prohibiting receiving compensation for lobbying on behalf of a foreign adversary.
SB 528 would add a new section to New Hampshire law prohibiting lobbyists from receiving compensation, including indirect or in-kind payment, for lobbying on behalf of specified “foreign adversaries,” foreign political parties of those adversaries, or certain related clients. The bill defines foreign adversaries to include China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba, along with their agencies, controlled entities, and certain affiliated persons and family members. It also defines key terms such as lobbyist, lobbying activity, control, and foreign adversary client to broaden the reach of the prohibition.
The bill authorizes the Attorney General to enforce the prohibition through civil investigative demands, court enforcement of those demands, disgorgement of compensation, civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, and injunctive relief. It includes a severability clause and would take effect July 1, 2027. The fiscal note estimates no revenue impact but anticipates General Fund expenditures of about $137,000 in FY 2027 and $138,000 in each of FY 2028 and FY 2029, primarily for one full-time attorney in the Department of Justice to handle investigations and enforcement.
SB 528 would amend RSA 15 by creating a new lobbying restriction focused on foreign-adversary-related clients and compensation. In practical terms, it would bar registered or otherwise covered lobbyists from being paid to lobby for certain foreign governments, foreign political parties, and affiliated entities or individuals, and it would give the Attorney General explicit authority to investigate and prosecute violations. The bill would therefore expand state ethics/lobbying law and create a new compliance and enforcement regime for lobbyists and their clients.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a national-security and foreign-influence restriction rather than a broad lobbying reform. No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge support or opposition. The fiscal note suggests the executive branch expects meaningful enforcement workload, but the bill itself reflects a policy preference for tighter limits on foreign-adversary influence in state lobbying.
The main points of contention are likely to be the breadth of the definitions and the enforcement burden. The bill reaches not only the named governments but also agencies, controlled entities, subsidiaries, and certain individuals and family members, which could raise concerns about overbreadth, compliance uncertainty, and potential First Amendment or due-process issues. Another likely issue is cost: the Department of Justice says it would need a new full-time attorney and additional General Fund spending to investigate and enforce the new prohibition. The bill also contains an explicit carve-out for entities covered by the federal Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act and related executive action, which may reflect an effort to avoid overlap with federal restrictions.