Federal judge crushes Ohio’s immigrant finance bill

A federal judge has temporarily slapped down an attempt by the Ohio General Assembly to prohibit lawful permanent residents or green card holders from financially contributing to campaigns for candidates and issues in Ohio.

On Aug. 31, one day before the law was to go into effect, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Watson —appointed by President George W. Bush — temporarily blocked this controversial measure, saying it is likely unconstitutional based on the First Amendment.

He issued a preliminary injunction against the part of the law that prohibits foreign nationals from donating or being solicited to donate to campaigns regarding state and local issues and candidates. In this case, a preliminary injunction is a court order prohibiting the statute from taking effect or being enforced during the pendency of litigation.?

Eventually, the preliminary injunction may be converted to a permanent injunction at the end of the case, if the judge’s opinion does not change.

The law is being challenged by OPAWL, an organization comprised of Asian, Asian American and Pacific Islander women and nonbinary people of Ohio. Additional plaintiffs include the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, Building AAPI Feminist Leadership, a German citizen and her husband who live in Cleveland and a Canadian citizen living in a suburb of Kent, according to the Associated Press.

Ohio Attorney General David Yost has appealed Judge Watson’s ruling to the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. It will take several months for both sides to file written legal arguments supporting their positions and to appear before a three-judge panel for oral arguments.

Background

The law in question originated as H.B. 1. It was passed by the Republican-dominated General Assembly in a special session in May. Gov. Mike DeWine signed it on June 2; it was to become effective on Sept. 1.

Lawful permanent residents were added as an amendment to the original bill on May 25 at the behest of a super-conservative group of legislators.

The statute specifically targeted political participation in Ohio of immigrants, especially those who are in the country legally as lawful permanent residents. It attempted to limit their ability to contribute and participate in statewide and local elections about issues and prohibited their financial support of candidates.

The intent of the legislation was to stop foreign contributions to state and local ballot-issue campaigns. As amended, it illegally targeted immigrants in the form of permanent foreign nationals and green card holders.

The law’s origins were spawned by $11.5 million in spending on the 2023 election by the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a dark money group of organizations promoting abortion access and keeping majority rule for passage of ballot issues, according to News5 Cleveland. Political committees in Ohio that promoted these constitutional initiatives also took money from entities receiving donations from Swiss billionaire and Wyoming resident Hansjorg Wyss, according to the Associated Press.

Federal law allows people who are U. S. citizens or lawful permanent residents to donate to campaigns. In short, the Ohio statute went beyond the confines of federal law in its definition of “foreign national.”

State legislators of both parties questioned the super right-wing Republican faction who pushed to include lawful permanent residents in H.B. 1, according to News5 Cleveland.

Judge’s ruling

In his opinion, Judge Watson acknowledged that the state may have an interest in preventing foreign influence over elections but the law as written instead harms the First Amendment rights of permanent residents.

“Defendants ask this Court to hold that individual LPRs — who the Federal Government allows to fight and die for the U.S. Armed Forces — present such a high risk of ‘foreign influence’ on Ohio’s political processes that Ohio may prohibit them from speaking on Ohio politics. The Court declines to do so,” the judge wrote.

The judge noted that lawful permanent residents are required to register for Selective Service, and many serve in the military. He said it would be “absurd” for them to be able to fight and die for the country but not be able to contribute to a cause or a political candidate in Ohio.

He noted the flawed reasoning in having lawful permanent residents in the military but prohibiting them “from making incidental expenditures for a yard-sign that expresses a view on state or local politics.”

“Where is the danger of people beholden to foreign interests higher than in the U.S. Military? Nowhere.” the judge 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.”

The judge said that not only is the speech of lawful permanent residents protected, but also a citizen’s right “to hear those foreign nationals‘ political speech.”

The judge’s order prohibits officials from pursuing civil or criminal liability for alleged violations of the law based upon the state’s overreaching definition of the term “foreign national.”

Analysis

The law is a perfect example of super-conservative overreach.?Although foreign money is illegal in federal elections, critics of the new law said it went too far by including lawful permanent residents in the same category as outside-of-the-country money.?

Many Democrats believe the bill was passed specifically to limit spending by lawful permanent residents and other groups to support the anti-gerrymandering constitutional amendment on the ballot in November, also known as the Citizens Not Politicians ballot initiative.

In short, some argue that the bill was intended to keep the Republican supermajority in power in the Statehouse.?

Republican leadership counters by saying that the lawsuit, brought by Democratic-leaning groups, is an “un-American sellout to foreign influence,” the Associated Press reported.

Meanwhile, we will await an appellate decision — or for the legislature to fix the law’s definitions in the next scheduled session after the Nov. 5 general election.

This column was originally printed in the Athens County Independent on September 12, 2024.