Bill Overview
Title: Countering Russian Influence in our Politics Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires tax-exempt organizations that receive any thing of value from a Russian foreign principal (e.g., Russia's government or a Russian national) to register as an agent of a foreign principal, with certain exceptions. Such an organization must periodically report to the Department of Justice certain information relating to its relationships to the relevant Russian foreign principals. The bill also imposes additional reporting requirements on a tax-exempt organization that has (1) received any thing of value from a Russian foreign principal since February 1, 2014; and (2) engaged in political activities to discourage the U.S. production of oil, petroleum products, natural gas, or critical minerals.
Sponsors: Rep. Budd, Ted [R-NC-13]
Target Audience
Population: Tax-exempt organizations interacting with Russian foreign principals
Estimated Size: 5000
- The bill affects tax-exempt organizations.
- Specifically targets those organizations receiving value from Russian foreign principals.
- Includes organizations that have engaged in political activities against U.S. energy production.
- The US has a large number of tax-exempt organizations, including many advocacy groups.
- This can also impact Russian nationals who interact with these US organizations.
- Only impacts organizations involved in receiving funds or interactions since February 2014.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily targets tax-exempt organizations receiving funds from Russian entities.
- The general public, unless involved with such organizations, is unlikely to be directly impacted.
- Given the focus, those directly involved with advocacy or nonprofit work around energy policy may feel effects either through increased administrative burden or changes in funding.
- General populace impact would be indirect, primarily through perceptions of national security and geopolitical concerns.
- The budget limits its capacity to thoroughly monitor all potential entities, likely leading to selective enforcement.
- Impact on individuals will largely depend on their involvement with such organizations or proximity to affected policies.
Simulated Interviews
Policy Analyst at a Think Tank (New York City, NY)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe more transparency is beneficial for the public.
- Our organization is not directly affected, but additional scrutiny can make operations more cumbersome for those who are.
- This law could help prevent undue foreign influence.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Energy Sector Consultant (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm wary of foreign influence, but I'm more concerned about stifling advocacy efforts.
- Our work is heavily scrutinized already; this might just add more paperwork.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Nonprofit Director (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our finances are transparent, so maybe this helps restore public trust.
- I'm concerned about how this will affect our collaborations if misapplied.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Lobbyist (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This seems like a political move that may not actually curb real issues.
- I expect some irritation in adapting to these new requirements, but the sector is adaptable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired School Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't know if this really affects my life much, but ensuring transparency seems good.
- Nonprofits do good work; it seems like the focus should be more on bigger players.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Social Media Strategist (Miami, FL)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new requirements might be a headache, but it seems manageable.
- I think transparency in nonprofit funding is important, especially with foreign ties.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Environmental Activist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned about how this could be used to discredit our activism.
- Ensuring no foreign undue influence should not infringe on genuine advocacy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
University Professor (Austin, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Academically, this is an interesting policy to study.
- I'm concerned about the breadth of interpretations—academic discourse shouldn't be swept in.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Film Director (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This feels like a slippery slope towards unnecessary censorship.
- It seems well-intentioned but possibly overreaching.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Diplomat (Boston, MA)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support measures that keep foreign influence transparent.
- However, this should not be a witch hunt.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $35000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Year 3: $35000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Year 5: $30000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $45000000)
Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $40000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- Monitoring compliance without infringing on privacy rights is critical.
- The policy could face opposition from organizations concerned about burdensome regulation.
- The geopolitical context may influence enforcement and compliance priorities.