AB 953 amends Section 85320 of the Government Code to add “foreign national” to the list of actors barred from making or soliciting contributions, expenditures, or independent expenditures in connection with state or local ballot measures and elections. It defines “foreign national” as a non‑U.S. citizen who is not a lawfully admitted permanent resident, but expressly excludes persons with active Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status.
The bill also retains and clarifies existing definitions of “foreign principal” and treats certain domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations as foreign principals when decisions are made by foreign officers.
Practically, the measure aligns California’s campaign‑finance prohibitions with federal rules, creates an affirmative criminal penalty (a misdemeanor fine equal to the amount contributed or expended), and places new compliance and verification responsibilities on candidates, committees, and their treasurers. The bill includes a fiscal clause stating no state reimbursement is required because the change creates a new crime or changes a penalty, and it declares that the amendment furthers the purposes of the Political Reform Act.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds “foreign national” to the list of prohibited sources in Section 85320, bars contributions/expenditures/independent expenditures and solicitations by those actors for state and local elections and ballot measures, and defines key terms. It creates a misdemeanor penalty equal to the amount contributed or expended.
Who It Affects
State and local candidates, ballot measure committees, campaign treasurers, political consultants, and organizations with foreign‑parent ownership or foreign officers. It also affects noncitizen residents who are not lawful permanent residents (with an explicit DACA exception).
Why It Matters
AB 953 closes potential gaps between federal prohibitions and California practice, formalizes corporate‑control rules for foreign‑owned entities, and forces campaigns and committees to adopt new donor‑verification procedures — shifting compliance costs onto actors that handle contributions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 953 rewrites Section 85320 to make the law’s foreign‑source ban explicitly apply to individual foreign nationals as well as to foreign governments and foreign principals. The statute now bars a foreign national from making, directly or indirectly, any contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure aimed at qualifying, supporting, or opposing a state or local ballot measure or the election of a state or local candidate.
It also bars anyone from soliciting or accepting such a contribution from a foreign national.
The bill supplies a compact definition of “foreign national”: anyone who is not a U.S. citizen and not a lawfully admitted permanent resident. Importantly, it carves out people granted deferred action under DACA whose deferred action remains valid.
The statute keeps the existing multi‑part definition of “foreign principal,” and adds a practical rule that treats a domestic subsidiary as a foreign principal when the decision to make the contribution or expenditure is made by foreign officers, directors, or management employees who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.Sanctions are simple and blunt: a violation is a misdemeanor, and the fine imposed must equal the amount contributed or expended. The bill does not create an administrative penalty ladder or civil enforcement framework within the text — it leaves enforcement to the criminal process and to the existing enforcement mechanisms of the Political Reform Act.
Finally, the legislative text includes a fiscal statement saying no state reimbursement is required because the bill creates or changes a crime, and it expressly states that the amendment furthers the Political Reform Act’s purposes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute now bars both contributions and independent expenditures by foreign nationals for state and local elections and ballot measures, and also bars soliciting or accepting such funds.
“Foreign national” is defined as a person who is neither a United States citizen nor a lawfully admitted permanent resident; active DACA recipients are explicitly excluded.
A domestic subsidiary can be treated as a foreign principal when the decision to contribute or expend funds is made by foreign officers, directors, or management employees who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
A violation of Section 85320 is a misdemeanor and carries a monetary penalty equal to the amount contributed or expended; the bill does not add separate civil penalties in the text.
The bill includes a fiscal clause declaring no state reimbursement is required because the act creates a new crime or changes a penalty, and it declares that the amendment furthers the Political Reform Act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings framing the change
The Legislature opens with findings tying the amendment to two goals: protecting elections from foreign influence and aligning California law with federal restrictions under 52 U.S.C. §30121. The findings state constitutional and policy rationales — notably that First Amendment protections for political speech have limits where federal law bars foreign nationals. This section sets the statutory posture and signals the Legislature’s intent to justify the amendment under the Political Reform Act’s amendment procedures.
Substantive prohibition on foreign nationals and solicitation ban
Subsections (a) and (b) place two distinct but related obligations on the political ecosystem: (1) foreign nationals may not make contributions, expenditures, or independent expenditures in connection with state/local ballot measures or elections; and (2) no person or committee may solicit or accept such funds from a foreign national. Practically, the solicitation prohibition reaches fundraising activity and requires treasurers and committees to refuse and return impermissible funds once identified.
Who counts as a foreign national or foreign principal
Subsection (c) gives the operative definitions. It defines “foreign national” narrowly as noncitizens who are not lawful permanent residents, but it carves out individuals with active DACA status. It preserves and elaborates the “foreign principal” concept, listing foreign political parties, persons outside the U.S. (with narrow exceptions), foreign‑organized entities, and a special rule treating domestic subsidiaries as foreign principals where decision‑making is exercised by foreign officers. That corporate control rule imports a facts‑and‑circumstances inquiry into attribution and governance.
Permanent resident exception and criminal penalty
Subsection (d) reiterates that lawfully admitted permanent residents may make contributions; subsection (e) converts violations into a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine equal to the amount contributed or expended. The statute opts for criminal sanctioning rather than creating a parallel civil penalty structure within this text, which shapes how enforcement will proceed and the evidentiary standards prosecutors must meet.
Fiscal and statutory conformity statements
Section 3 states no state reimbursement is required under Article XIII B because the bill creates or changes a crime — a common clause used when legislation imposes new criminal penalties that can affect local agencies. Section 4 declares the amendment furthers the Political Reform Act’s purposes, a necessary finding when the Act is amended under the initiative’s reserved‑power rules. Together these clauses are procedural but important for implementation and interdepartmental budgeting.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Elections across all five countries.
Explore Elections in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- California voters concerned about foreign influence — the law narrows an avenue for foreign actors to finance or influence state and local campaigns and ballot measures.
- State and local candidates and ballot measure committees — the rule reduces the risk of accepting impermissible foreign funds and levels the playing field against actors who might otherwise have foreign financial backing.
- DACA recipients — the explicit exclusion of active DACA beneficiaries preserves their ability to participate politically under the statute and removes a source of legal uncertainty for that population.
- Election regulators and ethics enforcers (e.g., FPPC, local prosecutors) — the statutory clarity supplies a clear textual basis for enforcement actions against foreign‑source contributions at the state level.
Who Bears the Cost
- Campaigns, committees, and treasurers — they must upgrade donor‑screening, recordkeeping, and refund procedures to avoid accepting prohibited funds and to document compliance.
- Noncitizen residents who are not lawful permanent residents — the bill removes or reinforces their ability to donate, narrowing political participation for certain immigrant groups.
- Organizations with foreign ownership or ties (including domestic subsidiaries) — they face heightened transactional scrutiny because corporate decision‑making by foreign officers can attribute impermissible status.
- Local law enforcement and prosecutors — criminalizing violations shifts enforcement into the criminal justice system, imposing investigative and prosecutorial burdens on local agencies.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing the legitimate interest in protecting elections from foreign financial influence against protecting political participation and avoiding burdensome, privacy‑intrusive verification regimes: the bill strengthens prohibitions on foreign sources but in doing so forces campaigns, regulators, and courts into difficult factual inquiries about individual immigration status and corporate decision‑making.
AB 953 is compact and legally direct, but it raises several implementation and interpretive questions. First, the practical mechanics of donor verification are under‑specified: campaigns and committees will need guidance about what documentary proof suffices to show U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent resident status without creating privacy or discrimination problems.
Second, the corporate attribution rule (treating a domestic subsidiary as a foreign principal when foreign officers make the decision) requires courts or regulators to probe internal governance and who actually authorized a contribution — a fact‑intensive inquiry that may be costly and uncertain.
Enforcement design is another tension. The bill relies on criminal penalties (misdemeanor and a fine equal to the amount involved) rather than building out a graduated civil enforcement regime inside the Political Reform Act.
That choice raises questions about deterrence, prosecutorial discretion, and the evidentiary burden to prove nationality or who made a corporate decision. Finally, the DACA carve‑out solves one set of fairness concerns but opens line‑drawing issues for other noncitizen categories (temporary protected status, parolees, visa holders) and could prompt litigants to press for expansions or challenge exclusions in other contexts.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.