A federal judge has halted a newly enacted Ohio law that sought to prohibit foreign nationals and green card holders from contributing to state ballot campaigns. The ruling, issued on Saturday, found that the law infringes on constitutionally protected free speech rights.
Legal Challenge and Constitutional Concerns
U.S. District Judge Michael Watson ruled that while the government has a legitimate interest in preventing foreign influence on state ballot issues, the law, as it is written, fails to achieve that goal. Instead, it curtails the First Amendment rights of lawful permanent residents, who would face severe restrictions on their ability to participate in political discourse.
The controversial law was signed by Republican Governor Mike DeWine on June 2 and was set to take effect on Sunday. However, it was challenged in court by a prominent Democratic law firm, which argued that the measure would unfairly subject noncitizens to investigations, criminal prosecution, and mandatory fines for any election-related spending or contributions.
Judge’s Reasoning
Judge Watson emphasized the absurdity of allowing lawful permanent residents to serve in the U.S. military and be compelled to register for selective service, while simultaneously barring them from expressing political views through incidental expenditures such as purchasing a yard sign. He questioned the logic of trusting these individuals to protect U.S. interests in the military but not in political activities.
“Where is the danger of people beholden to foreign interests higher than in the U.S. military? Nowhere,” Watson wrote. “So, if the U.S. Federal Government trusts [such residents] to put U.S. interests first in the military (of all places), how could this Court hold that it does not trust them to promote U.S. interests in their political spending? It cannot.”
Watson further noted that the right of U.S. citizens to hear the political speech of foreign nationals is also constitutionally protected. Seeking to narrowly address the issue without overstepping his judicial role, Watson barred Ohio officials from pursuing civil or criminal penalties based on the law’s definition of a “foreign national.”
Political Context
The law had been championed by Ohio Statehouse Republicans after voters rejected their positions on several key ballot measures in the past year. These measures included protecting abortion access in the state constitution, opposing a bid to make future constitutional amendments harder to pass, and legalizing recreational marijuana. The impetus for the law partially stemmed from concerns over donations linked to Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss, although any direct financial path to Ohio campaigns remains untraceable under current campaign finance laws.
Lawsuit Plaintiffs
The lawsuit challenging the law was filed on behalf of several plaintiffs, including OPAWL – Building AAPI Feminist Leadership, the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, and individuals from Cleveland and Silver Lake, Ohio. The plaintiffs argued that the law violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, although Judge Watson did not address the equal protection claims in his ruling.
