Foreign billionaires and well-funded nongovernmental organizations can use a gap in federal election law to pour money into state ballot-measure campaigns. Half the states have yet to ban the practice, and some of those that have acted still leave openings for foreign-linked spending.

Federal law flatly bars foreign nationals from contributing to political candidates. State ballot initiatives and referenda, however, are treated differently under the Federal Election Campaign Act. Unless state law says otherwise, foreign nationals can spend to influence those measures. Because ballot campaigns can rewrite state constitutions, alter election rules, redraw districts, and affect turnout in candidate races, that distinction is no small matter.

No foreign government, foreign national, or foreign interest should have a hand in deciding the laws Americans live under.

One of the best-known examples involves Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss. Americans for Public Trust has documented hundreds of millions of dollars in Wyss giving to U.S. political nonprofits. The Honest Elections Project notes that the left-wing Sixteen Thirty Fund alone received $243 million from Wyss and spent more than $130 million on ballot issues in 25 states.

Those figures deserve one qualification. Nonprofit funds are commingled, so they do not prove that Wyss’ dollars paid for any particular ballot campaign. But money is fungible. The fact remains that current federal law permits an organization that receives enormous sums from a foreign national to spend heavily on domestic ballot measures.

Through that ballot-measure gap, the Honest Elections Project argues, foreign nationals can influence issues ranging from abortion and energy policy to redistricting and election law, while partisan groups can use ballot campaigns to help drive turnout in candidate races.

The legal history is clear. In Bluman v. FEC, a three-judge federal court upheld the federal ban on foreign nationals’ spending in candidate elections, and the Supreme Court summarily affirmed in 2012. But the district court also noted that the law does not bar foreign nationals from issue advocacy, including spending on ballot initiatives.

In a 2015 enforcement matter, FEC commissioners who voted to dismiss a complaint relied on that distinction. They wrote that the act “does not bar foreign nationals from issue advocacy” and that state and local ballot initiatives do not constitute an “election” under the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act.

RELATED: The danger of calling the left stupid

ALEX EDELMAN/AFP/Getty Images

The FEC is unlikely to solve the problem on its own. The commission’s website notes that election laws outside the financing of federal elections are generally beyond its jurisdiction. In the 2015 matter, the commissioners were even more explicit: “The Commission has no authority to otherwise interpose itself as arbiter of who can participate in state and local ballot initiatives.”

A later FEC case reinforced the same approach. In 2021, the commission voted 4-2 to dismiss allegations involving foreign-national donations to a Montana ballot initiative committee. That leaves Congress and the states to close the gap if they choose.

States are free, subject to constitutional limits, to restrict foreign funding of ballot initiatives and referenda. Twenty-five states now have full or partial bans on foreign-national or foreign-government funding of ballot-measure campaigns.

Some laws are broader than others. California law, for example, bars foreign governments, foreign principals, and foreign nationals from funding state and local ballot measures. But a domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation is treated as a foreign principal only when the decision to spend is made by a foreign officer, director, or management employee who is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident — a limitation very easy to evade.

Arkansas offers a broader model. Its law applies to persons who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents, foreign governments, foreign political parties, and entities organized under foreign law or based abroad. It also bars direct or indirect donations to ballot-measure committees and requires committees to certify that they have not knowingly accepted prohibited funds, according to Ballotpedia.

RELATED: States need to take election security into their own hands

CJ Gunther/Getty Images

Congress has moved as well. On July 13, the House passed the Stop Foreign Funds in Elections Act by voice vote. The bill would extend the federal foreign-national ban to state and local ballot initiatives, referenda, and recall elections. The Senate received the measure the next day and referred it to the Committee on Rules and Administration, where it remains.

“No foreign government, foreign national, or foreign interest should have a hand in deciding the laws Americans live under,” co-sponsor Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) said in a statement after House passage. Ballotpedia likewise reported the measure’s passage and its referral to the Senate.

States need not wait for Congress. Lawmakers can review their own statutes and close gaps that permit foreign nationals or foreign-controlled entities to fund ballot campaigns. Citizens and members of the press can use Ballotpedia’s state-by-state chart to see which restrictions are already in place and which proposals remain pending.

Foreign funding of referenda and ballot initiatives gives people with no vote in the matter a legal avenue to spend heavily on the laws Americans live under. States should exercise their power to curb the practice, and the public should insist that they do so.

​Abortion, California law, Congress, Election laws, Fec, Federal law, Foreign money, Foreign nationals, Redistricting, Senate, State law, State lawmakers, Supreme court, Opinion & analysis 

The midterms could sway political power in the United States, if the Democrats gain control of the Senate and/or the House. To keep that from happening, it is good to remember just how much President Donald Trump and the Republicans have accomplished for America and specifically for Texas since taking power in 2025.

Texas is key to keeping the Senate in Republican control, with Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) facing off against state Rep. James Talarico (D) for the coveted seat currently held by longtime Sen. John Cornyn (R). Paxton defeated Cornyn in a primary runoff in May.

As the midterms draw near, it is important to remember all the wins that Republicans have secured for the American people.

Trump has delivered for Americans, including those in Texas, on the economy, jobs, agriculture, public safety, and fraud.

Americans have saved a total of $82 billion since the Working Families Tax Cuts bill was passed. This piece of legislation cut taxes for working families; eliminated taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security; and established Trump Accounts for children under 18. Due to these cost-saving measures, both weekly wages and household income are up from when Trump started his second term.

The economy received an additional boost thanks to $11.2 trillion in direct U.S. and foreign investments, some of which was used to create new jobs in Texas. Some of the top-name brands building new opportunities in the state include SpaceX, with a $16.8 billion Terafab facility that will create 3,000 new jobs; Meta’s new $10 billion data center that will create 4,300 jobs; and a $3.6 billion expansion of Toyota’s San Antonio plant that will add 2,000 jobs.

RELATED: Paxton hammers Talarico for going ‘missing’ from campaign trail — and Trump chimes in hilariously

L-R: Kent NISHIMURA/AFP/Getty Images; John Anderson/The Austin Chronicle/Getty Images; Mandel NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

In addition to new business, Trump increased natural gas shipments and lowered energy costs through a loan to AEP Texas. He also signed an executive order to pause climate change restrictions while expanding fossil fuel production to give the people ample energy for homes, businesses, and technological endeavors like AI.

Trump specifically set out to help farmers with the Farmer Bridge Assistance program that doled out $12 billion in one-time relief payments while they waited for the tax cuts that came with the Working Families Tax Cuts bill. The bill also included a permanent 20% small business tax deduction and expanded export opportunities to send more American crops to foreign nations.

Public safety was also a huge boon for the Trump administration. After the first full year of his second term, all major crime metrics — including violent crimes such as murder, rape, and aggravated assault — dropped by 10% or more in Texas. Many of those metrics have fallen again in 2026.

This is in addition to 16 straight months with no border releases and 2.2 million self-deportations as of February. In 2025, America had net negative migration for the first time in 50 years.

Lastly, the Trump administration aggressively pursued fraudsters throughout Texas and elsewhere with an entire list of arrests, charges, and convictions ranging from Medicare fraud to Ponzi schemes and COVID-19 relief fraud.

Poll Watch/Blaze Media

The Texas race is close, with pollsters leaning toward Democrat James Talarico as the favorite over Republican Ken Paxton. For the latest Texas Senate seat updates — and to follow other important midterm races across the nation — check out Poll Watch, available to Blaze News, BlazeTV+, and Blaze Unlimited subscribers.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Ken paxton, Donald trump, Texas, Senate, Senate race, Politics 

For years, President Trump has called for Christopher Columbus to be returned to his place among the respected, great men who are part of this nation’s history.

And his speech just days before Columbus Day was the latest of his defiant pronouncements against those who hate America’s history.

‘We’re going to place it in a very special place of honor.’

On Friday, President Trump hosted a celebration of Christopher Columbus at the White House in the latest of his efforts to rehabilitate the 15th-century Italian explorer whose memory and legacy have been maligned in recent years by the woke left.

Trump, however, has long been a staunch supporter of Christopher Columbus and his legacy, even calling for the U.S. to “BRING BACK COLUMBUS DAY” four years ago. In April 2025, he posted on Truth Social that he would bring Columbus Day “back from the ashes” after the “Democrats did everything possible to destroy” him, including the destruction of his statues.

During his speech Friday, Trump echoed a number of these sentiments and made some important announcements in his efforts to rehabilitate Columbus Day.

“Christopher Columbus changed the future of humanity forever. And in this administration, we know that Christopher Columbus is — to us, he’s a hero. He’s a hero,” Trump said.

RELATED: Social studies teacher vandalizes Christopher Columbus statue

Trump told the story of Baltimore’s statue of Columbus, “made from the finest Italian marble,” which faced the city’s Little Italy.

“But on July 4, 2020, a hate-filled mob of radical left lunatics and Marxists, communists lashed chains around Columbus’ neck,” toppled the statue to the ground, and dumped the broken remains into Baltimore Harbor, he said.

“They want to tear down the history and heritage that makes us who we are, not only Columbus,” Trump reminded the audience at Friday’s event.

The fragments were quickly recovered by Italian-Americans, and a restored version of the statue, using the fragments of the destroyed statue from Baltimore, was placed outside the Eisenhower Executive Office Building near the White House earlier this year. Trump said last month he placed it there “in Honor of the Italian American Community” — a common theme during Friday’s event as well.

President Trump indicated that there was another surprise — but he hadn’t seen it yet.

Trump introduced Brett Rugo during the speech and explained that Rugo had presented the White House with “a one-of-a-kind 19th-century statue of Christopher Columbus from Italy.”

He told the crowd that he had not seen the statue yet. He asked the audience what they thought of it, and many gave signs of approval.

Trump went on to explain the plans for the statue: “We’re going to be bringing Brett’s [statue] over to the Rose Garden, and we’re going to place it in a very special place of honor.”

“While I’m president of the United States, we’ll always honor and celebrate the immortal legends,” Trump said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Christopher columbus, Communists, Donald trump, Marxists, Radical left, United states, White house, Politics 

The late-life radicalization of the Boomers is proving to be an ongoing catastrophe.

I am, of course, referring to liberal Boomers, not conservative ones. As far as I can tell, conservative Baby Boomers might be one of the most stable voting blocs in the country. Conservative Boomers today tend to vote for the same things they have always voted for and basically believe in the same American values they did in 2006 or 1986. Their stability is something we currently take for granted, and it will be missed one day.

The old people I remember from the 1980s and ’90s acted old. I don’t mean that as an insult.

Liberal Baby Boomers have taken a different path: a strange, late-life radicalization.

Gray panthers

Usually when we hear the word “radicalization,” we think of anarchists, Islamic terrorists, and other violent groups. With liberal Boomers, we aren’t dealing so much with a violent insurgency or rogue actors who want to bring society to its knees. We’re dealing with people who, in their old age, have too much time to read the news and get mad in fits of performative self-righteousness and who have decided that a good use of their twilight years is reliving some micro-version of the ’60s and ’70s.

Next time there is a No Kings rally or some other left-wing protest, drive by and take a look at who is there. You may be struck by the amount of gray hair. This isn’t a novel observation. Researchers studying the recent anti-Trump protest movement have noticed that many of the organizers are considerably older than the activists who usually come to mind when we think of political protest.

At first, that doesn’t seem strange at all. Of course retired people are going to show up. They have the free time.

But I’m interested in something beyond simple availability. Why do so many people who are approaching 70 or 80 seem determined to become political activists now? Why the signs, the marches, the constant outrage, the sense that retirement is finally their chance to join the resistance?

AARP anarchists

The obvious retort is that young people today are politically disengaged and somebody has to do it.

There may be some truth to that. But it still doesn’t explain why a certain kind of affluent liberal senior citizen now seems to fancy himself part of the vanguard of political action.

There is something historically upside down about it.

The old stereotype says that age brings caution. You accumulate responsibilities, watch political fashions come and go, and become a little less impressed by people promising to remake the world. Whether or not people literally become more conservative as they age, older generations have traditionally occupied that cultural role: They remind the young that most supposedly revolutionary ideas have been tried before and that smashing things is easier than rebuilding them.

The old are supposed to be the anchor. The young are supposed to be pulling at the chain.

So how did we end up with 70-year-olds trying to recapture the barricades?

RELATED: The future belongs to people who believe in one

Cheng Xin/Getty Images

Elder shortage

Maybe it’s because fewer of them have grandchildren than previous generations did. Maybe it’s the nature of technological society, which gives everyone access to a limitless supply of things to be angry about and has, for whatever reason, had a particularly strange effect on liberal Boomers. Maybe it’s because people are living longer and spending more years in retirement with more free time.

Or maybe it’s just something particular to the liberals of that generation. Maybe they want to relive their glory days.

Maybe they simply can’t bear to be old.

I’m not sure exactly what the answer is. It’s probably some combination of those things plus a few others. But what I do know is that it wasn’t like this when I was a kid.

The old people I remember from the 1980s and ’90s acted old. I don’t mean that as an insult. They weren’t desperately trying to keep up, prove they were hip, adopt the latest political vocabulary, or convince the rest of us that they were on the right side of history. They had older-generation attitudes. Sometimes those attitudes were wrong. Sometimes they were annoying. But they were recognizably the attitudes of people who had been around for a while.

What makes the current situation even stranger is that many of these newly radicalized liberal Boomers weren’t extreme leftists when they were younger. Plenty were basically centrists in the ’80s and ’90s. They had kids and jobs and mortgages and wanted their children to have a decent future. Those responsibilities tended to keep them somewhere near the middle, even if they considered themselves liberals.

Now the kids are gone, the mortgage is paid off, and some of them seem to have finally become the campus radicals they never quite managed to be at 22.

Are we going to see the same thing happen as Gen X ages? What about Millennials?

I hope not.

If we want future generations to inherit the same America we lived in, at some point we have to start acting our age.

​Lifestyle, Culture, Baby boomers, Maturity, No kings, Donald trump, Gen x, Millennials, Politics, Activism, The root of the matter 

One Democratic Senate candidate has tried so hard to appeal to working-class Texans that he has accidentally become a parody of himself — and one satirical video is capitalizing on that.

The parody begins with a man asking, “Want to know what’s gay?” and answering, “When Republicans shut down our factory.”

“I support immigrants, not because we want them, but because he wants them,” he said, pointing up to the sky.

The actor goes on to claim he is “all about the three P’s,” which are “PBR, pigskin, and protecting trans rights.”

“I went to college here, in this state, which is impressive because I could have gone somewhere much better. My daddy grew up on a farm, and I have visited that farm. This race isn’t about party. In fact, don’t even look into what political party I am,” he said.

“Do I believe every American should own a firearm? No,” he continued. “But I’m going to keep that to myself. My first name is one syllable, and my last name is just the teeniest bit ethnic. I’ve thought about it. I’ve prayed about it. And that’s why I’m running to be your next senator.”

“But not before I finish these ribs,” he added.

Comedian Davey Jackson is certain of who the politician is that the parody is targeting.

“My guy, James Talarico,” he tells BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales.

“He’s the worst,” Gonzales says. “And yet, he still has a chance here in this state.”

“He looks like Elf on the Shelf came to life and is walking around politicking,” Adam Johnson jokes. “That’s what it looks like.”

Gonzales also points out that while early voting begins next week in Texas, “Talarico has been mysteriously absent for 12 days.”

“Nobody knows where he is. His campaign said 12 days ago, ‘Oh, he has the flu,’” she continues.

“That puts you down for 12 days? You’re too f**king weak to be a senator then,” she adds, “Like, what, you’re going to have a cold and you’re going to miss like six votes?”

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Satirical video, Sara gonzales, James talarico, Trans rights, Texas, Blazetv show 

Being a 16-year-old in high school is hard enough. It’s a different ball game entirely when you’re actively involved in politics. Sadly, for many young conservative teens across our country, the pressure to conform and abandon their beliefs comes not only from student bullies but from adults.

Ella Smith, 16, is a homeschooled student in southern Nevada who is also enrolled in her local high school choir in Clark County as an elective. She works part-time as a door knocker for Commit 100, a joint program coordinated by conservative nonprofit groups Turning Point Action and Citizens Alliance. Her job is simple: Find 100 registered Republicans unlikely to vote outside of presidential elections and get each of them to make a plan to vote, whether by mail or in person.

Can conservative students participate openly in their school communities without risking their reputations or physical safety?

Since the assassination of Charlie Kirk last September, hostility from students and teachers with differing viewpoints has escalated.

In mid-September, Ella was knocking on doors in Boulder City, Nevada, with her grandmother, who also canvasses for Commit 100. The next day as she walked through the hallways to go to choir, a school employee asked her to step into the front office and confronted her about her after-school activities. By the end of the conversation, she was left in tears.

According to the family, a school employee said she was speaking on behalf of the vice principal. She then allegedly accused Ella of going around town telling people how to vote and claiming to represent the school. The employee also said the school had received anonymous Ring camera footage of Ella door knocking and that she’d already watched the footage.

The school employee continued pressing these allegations in front of other faculty and students nearby, turning the confrontation into a public embarrassment. Ella described the exchange as “condescending and intimidating.” To make matters worse, other students and staff remained within earshot during the full length of the interaction.

A teenager should not have to choose between participating in civic life outside school and being treated with dignity inside it. Sadly, accounts from the past year from within Clark County suggest that principle is still in need of defending.

Ella’s mother, Mica Smith, later contacted the vice principal’s office directly. She wanted to understand why the school felt the need to pull her daughter aside over an after-school job.

The vice principal reached out days later and said she had reviewed the footage, found that Ella had done nothing wrong, and said the staff member who pulled her aside had acted inappropriately, leading to an apology.

Those acknowledgments matter, but a simple “sorry” is only the beginning of accountability. What corrective actions were taken? Why was an employee who wasn’t a teacher and had no authority to accuse or discipline a student so confident she could do both? What assurances do Ella and other conservative students involved in civic engagements have that it won’t happen again?

RELATED: The danger of calling the left stupid

ALEX EDELMAN/AFP/Getty Images

Ella’s family believes she was treated this way because of her work for a conservative cause. That motive hasn’t been independently established. However, no one needs to settle the question of motive to recognize how serious her account is, especially given what the school itself has admitted. This is especially true when you look at the state of our classrooms throughout the country and even in Clark County.

Sadly, Ella is not the only young conservative in the community reportedly describing hostility.

Around the same time, the secretary of the Turning Point-sponsored Club America chapter at Veterans Tribute Career and Technical Academy addressed the Clark County school board in late September. The student described repeated online and in-person harassment, bullying, and threats from other students over the club’s conservative beliefs.

Between student bullies and adults who single out conservative students, families deserve an answer to a basic question: Can conservative students participate openly in their school communities without risking their reputations or physical safety?

These don’t appear to be isolated incidents.

Last September, Clark County School District Superintendent Jhone Ebert announced that an unspecified number of teachers were removed from classrooms after posts were discovered on their personal social media profiles mocking and celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk.

The district did not tell parents which teachers had been removed. Families shouldn’t have to wonder whether the people responsible for educating their children celebrated the killing of a man who went to college campuses to have peaceful conversations.

RELATED: Democrats have a political violence problem

Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu/Getty Images

These incidents are not limited to Nevada.

Last month, the University of Utah made headlines when it investigated two College Republicans for alleged doxxing. On the anniversary of Kirk’s assassination, the students shared photos online of a liberal student with a cake that read “Happy Kirkiversary.” The university ultimately dropped the case due to lack of evidence, and the Office of the Dean of Students emailed the two students and apologized for the inconvenience. But by then, the damage was done.

There was a time when a simple “sorry” and “we’re taking care of it” was enough for parents to let situations like these go. But over the last decade, censorship and intimidation have escalated on high school and college campuses across the country.

Expecting accountability from students and staff who misbehave is not a demand for ideological agreement. No one is asking them to bend a knee and convert. But in a functioning society, we shouldn’t have to demand tolerance and basic professionalism from the people running our schools.

There is an inspiring silver lining in all of these situations: the courage of young conservatives standing up for themselves and what they believe.

Ella has continued to knock on doors with her grandmother every day since the incident. Club America chapters are still popping up across the country by the hundreds, especially since Charlie Kirk’s death. And College Republicans aren’t backing down from continuing their meetings and activities.

Ella’s willingness to work, participate in her community, and stand by her convictions reflects the kind of patriotism and responsibility Americans should want to encourage in young people.

​Charlie kirk, College republicans, Doxxing, Young conservatives, Patriotism, High school students, Nevada, Clark county, Utah, Opinion & analysis 

President Donald Trump recently renewed his criticism of the left’s immigration agenda, taking aim at mass amnesty. The Democratic Socialists of America are making the point for him, calling to “grant amnesty for all immigrants regardless of status.”

The White House Council of Economic Advisers released a new report last week estimating that the DSA’s immigration policies could cost Americans a whopping $440 billion to $613 billion over 10 years. And that’s not the worst of it.

‘The rule of law cannot co-exist with mass amnesty.’

According to the CEA, allowing mass amnesty could create $36 billion to $47 billion in estimated annual costs for just SNAP, Medicaid, and HUD housing vouchers.

The report argues that these costs would come from “turning the existing population of illegal aliens into legal residents eligible for federal social safety net programs.”

While DSA candidates like Melat Kiros believe “millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States right now should have an immediate pathway to citizenship,” American taxpayers should be asking the more important question: If mass amnesty could leave taxpayers with billions in new costs every year, what exactly does it solve?

It certainly does not solve the underlying problem. It changes the legal status of the people already here while leaving the incentives that attract more illegal immigration intact. We have been down this road before. Not to ruin the ending, but we somehow keep finding ourselves right back to where we started.

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The law created legalization programs for millions of illegal aliens while also establishing employer sanctions intended to discourage the hiring of unauthorized workers. About 2.7 million people ultimately received legal status under the law.

However, the bargain did not work. Due to IRCA’s eligibility cutoff, roughly 2 million were excluded from legalization, while an estimated 500,000 were eligible but never received legal status. According to the Migration Policy Institute, those who remained in unlawful status “became the nucleus of today’s large unauthorized population.”

The enforcement side also fell short. Weaknesses in employment verification and document fraud undermined employer sanctions. The problems IRCA was meant to address ultimately grew. The unauthorized population increased from an estimated 3.5 million in 1990 to 12.2 million by 2007.

Legalization changed the status of millions of people, but it did not prevent the country from having to deal with an even larger unauthorized population later. A growing population of illegal aliens brings larger costs for schools, health care, housing, and other public services.

RELATED: Republicans cannot serve two masters on immigration

Kent NISHIMURA/AFP/Getty Images

The DSA platform does not just call for mass amnesty; members also want an end to ICE detention and deportations.

CEA estimates the “net cost to taxpayers of ending deportations and ICE detentions to be between $79 and $139 billion over 10 years.” The report argues that doing so would eliminate fiscal savings associated with current immigration enforcement.

Former Border Patrol agent and Texas Public Policy Foundation senior fellow Ammon Blair puts it plainly: “The rule of law cannot co-exist with mass amnesty.”

If amnesty paired with enforcement did not keep our country from ending up back here, why should taxpayers expect amnesty with less enforcement to work any better?

Mass amnesty is not an immigration solution. And it cannot prevent the next wave of illegal immigration.

American immigration policy sends a message around the world. If the United States repeatedly demonstrates that entering or remaining in the country illegally may eventually end in legal status, policymakers have to consider the incentive that amnesty creates for the next person deciding whether our immigration laws are worth obeying.

That is the problem with DSA’s socialist immigration promises. The slogans are simple, yet the consequences are anything but. Americans would be left paying billions in new costs while the DSA simultaneously calls for less immigration enforcement.

We cannot mistake an old idea for a new solution. History has shown us that mass amnesty is not the answer. Socialism has never been short on promises, but it is taxpayers who are always expected to foot the bill.

​Americans, Democratic socialists of america, Deportations, Ice detention, Illegal immigration, Mass amnesty, Medicaid, Melat kiros, Taxpayers, Opinion & analysis