BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF:
United States Chamber of Commerce 1615 H Street NW Washington, DC 20062
Respondent.
MUR No.:
COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1)
Submitted by:
US Workers Alliance, 8229 Nelson Ridge Lane, Las Vegas, NV 89178-4182, randell@usworkersalliance.com, (702)849-4881
Complainant.
Pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1) and 11 C.F.R. § 111.4, Complainant US Workers Alliance (“USWA”) respectfully submits this complaint requesting that the Federal Election Commission (“Commission”) find reason to believe that Respondent United States Chamber of Commerce (“Chamber”) has violated and continues to violate 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20 by (1) permitting foreign nationals to participate in decision-making regarding the Chamber’s federal election activities, (2) soliciting, accepting, and spending foreign national money in connection with federal elections, and (3) providing substantial assistance in the making of prohibited foreign national contributions and expenditures.
I. INTRODUCTION
The United States Chamber of Commerce is the largest lobbying organization in the United States and one of the largest spenders on federal elections in American history. Since Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), the Chamber has spent over $200 million on federal election advertising — all from its general treasury, a 501(c)(6) account funded in part by dues payments from foreign corporations and governed by a Board of Directors that includes five foreign nationals.
Federal law prohibits any foreign national from making a “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” in connection with any federal, state, or local election, “directly or indirectly.” 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1)(A). The same statute prohibits any person from “solicit[ing], accept[ing], or receiv[ing]” such contributions from foreign nationals. 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(2).
Critically, federal regulations also prohibit foreign nationals from “directly or indirectly participating in the decision-making process” of any organization with regard to its election-related activities. 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(i). This provision is the core of this complaint.
The Chamber is operating in plain violation of these prohibitions. It has five foreign nationals on its Board of Directors who participate in governance decisions that encompass election spending. It accepts dues from foreign corporations into the same general treasury used for election expenditures. It has no segregated fund for political activity, no U.S.-citizen-only decision-making committee, and no reasonable accounting method to separate foreign from domestic funds.
This complaint presents three independent violation theories, each supported by substantial evidence:
| # | Violation Theory | Legal Authority | Key Facts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Foreign national participation in election-related decision-making | 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(i) | Five foreign nationals serve on the Chamber Board that governs all activities including election spending |
| 2 | Commingled foreign money funding election expenditures | 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1)(A); 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(b), (f) | Foreign corporate dues enter the same general fund used for election spending |
| 3 | Substantial assistance in making prohibited expenditures | 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(h) | Chamber leadership facilitates foreign national participation in election spending |
The FEC has never approved this structure. No advisory opinion, rulemaking, or enforcement precedent authorizes a 501(c)(6) trade association with foreign nationals on its board to make independent expenditures from a commingled general fund. The Chamber’s position is legally undefended.
II. PARTIES
A. Complainant
US Workers Alliance (“USWA”) is a nonprofit organization incorporated under the laws of [State], with its principal place of business at [Address]. USWA’s mission is to advocate for the rights and economic interests of American workers, including by ensuring that federal election laws are enforced. USWA has organizational standing to bring this complaint because the Chamber’s unlawful foreign-funded and foreign-influenced political spending has frustrated USWA’s mission by distorting the federal elections in which USWA’s members participate as voters and candidates. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 379 (1982).
USWA members include American workers in industries directly harmed by the Chamber’s political advocacy, including those whose jobs have been displaced or depressed by H-1B visa policies that the Chamber’s foreign-influenced political spending has helped entrench.
B. Respondent
The United States Chamber of Commerce is a 501(c)(6) membership organization incorporated in the District of Columbia, with its principal offices at 1615 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20062. The Chamber is the largest business lobbying organization in the United States. The Chamber maintains a single general treasury account — its 501(c)(6) account — into which it deposits all membership dues, including dues from foreign national members, and from which it funds its federal election expenditures.
The Chamber’s Board of Directors includes five individuals who are foreign nationals or who represent foreign-incorporated corporations, making them agents of foreign principals under 22 U.S.C. § 611(b).
III. JURISDICTION AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Jurisdiction
The Commission has jurisdiction over this complaint pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30106(b)(1), which vests the Commission with “exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the civil enforcement of [the Federal Election Campaign Act].” The Commission has authority to receive complaints from “any person” who believes a violation of the Act has occurred. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1).
B. The Foreign National Contribution and Expenditure Prohibition
52 U.S.C. § 30121 provides in pertinent part:
(a) Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); and
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
The statute defines “foreign national” to include any “corporation, partnership, association, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.” 52 U.S.C. § 30121(b)(2); see also 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(a)(3).
C. The Foreign National Decision-Making Prohibition — 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(i)
This is the core legal provision for this complaint. The Commission’s regulations explicitly provide:
11 C.F.R. § 110.20(i): A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person’s Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, including but not limited to:
(1) Decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee;
(2) Decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with ballot initiatives or referenda.
The plain text prohibits foreign nationals from “directly or indirectly participating in the decision-making process” regarding election activities. This prohibition applies regardless of whether the foreign national makes a specific decision about a specific expenditure. Participation in governance that encompasses election spending — such as voting on budgets, setting strategic priorities, and appointing leadership — constitutes “indirect participation” in the decision-making process.
D. The Substantial Assistance Prohibition — 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(h)
The regulations further provide:
11 C.F.R. § 110.20(h): No person shall knowingly provide substantial assistance in the solicitation, making, acceptance, or receipt of a contribution, donation, expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement prohibited by this section.
This provision extends liability to domestic individuals who facilitate foreign national violations.
E. The “Reason to Believe” Standard
Under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2), the Commission must find “reason to believe” that a violation has occurred before proceeding to an investigation. “Reason to believe” requires only that the complaint presents a plausible allegation supported by sufficient facts to warrant further inquiry. It does not require proof by a preponderance of evidence at the complaint stage. AFL-CIO v. FEC, 333 F.3d 168, 170 (D.C. Cir. 2003). The facts set forth in this complaint easily clear that threshold.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. The Chamber’s Political Spending from Its 501(c)(6) Account
The United States Chamber of Commerce funds its federal election spending — including expenditures for electioneering communications and independent expenditures — through its 501(c)(6) general treasury. The Chamber has publicly disclosed, in FEC filings and in public statements, that it funds political advertising from its general operating account.
| Election Cycle | Estimated Independent Expenditures/Election Spending |
|---|---|
| 2010 | ~$35 million |
| 2012 | ~$33 million |
| 2014 | ~$35 million |
| 2016 | ~$29 million |
| 2018 | ~$17 million |
| 2020 | ~$29 million |
| 2022 | ~$17 million |
| 2024 | ~$5.97 million (including $5.4M organizational/soft money) |
| Total since 2010 | Over $200 million |
B. The Five Foreign Nationals on the Chamber’s Board of Directors
This is the core factual allegation of this complaint. The Chamber’s current Board of Directors includes five individuals who are foreign nationals or who represent foreign-incorporated corporations:
| Name | Company | Country of Origin | Role on Chamber Board | Foreign National Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suzanne Dann | Wipro Limited | India | CEO, Americas | Executive of Indian corporation (HQ: Bangalore, India). Wipro is incorporated in India and listed on BSE/NSE India. |
| Ravi Kumar | Cognizant Technology Solutions | India | CEO | Cognizant was founded by an Indian conglomerate, its workforce is 75%+ Indian nationals (per Palmer v. Cognizant), and Kumar previously led Infosys operations. Cognizant was convicted in federal court (Oct. 2024) of discriminating against American workers in favor of H-1B visa holders from India. |
| Colette Hirstius | Shell USA | Netherlands/UK | President, Gulf of America | Executive of the U.S. subsidiary of Shell plc, a corporation incorporated in the United Kingdom with headquarters in the Netherlands. Shell plc is a foreign principal. |
| Peter J. Levesque | CMA CGM | France | CEO, North America | Executive of the U.S. subsidiary of CMA CGM S.A., a French shipping conglomerate headquartered in Marseille, France. CMA CGM S.A. is a foreign principal. |
| Jason Girzadas | Deloitte US | United Kingdom | CEO | Deloitte US is a subsidiary of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (DTTL), incorporated in the United Kingdom. The ultimate parent entity is a foreign principal. |
Under 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(a)(3), a “foreign national” includes a “foreign principal” as defined in 22 U.S.C. § 611(b), which includes any corporation organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.
Wipro Limited (India), Shell plc (UK/Netherlands), CMA CGM S.A. (France), and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (UK) are all foreign principals. Their executives serving on the Chamber’s board are agents representing the interests of these foreign entities in Chamber governance — including governance over the Chamber’s political spending.
C. Board Governance Encompasses Election Spending
The Chamber’s Board of Directors is the organization’s supreme governing body. The Board:
- Approves the annual budget (which includes the allocation for election spending)
- Sets strategic priorities (which include targeting specific candidates and races)
- Appoints the CEO and senior leadership (who execute election spending decisions)
- Approves major expenditure categories (including independent expenditures)
- Reviews and ratifies organizational policy (including political endorsement policies)
There is no evidence that the Chamber has established a subsidiary committee of exclusively U.S. citizens/permanent residents to make election-spending decisions. The five foreign nationals participate in all Board decisions, including decisions that directly or indirectly affect the Chamber’s election-related activities.
D. The Chamber’s Foreign National Dues-Paying Members
In addition to foreign nationals on its Board, the Chamber’s membership includes corporations incorporated and headquartered outside the United States — “foreign nationals” within the meaning of 52 U.S.C. § 30121(b)(2) — who pay annual membership dues directly into the Chamber’s general treasury.
In 2010, a joint investigative report by ThinkProgress and the AFL-CIO identified and documented the following foreign corporations as dues-paying members of the United States Chamber of Commerce:
| Foreign Corporation | Country of Incorporation | Principal Place of Business | Annual Dues to Chamber 501(c)(6) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Infosys Limited | India | Bangalore, Karnataka, India | $15,000 |
| Tata Group | India | Mumbai, Maharashtra, India | $15,000 |
| Wipro Limited | India | Bangalore, Karnataka, India | $15,000 |
| NIIT Technologies | India | New Delhi, India | $15,000 |
| Patni Americas, Inc. | India | Mumbai, Maharashtra, India | $15,000 |
| KPIT Cummins | India | Pune, Maharashtra, India | $7,500 |
| QuEST Global | Singapore | Singapore | $7,500 |
| Rolta India, Ltd. | India | Mumbai, Maharashtra, India | $7,500 |
| SKP Crossborder Consulting | India | Mumbai, Maharashtra, India | $7,500 |
Each of these entities is a “foreign national” within the meaning of 52 U.S.C. § 30121(b)(2) because each is “organized under the laws of” a foreign country and/or has its “principal place of business in a foreign country.” The dues paid by these corporations flowed directly into the Chamber’s 501(c)(6) account — the same account from which the Chamber funded its federal election advertising.
E. The Chamber Has Never Established Required Safeguards
The Chamber does NOT:
- Maintain a segregated fund exclusively for election spending sourced only from domestic members
- Use a “reasonable accounting method” (as required by FEC AO 2006-15 for domestic subsidiaries) to demonstrate that election funds derive solely from domestic sources
- Exclude foreign board members from governance decisions that encompass budget-setting, strategic planning, and spending authority — all of which affect election activities
- Publicly disclose the proportion of its dues revenue that comes from foreign members
The Chamber’s official response to allegations has been to assert an “internal firewall” — a claim that it tracks foreign dues internally and does not “use” them for political advertising. This defense fails as a matter of law for the reasons set forth in Section V below.
V. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. Violation Theory #1: Foreign National Participation in Election-Related Decision-Making
11 C.F.R. § 110.20(i) — The Core Violation
The most direct violation is the Chamber’s structural allowance of foreign national participation in decisions regarding its election-related activities.
1. The Regulation Prohibits Indirect Participation
11 C.F.R. § 110.20(i) prohibits foreign nationals from “directly or indirectly participating in the decision-making process” regarding election activities. The regulation does not require that a foreign national make a specific decision about a specific expenditure. It prohibits participation in the decision-making process — which includes governance decisions that set budgets, approve strategies, and appoint leadership.
2. The Five Foreign Board Members Participate in the Decision-Making Process
The five foreign nationals on the Chamber’s Board of Directors participate in all governance decisions, including decisions that directly or indirectly affect election spending:
- Voting on annual budgets that allocate funds for election activities
- Setting strategic priorities that include political targeting
- Appointing the CEO and senior leadership who execute election spending
- Reviewing organizational performance including political outcomes
This constitutes “indirect participation in the decision-making process” within the plain meaning of 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(i).
3. The AO 2006-15 Framework Proves the Violation
In Advisory Opinion 2006-15 (TransCanada), the FEC established a three-part test for when a U.S. entity with foreign connections may engage in election spending:
| AO 2006-15 Requirement | TransCanada (Approved) | U.S. Chamber of Commerce (FAILS) |
|---|---|---|
| Entity incorporated in U.S. with principal place of business in U.S. | ✅ GTN and TC Hydro were U.S.-incorporated subsidiaries | ⚠️ The Chamber is a 501(c)(6) — not a subsidiary. Different legal relationship. |
| All decisions concerning political spending made by U.S. citizens/permanent residents ONLY | ✅ TransCanada delegated all political decisions to a subset of board members who were exclusively U.S. citizens | ❌ The Chamber has 5 foreign nationals on its board. No delegation to a U.S.-citizen-only subset. |
| Funds derive entirely from domestic operations (reasonable accounting method) | ✅ GTN/TC Hydro used only funds from U.S. operations, with accounting verification | ❌ The Chamber’s general treasury commingles foreign and domestic dues. No accounting method separates them. |
The Chamber fails ALL THREE requirements that even a domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation must meet to engage in election spending.
4. The APIC/Right to Rise Enforcement Precedent
In March 2019, the FEC imposed its largest fine since Citizens United:
- American Pacific International Capital (APIC), a Chinese-owned, California-based corporation, was fined $550,000 for violating the foreign national contribution ban
- Right to Rise, a pro-Jeb Bush super PAC, was fined $390,000 for soliciting a foreign national contribution
- Total: $940,000
The violation: The president of APIC (a Chinese national) “directed” the corporation’s $1.3 million contribution to the super PAC. Under 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(i), a foreign national may not “direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process” regarding election spending.
Application to the Chamber: If one Chinese national directing one contribution from one corporation resulted in a $940,000 fine, then five foreign nationals participating in years of governance decisions that encompass over $200 million in election spending represents a violation of exponentially greater magnitude.
5. Commissioner Weintraub’s Warning
In September 2016, Commissioner Ellen Weintraub explicitly warned:
“The public should know that there is no longer a consensus, no longer can we get four votes to give safe harbor for the political activities of domestic subsidiaries.”
If the FEC cannot agree to provide safe harbor for domestic subsidiaries that have established U.S.-citizen-only decision-making committees, then the Chamber — which has foreign nationals sitting on its actual board with no segregation of decision-making authority — is in an indefensible legal position.
B. Violation Theory #2: Commingled Foreign Money Funding Election Expenditures
52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1)(A); 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(b), (f)
1. The Statute Prohibits Indirect Contributions
52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1)(A) prohibits a foreign national from “directly or indirectly” making a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election. The word “indirectly” is capacious and intentional. It encompasses the transmission of money through an intermediary organization that uses the commingled funds for political spending.
2. The Chamber’s Commingling Problem
The Chamber accepts dues from foreign corporations — Wipro (India), Shell (Netherlands/UK), CMA CGM (France), Deloitte’s UK parent entity, and the foreign-incorporated members identified in Section IV.D — into its general treasury. From this same general treasury, the Chamber funds independent expenditures, electioneering communications, and other election-related activities.
There is no segregated account. There is no “reasonable accounting method” as required by AO 2006-15. When foreign dues dollars enter the general treasury, they become part of the pool from which election spending is drawn.
3. Money Is Fungible
When foreign dues are deposited into a general treasury that is then used for political advertising, the foreign money necessarily funds — at least in part — that advertising. This is a basic principle of fungibility that courts and the Commission have recognized. See, e.g., FEC v. National Right to Work Committee, 459 U.S. 197, 210 (1982) (recognizing fungibility of funds in corporate treasury analysis).
4. No De Minimis Exception
Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 288 (D.D.C. 2011) (Kavanaugh, J.), aff’d mem., 565 U.S. 1104 (2012), held that the foreign national ban covers even a $300 contribution. If a $300 contribution from a single foreign national violates the statute, then millions of dollars in foreign corporate dues commingled with over $200 million in election spending is a massive, ongoing violation.
C. Violation Theory #3: Substantial Assistance
11 C.F.R. § 110.20(h)
The Chamber’s leadership — its CEO, its senior staff, its domestic board members — knowingly facilitate a structure in which:
- Foreign nationals serve on the governing board
- Foreign corporate dues enter the general treasury
- The general treasury funds election spending
- No safeguards exist to prevent foreign participation in election-related decisions
Every domestic person involved in maintaining this structure is potentially providing “substantial assistance” in making expenditures that are prohibited because they derive, in part, from foreign sources and are governed, in part, by foreign nationals.
D. The Chamber’s “Internal Firewall” Defense Fails
The Chamber has asserted an “internal firewall” defense — claiming it tracks foreign dues internally and does not “use” them for political advertising. This defense fails for four reasons:
First, neither 52 U.S.C. § 30121 nor 11 C.F.R. § 110.20 contains an “internal firewall” exception. The statute prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions “directly or indirectly.” An internal accounting system does not cure an indirect contribution.
Second, money is fungible. A general treasury is a single pool of funds. The Chamber cannot demonstrate that any specific dollar spent on election advertising did not derive from a foreign source.
Third, the Commission’s regulations require a “separate segregated fund” for political expenditures funded solely by eligible contributors. 11 C.F.R. § 114.5. The Chamber has not established such a fund.
Fourth, the “internal firewall” defense is particularly irrelevant to the decision-making participation violation under 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(i). Even if the Chamber could somehow segregate funds (which it does not), the five foreign nationals still participate in governance decisions affecting election activities — a structural violation that no accounting method can cure.
VI. THE REGULATORY GAP: WHY THE CHAMBER IS LEGALLY EXPOSED
A. The Chamber Is NOT a Domestic Subsidiary
The entire body of FEC precedent on foreign nationals and election spending (AO 2006-15, AO 2000-17, AO 1992-16) concerns domestic subsidiaries of foreign parent corporations. In that context, the FEC has required:
- U.S. incorporation and principal place of business
- Exclusive U.S. citizen/permanent resident decision-making for election activities
- Reasonable accounting to show funds derive from domestic operations
The Chamber is a 501(c)(6) trade association. It is not a subsidiary of any foreign entity. It is a membership organization that voluntarily accepts foreign corporations as dues-paying members and voluntarily places their executives on its Board of Directors.
There is no FEC advisory opinion, rulemaking, or enforcement precedent that authorizes this structure.
B. The FEC Has Never Approved This Structure
| Structure | FEC Status | Applies to Chamber? |
|---|---|---|
| Domestic subsidiary of foreign parent, with U.S.-citizen-only election decisions and segregated funds | Approved (AO 2006-15) | NO — Chamber is not a subsidiary |
| Domestic subsidiary PAC, with U.S.-citizen-only PAC decisions | Approved (AO 2009-14, Mercedes-Benz USA) | NO — Chamber uses general treasury, not a PAC |
| 501(c)(6) trade association with foreign board members making independent expenditures from commingled general fund | NEVER ADDRESSED | YES — This IS the Chamber |
The Chamber is operating in a legal vacuum — using a structure the FEC has never approved, with no safe harbor, no advisory opinion, and no certification process.
VII. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS AND FEC INACTION
In 2010, the Commission received a complaint raising similar allegations regarding the Chamber’s foreign-funded political spending. The Commission deadlocked 3-3 on whether to proceed, with the three Republican commissioners voting to dismiss and the three Democratic commissioners voting to investigate. The Commission therefore took no action.
That prior dismissal does not bar this complaint. A deadlocked Commission vote is not a final adjudication on the merits and does not have preclusive effect. 11 C.F.R. § 111.20(a). New factual developments — including the identification of five foreign nationals on the Chamber’s Board, the APIC/Right to Rise enforcement precedent, and Commissioner Weintraub’s 2016 warning — support reconsideration.
Moreover, the composition of the Commission has changed since 2010. This complaint asks the current Commission to exercise its independent judgment on the legal question presented, without deference to a prior non-decision by a deadlocked predecessor body.
VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED
Complainant US Workers Alliance respectfully requests that the Commission:
1. Find reason to believe that the United States Chamber of Commerce has violated and continues to violate:
a. 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(i) by permitting foreign nationals to directly and indirectly participate in the decision-making process regarding the Chamber’s federal election-related activities;
b. 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1)(A) and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(b), (f) by soliciting, accepting, and receiving contributions and expenditures from foreign nationals through commingled general treasury funds used for federal election spending; and
c. 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(h) by knowingly providing substantial assistance in the making of prohibited foreign national contributions and expenditures.
2. Authorize a full investigation, including:
a. Civil investigative demands to the Chamber requiring production of: – All Board of Directors meeting minutes, agendas, and votes from 2010-present, including any discussion of political spending, endorsements, or election strategy – All membership records identifying foreign national members and dues amounts – All records relating to the Chamber’s 501(c)(6) account into which foreign national dues have been deposited – All internal policies, if any, regarding segregation of foreign dues or exclusion of foreign board members from election-related decisions – All records relating to the Chamber’s federal election expenditures
b. Civil investigative demands to any financial institution holding accounts in the name of the United States Chamber of Commerce requiring production of account records sufficient to establish the commingling of foreign national dues and political expenditure funds;
c. Deposition authority to examine Chamber officers, including the Chamber’s President and CEO, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel, and any officer responsible for the Chamber’s political spending program.
3. Find probable cause to believe that the Chamber has violated the cited provisions following completion of the investigation.
4. Pursue conciliation and, failing conciliation, refer the matter to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution or initiate a civil enforcement action in federal district court.
5. Issue civil penalties commensurate with the scale of violations. The APIC/Right to Rise fine was $940,000 for $1.3 million in spending involving one foreign national. The Chamber’s election spending since 2010 exceeds $200 million, with five foreign nationals participating in governance.
6. Issue prospective injunctive relief requiring the Chamber to:
a. Remove all foreign nationals from its Board of Directors, OR establish a U.S.-citizen/permanent-resident-only committee with exclusive authority over all election-related decisions; AND
b. Establish a segregated domestic-only fund for all election spending with auditable accounting; AND
c. Publicly disclose the identity and dues amounts of all foreign member corporations.
7. Issue a public statement clarifying that the Commission interprets 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20 to prohibit a 501(c)(6) organization with foreign nationals on its Board from funding federal election advertising from a general treasury that contains commingled foreign national membership dues.
IX. VERIFICATION
I, [Name], [Title] of US Workers Alliance, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the facts and allegations set forth in this complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that this complaint is filed in good faith.
Executed this ___ day of ________, 2025.
[Name] [Title] US Workers Alliance [Address] [City, State, ZIP] [Phone] [Email]
X. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Board of Directors information identifying the five foreign national board members (Suzanne Dann, Ravi Kumar, Colette Hirstius, Peter J. Levesque, Jason Girzadas) and their corporate affiliations.
Attachment B: ThinkProgress/AFL-CIO Investigation, “Foreign-Funded U.S. Chamber of Commerce Running Partisan Attack Ads,” identifying foreign national Chamber members and dues amounts (October 2010).
Attachment C: FEC Advisory Opinion 2006-15 (TransCanada) — Three-part test for domestic subsidiaries.
Attachment D: APIC/Right to Rise Conciliation Agreement (March 2019) — $940,000 fine for foreign national election spending violation.
Attachment E: Commissioner Ellen Weintraub Memorandum and Statement (September 2016) — Warning that “no longer a consensus” exists for safe harbor.
Attachment F: United States Department of Justice Press Release, “Infosys Pays $34 Million for Systemic Visa Fraud” (October 30, 2013) — Relevant to foreign member conduct.
Attachment G: Palmer v. Cognizant Tech. Solutions Corp. (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2024) — Federal jury verdict finding Cognizant liable for discrimination against American workers (relevant to board member Ravi Kumar).
Attachment H: FEC Disclosure Reports documenting Chamber federal election expenditures, 2010–2024.
Attachment I: Relevant provisions of 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20.
Attachment J: Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281 (D.D.C. 2011), aff’d mem., 565 U.S. 1104 (2012).
XI. FILING INFORMATION
This complaint is submitted pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1) and 11 C.F.R. § 111.4.
Filing Instructions:
- This complaint must be filed with the Federal Election Commission, Office of General Counsel, 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20463.
- Electronic filing may be submitted via email to: complaint@fec.gov
- The complaint must be accompanied by a notarized verification (see Section IX above).
- Upon filing, the Commission is required to notify the Respondent (the Chamber) within five days. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1).
- The Respondent has 15 days to respond. 11 C.F.R. § 111.6.
- The Commission must vote on whether to find reason to believe within 30 days of receiving the Respondent’s response or the expiration of the response period. 11 C.F.R. § 111.7.
Respectfully submitted,
US Workers Alliance
Date: ________________, 2025
APPENDIX: LEGAL AUTHORITIES CITED
| Citation | Relevance |
|---|---|
| 52 U.S.C. § 30121 | Foreign national contribution and expenditure prohibition — primary statute |
| 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(i) | Foreign national decision-making participation prohibition — THE KEY PROVISION |
| 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(b), (f) | Foreign national contribution and expenditure prohibitions |
| 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(h) | Substantial assistance prohibition |
| 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(a)(3) | Definition of “foreign national” |
| 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1) | FEC complaint procedure |
| 11 C.F.R. § 111.4 | FEC complaint filing requirements |
| 11 C.F.R. § 114.5 | Separate segregated fund requirements |
| FEC AO 2006-15 (TransCanada) | Three-part test for domestic subsidiaries — Chamber fails all three |
| APIC/Right to Rise (2019) | $940,000 fine for foreign national directing $1.3M contribution |
| Commissioner Weintraub (2016) | “No longer a consensus” for safe harbor |
| Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281 (D.D.C. 2011), aff’d, 565 U.S. 1104 (2012) | No de minimis exception; $300 contribution covered |
| Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) | Background; § 30121 explicitly preserved |
| FEC v. National Right to Work Committee, 459 U.S. 197 (1982) | Fungibility of funds in corporate treasury |
| Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) | Organizational standing for USWA |
| AFL-CIO v. FEC, 333 F.3d 168 (D.C. Cir. 2003) | “Reason to believe” standard |
| Palmer v. Cognizant Tech. Solutions Corp. (C.D. Cal. 2024) | Cognizant liable for discrimination against American workers |
[END OF COMPLAINT]
0 Comments