Judge Blocks Ohio Law That Banned Foreign Nationals From Spending Money on Ballot Campaigns

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost in Columbus, Ohio, on Nov. 6, 2018. Justin Merriman/Getty Images

U.S. District Judge Judge Michael Watson has blocked an Ohio law that was set to take effect on Sept. 1, finding that the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

Ohio legislators in an act signed by Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine over the summer prohibited foreign nationals from spending money on ballot campaigns, an extension of a law that already barred them from contributing to political candidates. Nonprofits and several individuals, including noncitizens, sued to try to stop the law from taking effect.

The plaintiffs said the law violated their rights under the First Amendment. Unless enjoined, they wrote in a request for a preliminary injunction, the law “will broadly chill discussion of ballot issues and impede the fundamental right to advocate collectively, threatening both noncitizens and those who associate with them with substantial criminal penalties.”

Ohio officials said the law was a proper use of state authority, but Watson sided with the plaintiffs on Aug. 31 and entered an injunction as the case moves forward.

The judge noted that lawful permanent residents, who were born in another country but are in the United States legally, pay taxes and can serve in the military.

“Where is the danger of people beholden to foreign interests higher than in the U.S. military? Nowhere,” he wrote in a 53-page ruling. “So, if the U.S. federal government trusts (such residents) to put U.S. interests first in the military (of all places), how could this court hold that it does not trust them to promote U.S. interests in their political spending? It cannot.”

The ruling blocked the law’s provisions on political spending, preventing Ohio officials from enforcing it against any person who contributes money for ballot measures. That means that Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s office cannot enforce the law even against foreign nationals who are residing temporarily in the country, even though Watson said Ohio generally has the power to impose the ban on this category. He said the broad injunction was due to not wanting to rewrite the law.

Yost said in an emailed statement to The Epoch Times that the court should have imposed a more limited injunction.

“We agree with the court: ‘Ohio has a compelling interest in limiting the participation of foreign nationals in activities of democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over state political processes,’” Yost said. “We disagree that the General Assembly violated the Constitution, but even taking the court on its own terms, we believe the court should have limited its remedy to the only constitutional problem it identified: restricting spending by legally present foreign nationals. We will seek clarification of the court’s order and are weighing further appeal.”

OPAWL–Building AAPI Feminist Leadership, the lead plaintiff, did not return a request for comment.

The plaintiffs had also argued the law violated their 14th Amendment rights, but Watson opted not to address that aspect because he found the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the arguments concerning the First Amendment.