---

IN THE MATTER OF:

United States Chamber of Commerce 1615 H Street NW Washington, DC 20062

Respondent.

---

MUR No.: [To be assigned by FEC]

---

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1)

---

Submitted by:

US Workers Alliance [Address] [City, State, ZIP] [Contact Email] [Contact Phone]

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 by soliciting, accepting, and spending foreign national money in connection with federal elections.

---

I. INTRODUCTION

The United States Chamber of Commerce is the largest lobbying organization in the United States. It spent an estimated $35 million on federal election advertising in the 2010 election cycle alone, $33 million in 2012, and has remained among the top outside spenders in every federal election cycle since Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). The Chamber conducts this political spending through its general treasury — a 501(c)(6) account funded in part by dues payments from foreign corporations incorporated and headquartered outside the United States.

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). There is no de minimis exception. Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 288 (D.D.C. 2011) (three-judge panel, per Kavanaugh, J.) (“[T]he Court has no difficulty concluding that the law . . . [covers] a $300 contribution.”), aff’d mem., 565 U.S. 1104 (2012).

The Chamber has publicly acknowledged that it accepts dues from foreign corporations — corporations that are nationals of India, China, the United Kingdom, Canada, and other countries — into the same general treasury account from which it funds federal election advertising. This is not a novel legal theory. It is a straightforward application of a statute that has been on the books since 1974. The Chamber’s foreign-funded political spending violates 52 U.S.C. § 30121 as a matter of law.

This complaint asks the Commission to open a Matter Under Review, issue civil investigative demands for the Chamber’s membership dues records and political expenditure records, and take appropriate enforcement action.

---

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 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 workers whose jobs have been displaced or depressed by the H-1B visa policies that the Chamber’s foreign-funded political spending has helped to 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 registered agent for service of process is [registered agent name and address, to be confirmed from DC corporate records].

---

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 Prohibition

52 U.S.C. § 30121 provides in full:

(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).

The Commission’s regulations provide that a “foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value . . . in connection with any Federal, State or local election.” 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(b). 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. See FEC Advisory Opinion 2004-26 (describing “conduit” analysis); cf. FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146, 155 (2003) (noting that “the corruption interest in campaign finance . . . is not limited to quid pro quo arrangements” and extends to intermediary structures).

C. 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. Tom Donohue, the Chamber’s longtime president and CEO, stated explicitly that the Chamber funds its election spending from its general treasury and that it does not segregate foreign dues from its general account before making political expenditures.

In the 2010 election cycle, the Chamber spent approximately $35 million on federal election advertising — more than any other outside group at that time. In 2012, the Chamber reported spending approximately $33 million on federal elections. These expenditures were made from the same general treasury that contains commingled domestic and foreign membership dues.

B. The Chamber’s Foreign National Members

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, paying dues at the following annual rates directly into the Chamber’s 501(c)(6) account:

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 the above 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.

The ThinkProgress/AFL-CIO investigation further documented the mechanism: “These foreign members of the Chamber send money either directly to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or the foreign members fund their local Chamber, which in turn, transfers dues payments back to the Chamber’s H Street office in Washington DC. These funds are commingled to the Chamber’s 501(c)(6) account which is the vehicle for the attack ads.” (ThinkProgress, Oct. 2010.)

C. The Chamber Has Never Disputed the Commingling

In response to the 2010 reporting, the Chamber’s official response was not to deny that foreign national dues were deposited into the same account used for political spending. Rather, the Chamber’s position was that the amount of foreign dues was small relative to its overall budget, and that the Chamber maintained an “internal firewall” to ensure foreign money was not “used for” political advertising.

This “internal firewall” defense fails as a legal matter for several reasons:

First, 52 U.S.C. § 30121 contains no “internal firewall” exception. The statute prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions “directly or indirectly.” A contribution is indirect when foreign money enters a general treasury that is subsequently depleted by political spending, regardless of the organization’s internal accounting claims. The statute does not permit a carveout for organizations that promise to track the money internally.

Second, 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 in other campaign finance contexts. See, e.g., FEC v. National Right to Work Committee, 459 U.S. 197, 210 (1982) (recognizing fungibility of funds in corporate treasury analysis).

Third, the Chamber has never filed a verified declaration, audited accounting, or any legal submission to the Commission documenting that its “internal firewall” is effective, consistently applied, or legally compliant. The firewall claim is an unsubstantiated assertion made in public relations statements, not a legal defense supported by evidence.

Fourth, the Commission’s own regulations do not recognize an “internal firewall” as a permissible method of segregating foreign national contributions. The only permissible method of accepting dues from a membership organization that includes foreign nationals without triggering § 30121 would be to establish a segregated account for political activity funded solely from domestic sources — a political action committee or a separate segregated fund. The Chamber has not done this. See 11 C.F.R. § 114.5 (requirements for separate segregated funds).

D. Infosys: The Paradigmatic Case

Among the foreign national members identified above, Infosys Limited presents the most fully documented case of violation and warrants particular investigative attention.

1. Foreign National Status. Infosys Limited is incorporated under the laws of India, with its principal registered office at Electronics City, Hosur Road, Bangalore 560 100, Karnataka, India. Infosys is listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange of India, and trades as American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) on the NASDAQ Global Select Market. Its principal place of business is in India. Infosys is unambiguously a “foreign national” within the meaning of 52 U.S.C. § 30121(b)(2).

2. Chamber Membership and Dues. As documented in the ThinkProgress/AFL-CIO investigation, Infosys paid $15,000 in annual dues to the United States Chamber of Commerce, with those funds deposited directly into the Chamber’s 501(c)(6) general treasury account.

3. Motive and Connection. The Chamber has been the leading lobbying force in Washington opposing restrictions on H-1B and L-1 visa programs, which allow foreign technology companies — including Infosys — to import foreign workers at suppressed wages, displacing American workers. Infosys’s payment of dues to the Chamber, and the Chamber’s subsequent political spending opposing candidates who have advocated for H-1B reform, establishes a direct nexus between the foreign national contribution and the political spending.

4. Documented Visa Fraud. In 2013, the United States Department of Justice announced a $34 million civil settlement with Infosys resolving allegations that Infosys had engaged in systematic visa fraud — specifically, the abuse of B-1 visitor visas to bring Indian nationals to the United States to perform skilled labor that should have been performed by Americans or by properly-classified H-1B visa holders. United States v. Infosys Ltd., No. 13-cv-00628 (E.D. Tex. 2013). The $34 million settlement was, at the time, the largest immigration fine ever paid by a private company in American history. This conviction establishes that Infosys was actively engaged in conduct directly contrary to American immigration law and American workers’ interests during the period in which it was paying dues to the Chamber — the same Chamber that was spending tens of millions of dollars opposing candidates who favored immigration reform.

E. The Pattern of Conduct

The conduct described above is not an isolated incident or administrative oversight. It reflects a deliberate structural choice by the Chamber to:

(1) Maintain a single 501(c)(6) treasury rather than a separate segregated fund for political activity, thereby commingling foreign and domestic dues;

(2) Actively solicit and accept dues from foreign national corporations, knowing those corporations are “foreign nationals” within the meaning of § 30121;

(3) Use that commingled treasury to fund hundreds of millions of dollars in federal election advertising across multiple election cycles; and

(4) Assert an “internal firewall” defense that has no basis in the text of § 30121, the Commission’s regulations, or any advisory opinion of the Commission.

The Commission has never formally addressed whether the Chamber’s specific structure — a § 501(c)(6) that accepts foreign national membership dues into its general treasury and then funds federal election advertising from that treasury — complies with § 30121. This complaint asks the Commission to answer that question, on the record, through formal enforcement proceedings.

---

V. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. The Chamber’s Acceptance of Foreign National Dues Constitutes Receipt of a “Contribution or Donation . . . of Money or Other Thing of Value” Under § 30121

Section 30121(a)(2) makes it unlawful “for a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) . . . from a foreign national.” Subparagraph (A) covers any “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value . . . in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.”

Dues are a “contribution or donation of money.” The foreign national corporations listed above paid money — $7,500 to $15,000 per year — to the Chamber. That money was deposited into the Chamber’s general treasury. This is the receipt of money from a foreign national, full stop.

The “in connection with” element is satisfied. The Chamber uses its general treasury — the account into which the foreign national dues were deposited — to fund federal election advertising. The nexus between the receipt of foreign money and federal election spending is direct and structural, not incidental.

The “indirect” language eliminates the firewall defense. The phrase “directly or indirectly” in § 30121(a)(1) applies to the foreign national’s side of the transaction (i.e., a foreign national may not indirectly make a contribution). But the “indirect” language also illuminates Congressional intent: Congress specifically anticipated that foreign nationals would attempt to route money into political spending through intermediary organizations, and it prohibited exactly that. The Chamber’s use of a single commingled treasury is a paradigmatic example of indirect foreign national contributions to federal elections.

B. Bluman v. FEC Confirms the Breadth of § 30121

In Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281 (D.D.C. 2011), a three-judge district court panel — including then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit — upheld § 30121 against a First Amendment challenge and confirmed the statute’s sweeping scope. The court held that even a $300 contribution by a Canadian citizen residing lawfully in the United States was covered by the foreign national ban, and that this prohibition was constitutionally valid because “the government has a compelling interest in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in activities of democratic self-government.” Id. at 288. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed. Bluman v. FEC, 565 U.S. 1104 (2012).

Bluman‘s holding is directly applicable here. If a $300 contribution by a lawful permanent resident falls within § 30121, then tens of thousands of dollars in annual dues from corporations incorporated in India — paid into a general treasury used for federal election advertising — unquestionably fall within the statute.

C. The Chamber Cannot Invoke an “Internal Firewall” Defense That Does Not Exist in the Statute or Regulations

The Commission’s regulations governing permissible corporate political activity require, at minimum, the use of a “separate segregated fund” for political expenditures. 11 C.F.R. § 114.5. A separate segregated fund must be administered separately from the organization’s general treasury, funded only by eligible contributors (i.e., not foreign nationals), and used exclusively for political activity. Id. The Commission has never held that an “internal accounting” system within a general treasury is legally equivalent to a separate segregated fund.

The Chamber has not established a separate segregated fund for its political spending. It spends from its general 501(c)(6) treasury. That treasury contains foreign national dues. Under the plain text of § 30121 and the Commission’s own regulations, the Chamber’s political spending from that commingled treasury violates the foreign national contribution ban.

D. The Violation Is Ongoing

The Chamber continues to accept foreign national membership dues. The Chamber continues to fund federal election advertising from its general treasury. The violation is not merely historical — it recurs with every dues payment and every election cycle. The Commission has jurisdiction over ongoing violations and should act accordingly.

---

VI. 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. See 11 C.F.R. § 111.20(a) (describing dismissal procedures). New factual developments — including the documented Infosys $34 million DOJ settlement (2013) and subsequent public disclosures — 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.

The Commission’s persistent failure to enforce § 30121 against the Chamber has emboldened the Chamber to continue its practice of commingling foreign national dues with political spending funds across multiple election cycles. The Commission’s own enforcement mandate — and its obligation to protect the integrity of American elections — demands a different outcome.

---

VII. 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 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(2) by soliciting, accepting, and receiving contributions or donations of money from foreign nationals — specifically, the foreign national corporations identified in Section IV.B above — and depositing those funds into its 501(c)(6) general treasury, from which it funds federal election expenditures.

2. Authorize a full investigation, including:

a. Civil investigative demands to the Chamber requiring production of all membership records identifying foreign national members, all dues payment records from foreign national members for the period 2008 through the present, all records relating to the Chamber’s 501(c)(6) account into which foreign national dues have been deposited, and 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, and any officer responsible for the Chamber’s political spending program.

3. Find probable cause to believe that the Chamber has violated § 30121 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 a public statement clarifying that the Commission interprets § 30121 to prohibit a 501(c)(6) organization from funding federal election advertising from a general treasury that contains commingled foreign national membership dues, absent a compliant separate segregated fund.

6. Issue a rulemaking or guidance document establishing clear standards for 501(c)(6) organizations that maintain foreign national members to ensure compliance with § 30121, including requirements for segregation of foreign national dues from any account used for political spending.

---

VIII. 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]

---

IX. ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A: 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 B: United States Department of Justice Press Release, “Infosys Pays $34 Million for Systemic Visa Fraud and Abuse of Immigration Processes” (October 30, 2013).

Attachment C: FEC Disclosure Reports documenting Chamber federal election expenditures, 2008–2024 (to be compiled from FEC.gov public database).

Attachment D: Chamber of Commerce Annual Reports and public statements acknowledging acceptance of foreign member dues (to be compiled).

Attachment E: Relevant provisions of 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20.

Attachment F: Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281 (D.D.C. 2011), aff’d mem., 565 U.S. 1104 (2012).

---

X. 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 VIII 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 prohibition — primary statute
52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1)	FEC complaint procedure
11 C.F.R. § 110.20	FEC regulation implementing § 30121
11 C.F.R. § 111.4	FEC complaint filing requirements
11 C.F.R. § 114.5	Separate segregated fund requirements
Bluman v. FEC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281 (D.D.C. 2011), aff’d, 565 U.S. 1104 (2012)	Breadth of § 30121; $300 threshold; compelling government interest
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)	Background; § 30121 explicitly carved out from Citizens United holding
FEC v. National Right to Work Committee, 459 U.S. 197 (1982)	Fungibility of funds in corporate treasury
FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146 (2003)	Corruption interest; intermediary structures
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 at complaint stage
FEC Advisory Opinion 2004-26	Conduit analysis; indirect contributions

---

[END OF COMPLAINT]