Initiative and referendum; ballot measure committee; foreign nationals; funds; expenditures; penalties; effective date.
HB3750 creates a new set of campaign finance rules for ballot measure activity in Oklahoma, focused on preventing foreign national involvement in initiative and referendum campaigns. It defines key terms such as “foreign national,” “contribution,” “expenditure,” and “preliminary activity,” and requires ballot measure committees to certify that no preliminary activity was funded by foreign nationals. The bill also bars ballot measure committees from knowingly or willfully receiving, soliciting, or accepting contributions from foreign nationals, and requires treasurers to obtain written affirmations from donors that they are not foreign nationals.
The bill further requires campaign finance reports filed with the Oklahoma Ethics Commission to include affirmations that the committee has not received prohibited foreign-national contributions and that donors are not foreign nationals to the best of the treasurer’s knowledge. It also prohibits foreign nationals from directing, controlling, or participating in decisions about ballot measure spending, and from soliciting others to make ballot-measure-related donations or expenditures. The Attorney General is authorized to bring civil enforcement actions, with procedures for probable-cause review, expedited trial, interlocutory appeal, and possible in camera review to protect sensitive records.
HB3750 would add new provisions to Title 34 governing ballot measure committees, independent expenditure activity, and related enforcement. It would require new certifications, donor affirmations, record retention for five years, and reporting language for ballot measure committees, while also creating remedies such as refunds of prohibited contributions, disgorgement of independent expenditure funds to the state general fund, injunctions, statutory damages, and enhanced penalties for willful violations. The bill also affects lobbyists by allowing registration revocation or suspension for violations and by restricting compensation or expenditures for lobbying in connection with violations. In addition, it creates privacy protections for lawful donors to tax-exempt organizations and limits disclosure of donor identities except as necessary for enforcement or after a final violation finding.
The available context shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a campaign-integrity and election-security proposal aimed at limiting foreign influence in Oklahoma ballot measures. The structure of the bill, including enforcement tools and privacy protections, suggests an effort to balance anti-foreign-national restrictions with donor confidentiality concerns.
The main point of contention is likely the scope of the foreign-national restrictions and the compliance burden placed on ballot measure committees, donors, and tax-exempt organizations. Critics could object to the written affirmation requirement, the broad definition of preliminary activity, and the potential for penalties, escrow, disgorgement, and personal liability for committee officers if funds cannot be returned. Another likely concern is the privacy and disclosure framework in Section 6, which tries to shield lawful donors while still allowing enforcement; this could raise questions about how investigations would work in practice and whether the bill could chill participation in ballot-measure advocacy. Supporters would likely emphasize the anti-foreign-influence purpose and the bill’s enforcement mechanisms.