[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]