SB 1380 creates a new section of Missouri law prohibiting lobbyists from receiving compensation, including indirect, intangible, or in-kind payment, for lobbying on behalf of a foreign adversary, a foreign political party of a foreign adversary, or a “foreign adversary client.” The bill defines those terms broadly and specifically identifies countries and regimes such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela’s Maduro regime, and Syria, along with entities controlled by or organized under those governments. It also defines related concepts such as control, ownership, and foreign political party to reach a wide range of entities and individuals connected to those governments.
The bill authorizes the attorney general to enforce the prohibition through civil actions seeking disgorgement of compensation, civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, and injunctive relief. It also gives the attorney general subpoena power to investigate suspected violations, including the ability to compel documents, testimony, and written responses under oath. The bill expressly excludes this new section from the application of sections 105.955 to 105.981 and includes a severability clause.
In practical terms, the bill would add a new restriction to Missouri’s lobbying laws and create a state enforcement mechanism aimed at limiting foreign adversary influence in lobbying activity. It would affect registered lobbyists, clients seeking lobbying services, and entities with ownership or control ties to designated foreign governments or officials. The measure is framed as a foreign influence and national security-related ethics restriction rather than a general lobbying reform.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the available context does not show formal debate or amendments. The bill title and text suggest a generally protective, anti-foreign-influence posture, and the lack of recorded opposition or support in the supplied materials means sentiment cannot be measured from deliberations. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears designed to appeal to concerns about foreign government influence in state politics and policymaking.
The main points of contention likely center on the breadth of the definitions and the enforcement authority granted to the attorney general. Potential concerns include whether the bill could sweep in entities with indirect or partial foreign ties, how “control” and “owned or operated in whole or in part” would be applied, and whether the restrictions could create compliance burdens or chill legitimate lobbying activity involving multinational or foreign-connected businesses.
SB 1380 would add section 105.471 to Missouri’s lobbying laws, creating a new prohibition on lobbyists accepting compensation for lobbying on behalf of specified foreign adversaries, foreign political parties, or related clients. It would also create a new civil enforcement regime, including disgorgement, penalties, injunctive relief, and subpoena authority for the attorney general, while carving the new section out of the application of sections 105.955 to 105.981. The bill would primarily affect lobbyists, their clients, and entities with ownership or control ties to designated foreign governments or officials.
The available materials suggest the bill is generally framed in a protective, anti-foreign-influence manner, with the stated purpose of preventing foreign adversaries from using lobbyists to influence Missouri policy. No committee discussion or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislators in the supplied context. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be presented as a national-security and ethics measure rather than a controversial lobbying expansion.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s broad definitions and the scope of its enforcement tools. Critics could question whether the definitions of “foreign adversary,” “foreign adversary client,” and “control” are too expansive and could capture entities with only indirect or partial foreign ties, including multinational businesses. Others may object to the attorney general’s subpoena and civil enforcement powers, or argue that the bill could burden legitimate lobbying relationships and create uncertainty for compliance.