiving a number of tips about potential 
fraudulent donations, the only way they have to identify or to 
verify that people listed as donors are actually the donors 
whose name appears on the donation is to send a staffer to the 
home of the person in question and knock on the door to verify 
their identity. There has got to be a better system, a better 
way of verifying that the donations are legitimate.
    I ask you, in your experience with asset forfeiture, are 
there easier ways to verify identities than spending the man-
hours to knock on the door of every name you are investigating?
    And, of course, asset forfeiture does not have quite as 
strict of rules as when you are trying to set up a potential 
criminal case and, thus, have to apply--you have to apply 
criminal evidence standards.
    You got an easier way we can do that?
    Mr. O'Neill. I wish I could say that there was a 
straightforward way to verify digital identities currently.
    What I will say is, the system for identifying individuals 
is really quite broken. Since at least 1999, every single one 
of ours, if we are old enough--name, DOB, Social, address, 
previous address, mother's maiden name, bank account 
information, email address, email password--has been available 
online for sale for probably less than 2 cents apiece.
    That makes it very easy for bad actors to steal other 
people's identities. Because when you look at what cyber 
criminals are doing, which is taking advantage of the elderly, 
the incarcerated, and children to take over identities, it 
makes it fertile ground in order to----
    Mr. Griffith. Certainly, people would want to do that in 
elections too.
    I hate to cut you off----
    Mr. O'Neill. Sure.
    Mr. Griffith [continuing]. but I am trying to get another 
question in before my time runs out.
    Mr. Bowman, Spamouflage is one of China's, apparently, 
propaganda operations, and they have taken a special interest 
in Senator and current Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio.
    Clemson University's Media Forensics Hub reported that, on 
the morning of his most recent election, X exploded with around 
20,000 messages, spanning 6,500 different accounts, with 
strange messages about Mr. Rubio. Further, they found anti-
Rubio articles posted on places such as Medium and Reddit. All 
these posts were traced back to China and Spamouflage, their 
network of accounts.
    This is concerning and a clear example of foreign 
interference in our elections. How do we maintain free speech 
while also ensuring that foreign adversaries are not spreading 
propaganda on our public forums with the intent to either sway 
elections or, as you previously testified, to divide Americans?
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
    As my colleagues highlighted in a research memo published 
this morning at FDD.org----
    Mr. Griffith. I have not read that one yet.
    Mr. Bowman [continuing]. Spamouflage--yes, yes. No, I know 
you are busy, but, yes, just flagging it for you, you and your 
staff--Spamouflage is a big deal. It involves a vast network of 
fake accounts on social media.
    They typically have pushed out low-quality content that, 
with a few exceptions, garnered little--I am happy to report--
little organic engagement on social media. A notable trend with 
Spamouflage this election cycle was that it leveraged 
antisemitic tropes to criticize both the American political 
system and specific candidates.
    To your broader question, eyeing the clock here, I think it 
is important to distinguish between foreign adversaries trying 
to influence our democracy and undermine our democracy in an 
opaque manner and what American citizens are doing in--I know 
you understand that, sir, but I just think it is a very 
important distinction that we should highlight.
    Mr. Griffith. I appreciate that. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back. I apologize. I find 
this to be a very interesting hearing. I appreciate the 
witnesses. I still have about 300 pages to go in the CR, and 
they are now saying they might vote this afternoon, so I have 
got to go back to read that.
    Chairman Steil. It is a busy day.
    Mr. Griffith. I yield back and apologize for leaving.
    Chairman Steil. Busy day. Appreciate your time here.
    The gentleman yields back.
    Mrs. Torres is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Chairman.
    I think that all of us in this room agree that more needs 
to be done to ensure that our elections are free of foreign 
interference. I am just sad that this is our last hearing of 
the year, talking about such an important topic that has 
impacted--I am not sure about all the Members here, but it 
certainly has had a personal impact on me, including members of 
MS-13 being sent to my home while having a swim--or hosting a 
swim party for toddlers--toddlers--as a way to intimidate a 
Member of Congress. We should never tolerate that, no matter 
what side of the aisle that you sit on.
    Mr. O'Neill, in your testimony, you said that, as 
technology advances, there must be spaces for sharing security 
information with our foreign counterparts. I absolutely agree 
with you.
    The U.S. is facing an information war. We cannot continue 
to allow countries--and we mentioned in China, very loosely 
Russia, very loosely Iran. We forget about countries in Latin 
America. We must not forget that Latin America is also very 
involved in our elections.
    Congress must ensure the safety of our country by securing 
the global information environment to uphold the integrity of 
information. That is why I introduced the International 
Artificial Intelligence Research Partnership Act. This bill 
would build partnerships between cities in the U.S. and our 
allies across the world to ensure that the next generation of 
AI tools enhance security and protect freedom.
    I am greatly concerned that the incoming administration 
does not prioritize efforts to protect our core freedoms and 
may work to weaken the Federal agencies combating foreign 
influence. On page 155 of ``Project 2025,'' Republicans want to 
exterminate the very organizations protecting us from foreign 
interference, like the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure 
Security Agency, which assists election officials with election 
security threats.
    Mr. O'Neill, based on your experience with the U.S. Secret 
Service, do you believe that foreign governments are targeting 
our elections and our democracy through information integrity 
warfare?
    What could be the impact if Republicans continue on this 
process of defunding or completely eradicating Government 
entities that help us combat malign influence?
    Mr. O'Neill. When I was with the U.S. Secret Service, we 
investigated several cases. One, in particular, was a Russian 
individual that was leveraging fake identities to create 
infrastructure in the United States, specifically servers, in 
order to launch misinformation campaigns through social media 
platforms. We leveraged the wire fraud statutes, bank fraud 
statutes, identity theft statutes in order to charge him.
    That was--he was part of Project Latva, or something like 
that, from 2018 to 2020. We saw many other cases that were 
similar to that.
    One of the challenges that I fear is that the United States 
is still, as a country and as small, midsize businesses and 
large businesses, unprepared to handle cyber attacks.
    Mrs. Torres. In 2002, Congress strengthened a ban on 
foreign interference, specifically to prevent foreign actors 
from influencing the outcomes of our elections. I am troubled 
by the lack of meaningful enforcement of this provision by 
Federal law by the FEC. This past year, the FEC acted on less 
than half of the cases involving potentially illegal foreign 
interference.
    This inaction appears to be driven by partisanship. Almost 
every matter the FEC has not pursued is associated with a 
former President. This is where we need to be Americans-first, 
not party--not relegate our duties to our parties.
    I want to include for the record here, Mr. Chairman--I 
request unanimous consent to submit the statement on behalf of 
the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Steil. Without objection.
    [The statement referred to follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you.
    And, last, my question to you is: Do you agree that the FEC 
should be investigating credible allegations of foreign 
interference in our elections?
    Ms. Sutherland?
    Ms. Sutherland. Yes.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you.
    Mr. Bowman?
    Mr. Bowman. Not my area of focus, but that makes sense, 
Congresswoman. Thank you.
    Mrs. Torres. Of course, this is a common sense that we all 
agree on. When the agency is tasked with protecting our 
campaign finance system--is broken--creating loopholes, and 
failing to investigate credible allegations, we not just fail 
ourselves, we fail our electorate.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mrs. Bice is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, and 
thank the witnesses for being here this morning.
    First, let me start out by saying, the Ranking Member 
mentioned issues with large donations coming from individuals 
that may or may not be able to afford that. The reality is 
that, oftentimes, these folks are setting up a reoccurring 
donation and do not realize it, because they may not be 
familiar with that, but they also have the option to ask for a 
refund, and oftentimes they do. If you look at many of our FEC 
reports, those individuals are getting their dollars back.
    I want to first start out by addressing Mr. Johnson's 
opening statement. You talked about this very serious issue 
that you have in Montana with mining, but the reality is that 
is a State issue, and the State legislature--me having been a 
former State senator--they should be addressing that. I do not 
think that that is something that necessarily Congress needs to 
engage itself in if it is a State prerogative.
    I also want to, you know, recognize that fair and 
transparent elections are crucial, and that is on every--in 
every avenue. I am glad to see that my friend from Ohio, Rep. 
Carey's legislation was signed into law, that congressional 
election observers will be protected by Federal statute, and I 
also want to thank the staff who volunteered their time this 
last election to be part of that process.
    I want to start with Ms. Sutherland. You talked a little 
bit in your opening statement about Hansjorg Wyss. Can you 
describe a little bit more about the 501(c)(4) organizations 
that he participates in?
    And, particularly, you caught my attention because you 
mentioned Oklahoma Voice and their engagement with that. I 
wonder if there are other ballot initiatives that they may be 
engaging in in the State of Oklahoma, but I would love to know 
a little bit more about the organizations.
    Ms. Sutherland. Absolutely. Hansjorg Wyss, as I said, is a 
reclusive Swiss billionaire, so reclusive he is probably very 
bothered that we are having this hearing and exposing his 
pattern of giving because it is difficult and complicated to 
track. Most of his foreign money comes through a group called 
the Berger Action Fund, which the Associated Press described as 
a nondescript name for a group with a rather specific purpose: 
Steering the wealth of a foreign billionaire into the world of 
politics and policy. And, yes, we have seen his foreign money, 
you know, pop up in many things, including giving to States 
Newsroom through the Wyss Foundation which operates the 
Oklahoma Voice in your State.
    Also, his foreign money has been traced to all these ballot 
initiatives. Through the Sixteen Thirty Fund, we have seen over 
a $130 million in 25 States over the last several election 
cycles.
    Mrs. Bice. Can you talk about what specifically some of 
those ballot initiatives are?
    Ms. Sutherland. Yes. Just this year, in 2024, we were able 
to trace 37 million in foreign-backed funds coming into eight 
competitive ballot issues, focusing on issues like abortion, 
minimum wage, and election policy, like what happened in Ohio.
    Mrs. Bice. Perfect.
    Mr. Bowman, if I can pivot to you. What are the most 
concerning tactics that our foreign adversaries are using to 
influence U.S. elections?
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question.
    Russia's most significant operations in this election cycle 
involved a series of hoax videos published in the weeks before 
the election, several of which went viral. Fortunately, I would 
say, the U.S. Government promptly responded in many cases, as 
some of my colleagues noted. In one instance, a fake video 
depicting someone burning ballots in Pennsylvania was debunked 
by local election officials on the same day the video was 
posted, and the Federal Government released an official 
statement 2 days later attributing to Russia.
    Iran's most significant activity involved, as was 
mentioned, the hack-and-leak operation targeting the Trump 
campaign. While Iran successfully compromised sensitive 
materials from the Trump campaign, mainstream media outlets did 
not publish this information. Iran also targeted swing States 
and minority groups through a series of fake websites, but 
those do not appear to have gained significant traction, for 
the most part.
    Finally, China, as we mentioned already earlier, focused on 
its flagship influence operations with Spamouflage.
    If I may, the main point here, I think, is that we are all 
under attack, right? We should remember that, right? If I may, 
they want us to make this a partisan fight because then we will 
be divided and distracted and weak. We are all under attack. It 
is like when your family's attacked, right? All that matters is 
your family's attacked. The family comes together. You work 
together to solve it.
    This is absolutely, in my view, a national security issue, 
and we make it a--it would be a mistake to make it a partisan 
one.
    Mrs. Bice. Perfect segue into a quick last question, and 
that is to Mr. O'Neill. What do you think legislatively we 
could be doing to actually make sure that our elections are 
more secure moving forward?
    Mr. O'Neill. I think, primarily, it is bringing more of the 
tech--the new fintech and payment systems into the AML regime 
in order to have more KYC so we can understand how money flows 
and so, therefore, we can take enforcement action.
    Mrs. Bice. Great. Thank you.
    With that, I yield.
    Chairman Steil. Congresswoman Bice yields back.
    Congressman Carey from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carey. I want to thank the Chairman and I want to thank 
the Ranking Member for this important--for this important 
hearing, and also thank all the witnesses for being here.
    Ms. Sutherland, I want to touch briefly on a couple things 
because we are going to talk mining, but if you could just talk 
to me a little bit about, on the same day that Governor DeWine 
called for a special election in Ohio earlier this year, and 
the Sixteen Thirty Fund, literally that day, wired $6 million 
to the proponents of Issue One. Can you just talk a little bit 
about that?
    Ms. Sutherland. Yes. As you said, on the same day that 
Governor DeWine called that special session to tackle two 
things--getting then-President Biden on the ballot in Ohio and, 
two, banning foreign money--Sixteen Thirty Fund, clearly 
sensing that this, you know, ban on foreign money was going to 
pass, sent $6 million into an Ohio ballot issue committee, 
seemingly front-loading the cash before it became illegal in 
Ohio.
    Mr. Carey. That is right. Is it true that after the Ohio 
Legislature passed a ban on the foreign national contributions 
to the ballot issues in Ohio, that there was an attorney--I 
believe Marc Elias--who sued Ohio to block the law so that 
foreign nationals could still contribute to the ballot issue?
    Ms. Sutherland. That is absolutely correct. Marc Elias, he 
has been very busy this election year denying the results in 
the Pennsylvania Senate race, as well as defending that foreign 
money should be allowed to come into Ohio. Just weeks after the 
Ohio Legislature passed that ban, he turned around and sued the 
State of Ohio, arguing that foreign nationals should be able to 
contribute to ballot issues. Fortunately, the Sixth Circuit 
recently upheld that decision and said that the law can go into 
effect.
    Mr. Carey. I want to thank you.
    All right. Mr. Johnson, we are going to go to you. Does 
your organization take any foreign money, whether directly or 
indirectly?
    Mr. Johnson. Representative, I do not believe so. I checked 
in with our business manager, and for the past----
    Mr. Carey. You do not know whether you take it directly or 
indirectly? You do not know?
    Mr. Johnson. We do not receive any foreign money.
    Mr. Carey. Let me ask you this. Are you aware of the 
Surface Mining Control Act that was passed in 1977?
    Mr. Johnson. I am.
    Mr. Carey. Tell me the laws as it relates to bonding in the 
State of Montana.
    Mr. Johnson. The laws in Montana require bonding for coal 
mining, which is different from what I am here to talk about 
today, which is hardrock mining.
    Mr. Carey. You are saying the acid mine drainage from the 
tunnel--the tunnel in your testimony, the tunnel mine was not 
from coal mining?
    Mr. Johnson. No, that was not, and the--so we do not 
typically have, in my experience in Montana, acid mine drainage 
associated with coal mining as you might in the East Coast. 
This is more of a hardrock mining issue.
    Mr. Carey. I would really like to know whether you can 
actually--and if you could get back with our teams on this--
whether you indirectly or directly take foreign money at all. 
Because I do not know whether you are aware of this, but on 
December 3d, China announced that they were going to ban 
several very important hardrock minerals and critical materials 
that are necessary for manufacturing in this country, and there 
is nobody that wants to make sure that we do not explore our 
natural resources more than the country of China or any other 
foreign entity.
    If you could get back to my team, just to make sure that we 
do not have, you know, any issues with that, because we do have 
a very good bonding system in this country as it relates to 
mining.
    And, you know, my dear friend, Mr. Morelle, was showing 
those pictures. I would like to take you to some of these mines 
across the country that I have been in in many, many cases. 
They are bonded, they are clean, they are reclaimed. That is 
what we need to be doing. We need to be exploring our natural 
resources. I just wanted to point that out.
    I am going to go real quickly, though--because I have got 
very limited time. Mr. Bowman, we had a tough weekend in 
sports. You know, Navy beat us, right?
    Mr. Bowman. That is right. That is right.
    Mr. Carey. We are seeing foreign adversaries single-
handedly trying to influence our election outcomes. To what 
extent are foreign adversaries coordinating with each other to 
influence these U.S. elections?
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you for the question. I will try to be 
quick.
    I think one of the most significant--as someone who 
focuses, frankly, on foreign defense policy, I think one of the 
most significant geostrategic developments we are confronting 
right now is the growing axis of aggressors, where we have 
China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea working together in ways 
we have not seen before. I do not think we have encountered 
anything quite like this in modern American history, and I 
think this has ramifications for our defense budget and our 
foreign policies here at home.
    What we have been describing about what China and Russia 
have been doing, they are going to be sharing those tactics, 
techniques, and procedures with Iran and North Korea, and they 
are all going to be more effective together in the future. I 
think we need to see that collaboration for what it is, and 
that is going to make these challenges more daunting in the 
future.
    Mr. Carey. I want to thank you again.
    I want to thank all the witnesses.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Before we recognize Mr. D'Esposito, I would like to just 
recognize Mr. D'Esposito's hard work on this Committee. You are 
spectacular. You brought in a background from a time as a New 
York police officer and detective in a particular period of 
time when we had work to do with U.S. Capitol Police, with 
crime in D.C., and this hearing on foreign interference and 
election law. You have been a spectacular Member of this 
Committee, and your time here will not be unnoticed in the fu--
as we look at the history of this Committee. Just want to thank 
you for all your hard work on this Committee and your time in 
Congress.
    Now I will recognize Mr. D'Esposito for 5 minutes.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It has 
been an absolute honor to serve on this Committee with all of 
you, and I hope my time on this dais is not over.
    Before I continue, I would like to submit for the record a 
letter from People United For Privacy in support of H.R. 8399, 
which is the Donor Privacy Protections in Foreign Influence 
Act, which is a piece of legislation by Chairman Steil.
    Chairman Steil. Without objection.
    [The letter referred to follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you.
    Mr. Bowman, in your opening statement, I think that you 
said some things that are critically important. I think that 
very often we have these hearings and they are talked about on 
Capitol Hill and in our offices, but this is a hearing that I 
hope the American people are listening to at home, in their 
living rooms, around their kitchen table because it is that 
critically important.
    You mentioned in your opening statement the idea that this 
country is already under attack. You mentioned countries like 
China, Russia, Iran, North Korea. I mean, these are our biggest 
adversaries. These are our greatest threat to our homeland. 
There is no question that we are under attack. There is no 
question that we are already at war.
    I think that a lot of the things that we talked about this 
morning are very important, but I think what I want to focus on 
is how this affects the people back home. Because very often 
people say, well, it is not happening in my backyard, it is not 
happening in my county. My vote is the one that counts. And, 
you know, we have heard--when President Trump has said that we 
are under attack, when President Trump has said that there is 
foreign influence in our elections, we have been told very 
often by the other side of the aisle that that is not really 
the case.
    Can you talk to us about specific evidence and tactics? I 
know that there was a hoax that was mentioned, but I am sure 
you have many more. I want us to deliver to our neighbors back 
home exactly how their vote is threatened by these adversaries 
like China, Russia, and Iran.
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. And, 
you know, this will start vague, but I will try to be more 
specific.
    I think we need to fully appreciate that our adversaries 
understand the battle for other beliefs and ideas, right, 
because they--China, Russia, and Iran in particular and also 
North Korea, they have a problem with us, I would say, because 
of our existence and our power. By ``existence,'' I mean our 
representative democracy presents a threat to autocrats who 
want to retain their self-serving grip on power, and it conveys 
to the Russian, Chinese, and Iranian people that there is a 
more appealing governance model.
    Just by being ourselves, our--small D--democratic selves, 
we threaten their autocratic grip on power. Our power, the fact 
that we have the most capable military in the history of the 
world, presents a problem for aggressors like China, Russia, 
and Iran who want to conquer our partners. If they can deceive 
Americans into saying that we have no principles and interest 
in standing with Taiwan, Ukraine, or Israel, they can sideline 
our American power.
    They want to decide who represents us in Washington. They 
want to decide what our policies. I say they should butt out 
and that Americans should decide, and the first step to having 
them butt out is realizing that they are trying to manipulate 
what Americans think and determine who represents us in 
Washington and what our policies be, and that is wrong, and we 
need to wake up to it.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Based on evidence and the investigations 
that you have done, is there one party that has been more 
influenced by foreign adversaries in our elections than the 
other?
    Mr. Bowman. You know, I am not prepared to answer that. I 
want to emphasize that both parties have been attacked. And, 
honestly, I do not think we are going to come up with durable 
solutions that will last, that will be effective if it is not a 
bipartisan approach. I really think we should not make this a 
partisan issue.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Mr. O'Neill, thank you for your service. 
You mentioned in your opening statement the need for 
collaboration amongst public and the private sector. And, 
obviously, as members of law enforcement, we know that that 
collaboration works within law enforcement entities as well.
    Does the FBI work alongside the FEC in investigating 
foreign entities or adversaries that influence United States 
elections?
    Mr. O'Neill. Honestly, I do not know because that was not 
an area of focus for the Secret Service. We were focused 
specifically on financial crimes.
    Mr. D'Esposito. OK. All right. With that, I only have about 
30 seconds. Can you just briefly talk about how we see the 
illicit and illegal money moved through these online platforms?
    Mr. O'Neill. Money mules, as Mr. Bowman talked about, are 
the center of gravity that enable cybercrime and money 
laundering to flourish. Whether it is a witting or unwitting 
money mule, they are primarily how the bad actors are moving 
money throughout. Whether it is financial crimes or whether it 
is any sort of illicit malign activity, it starts with money 
mules, and also understanding the weaknesses in our current AML 
regime and focusing on platforms that do not meaningfully do 
any know-your-customer activities.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you very much.
    Thank you all for being here.
    Mr. Chairman, once again, it has been an absolute honor. I 
yield back.
    Chairman Steil. It is an honor to have you here. The 
gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Lee is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
important hearing and to our witnesses for appearing before us 
today.
    As chair of the House Administration Subcommittee on 
Elections, promoting American confidence in the integrity and 
security of our elections is a key priority, and identifying 
the ways in which foreign actors may be influencing and 
involved in our election system is of paramount importance to 
the American people. Thank you for being here.
    I also am so pleased to say that the House unanimously 
passed the SHIELD Act earlier this week, which I was proud to 
support, which includes commonsense measures to strengthen 
donor verification standards. I commend our Chairman, 
Congressman Steil, on his leadership on this critical 
legislation.
    I would like to go back, Ms. Sutherland, to you to begin. 
The testimony that you have given today about your organization 
and the report that tracks the Sixteen Thirty Fund is so 
important in helping understand the ways in which these 
loopholes exist and allow foreign governments to influence our 
elections, including voter turnout.
    As you know, in my home State of Florida, this past 
election cycle, we had two very contentious ballot initiatives 
that were considered. Did you see any instances of this type of 
foreign interference occurring in Florida's elections this 
cycle?
    Ms. Sutherland. Thank you for that question.
    Yes, we actually did see it on the issue related to 
codifying abortion rights in Florida's State Constitution. 
Again, we were able to trace that over $14 million in foreign-
backed funds came into Florida to influence your State's 
constitution.
    The fact that a foreign national can give directly or 
indirectly to influence a ballot issue is a loophole that needs 
to be closed, and I commend everyone's efforts here to close 
it.
    Ms. Lee. Are there any particular steps that you would 
recommend that State legislatures or Congress take to close 
those loopholes?
    Ms. Sutherland. Yes. Implementing a ban like Ohio did--it 
can also be done on the Federal level--to reject the issue that 
foreign nationals can give to ballot issue campaigns.
    I would also like to point out that it was not the FEC that 
created the loophole. The FEC interprets law. Ballot issues are 
inherently not elections, so therefore the prohibition on 
foreign nationals influencing elections does not apply. It is 
not that Republican commissioners created this loophole. It is 
that they interpret the law. And, currently, there is no law on 
the Federal level and in most States that say foreign nationals 
cannot give to ballot issue campaigns.
    It is a simple commonsense measure to implement, and I 
really look forward to tackling this issue again next Congress.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Mr. O'Neill, I would like to go back to your testimony. 
Thank you for sharing with us some of the tactics that foreign 
actors may use to commit financial fraud and cybercrime.
    From your experience in Federal service, I am interested in 
what actions you think that agencies might take to identify and 
disrupt this type of illicit financial activity, in particular, 
how we might leverage new technologies, including artificial 
intelligence, to make forward progress.
    Mr. O'Neill. Law enforcement can leverage current SARs and 
CTRs that are submitted from financial institutions. It would 
be ideal if more payment processors and other fintech companies 
were also required to submit suspicious activity reports 
because those do help law enforcement.
    There are millions of SARs that are filed every single 
year, so leveraging artificial intelligence to mine for those 
specific suspicious activity reports or a heightened 
surveillance report--whatever is provided--would be of value.
    Also, the ability to leverage 314(a), which enables law 
enforcement to query financial institutions around the world, 
is very slow. Sometimes it takes up to 28 days and it involves 
manual batch processing. If there is a way to speed up that 
process because, as we know, money is moving at a much faster 
pace than it did when the 314(a) and 314(b) were created 20-
some years ago. That is another area where new technology 
exists that did not several years ago, and we have not been 
able to keep up with the technology.
    Ms. Lee. And, Mr. Bowman, you just gave some testimony that 
related to efforts from China, Russia, Iran to disrupt and 
exploit vulnerabilities that we may have. I am particularly 
concerned about threats from cyber actors in this way. We know 
China very recently committed a very serious hack of some of 
our infrastructure and telecommunications providers.
    I am interested in your perspective on whether this is 
simply an intelligence gathering operation. Do you perceive a 
risk to our elections infrastructure? Then what do you 
recommend that we be looking at in order to enhance and 
strengthen our cyber elections infrastructure?
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you. Not only do I believe our 
adversaries are currently waging an information war against 
us--and we have presented some evidence here today--they are 
also waging an ongoing, daily, hour-by-hour cyber war against 
us. That has many, many facets to it. There is an election 
component to it. I explained why our elections are a center of 
gravity.
    Certainly, they are using cyber warfare to attack it as we 
sit here today, and they are also doing the same thing in the 
military domain and in the civilian infrastructure that 
supports the United States military's power projection 
capability.
    We are the most capable cyber country in the world and we 
are also one of the most vulnerable, and I think time is well 
spent trying to shore up our cyber defenses. Just like in this 
context, until we start to go more on the offensive and start 
to shift the cost-benefit calculation of our adversaries, these 
attacks will continue until we start to impose some 
consequences on them. Sooner or later, all defenses, no matter 
how strong, fail. That is why we need to go more on the 
offensive.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. Representative Lee yields back.
    I will now recognize the Ranking Member for closing 
comments.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Again, thank you to the witnesses for being here, 
particularly during the holiday season. I wish them all a Merry 
Christmas to everyone. Happy Hanukkah. Whatever your faith, 
tradition is, I hope everyone enjoys a wonderful holiday season 
and gets a chance to relax a little bit.
    I want to join in thanking my colleague, Mr. D'Esposito, 
for his service here, and certainly wish him only the very best 
as he moves on. Thank you for your contributions.
    I also want to--I am not sure they say--you know, there is 
always debate about whether a tree in the forest falls and no 
one is there to hear it, whether it makes a sound. With Mr. 
Kilmer not here--well, there he goes.
    Like I said, he will hear me say what an amazing Member 
Derek Kilmer has been not only for this Committee but for the 
Congress. I rarely have found as I have come across my travels 
someone who is so genuine, so committed to this whole 
enterprise of American democracy and particularly loves the 
Congress as much as Derek Kilmer does, an institution that he 
has worked very hard to modernize and to make as good as it can 
be, as good as the American people deserves. I am delighted to 
thank him for his extraordinary service.
    He is going to up me now, as he should, by hopefully 
getting a chance to say a few words on his own, but I am 
grateful that you are here. I am grateful that you have served 
this institution with dedication and fidelity, and I am 
grateful to call you a friend.
    I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, as well as all the 
Members, for their great cooperation, and the staff who does an 
outstanding job--both sides of the aisle--and who continue to 
serve this--I think this institution and the country with 
distinction. Thanks for everything.
    To the staff, to all the Members, Merry Christmas. Happy 
Hanukkah. Happy New Year, everyone. God bless.
    I yield.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    I would echo the Chairman's remarks in particular as it 
relates to Mr. Kilmer who just joined us.
    Spectacular work as co-chair of the Modernization 
Committee, which then continued on as the Modernization 
Subcommittee of the Committee on House Administration. Your 
leadership, along with Mrs. Bice, went a long way. We got some 
real work done this year, and we appreciate your leadership. 
You will be missed, but your work will live on as a legacy 
here.
    I would be happy to recognize Mr. Kilmer for 5 minutes to 
comment or question the witnesses as you see fit.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. Thanks. I will give a rebuttal. 
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I actually just want to acknowledge and thank you, Mr. 
Chair, for--the last recommendation of the Modernization 
Committee was a recognition that the work of improving this 
institution should not happen every 20 or 30 years but should 
happen as a matter of course going forward. The creation of the 
Modernization Subcommittee was in keeping with that. My hope 
is, regardless of which party holds the gavels, that that 
Subcommittee continues, because the work of institutional 
improvement needs to continue.
    When I was asked to lead that Committee, someone gave me a 
graduation speech that John Gardner had delivered at Cornell 
University in 1968. He had been Lyndon Johnson's Secretary of 
Health, Education, and Welfare. He talked about the importance 
of institutional stewardship. When he gave the speech, he 
talked about two perils that face institutions.
    He said institutions suffer from uncritical lovers who deny 
an institution the sort of life-giving eye toward improvement 
that is necessary for organizations to get better. Second, he 
said institutions suffer from uncritical--from unloving 
critics, people who treat institutions like the pinata at the 
party and have an eye toward demolition rather than toward 
improvement and construction. We see that in this institution 
quite a bit.
    I think the thing that--and what John Gardner suggested is 
if we really care about institutions, then we have to be loving 
critics of them. That we have to view our institutions through 
the lens of loving criticism. That has been the work undertaken 
by the Modernization Committee, and it has been the work 
undertaken by the Modernization Subcommittee, and it has been 
the work of a whole boatload of stakeholders who care about 
this institution and want to see it get better for the American 
people.
    My gratitude to Chairwoman Bice and to you, Mr. Chairman, 
and to Ranking Member Morelle, is that you are loving critics 
of the institution, and that matters. My hope and my plea to 
you is that the work of the Subcommittee is allowed to continue 
with that eye toward loving criticism and institutional 
improvement. It has been an honor to get to serve with you.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back. It has been an 
honor to serve with you as well. We appreciate your work. I 
think there is a need to continue to work to modernize this 
Committee well.
    Sometimes we have good, strong policy disagreements on 
important topics. I think we have also shown an ability to work 
together on really key policies, and today's hearing I think is 
a true example of that. We identified a number of areas and 
legislation that is essential for the country to make sure, in 
this case, that we are ensuring U.S. elections are for U.S. 
citizens and not allowing foreign interference in our 
elections.
    Appreciate your work, Mr. Kilmer, your work, Ranking Member 
Morelle. The work of this Committee will continue but in the 
new Congress.
    I thank all the Members.
    And, in particular, as it relates to this hearing, as we 
come back, I thank all of our witnesses for sharing their 
expertise today.
    There may be additional questions from some Members of this 
Committee, and we would ask you to respond to those questions 
in writing.
    Without objection, each Member may have 5 legislative days 
to insert additional material into the record or to revise and 
extend their remarks.
    If there is no further business, I thank the Members for 
their participation. Without objection, the Committee stands 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]