Un Ballo in Maschera; President Trump Issues Instructions: "Investigation into Unlawful “Straw Donor” and Foreign Contributions in American Elections"-- Text and Brief Reflections

 

Pix credit here

In systems of exogenous liberal (as well as Socialist) democracy, the performance and integrity of elections lies at the core of the legitimacy of the operation of the system and authenticates the delegation of power to individuals seized with the power of their various offices as specified in the organic documents of the political collective within which all of this performing takes place.  Buy exogenous, of course, one means a system of delegated popular authority to elected representatives who then undertake the exercise of political power, within systemic constraints and in accordance with the expectations of behavior, subject only to removal or defeat in the next election cycle. Popular consultations are neither mandatory nor embedded in the operating system of exogenous liberal democracy. The exception, of course, applies to that exception concoction around which a very large justificatory and protective jurisprudence has been crafted--the administrative organs of state, with respect to which there are no direct connection between popular election (the "mandate of heaven " for liberal democracy) and the officials vested with discretionary authority within their "bureaus."  For these organs, and only fairly recently, a system of passive consultative democracy has been crafted--but one that invites interested actors to deliver their views but does not require any other effort. 

The performance of elections, then, is the central performative element of liberal democracy in contemporary States that style themselves both liberal (in the classical sense) and democratic. And it is around issues of election integrity that much of the great destabilizing actions (undertaken in equal measure by the masses and their elites) of the last decade have arisen.  Integrity itself as a concept has broadened from the usual, crude, and still powerfully useful effort either to deny people a vote or to exclude individuals from office to the control over and management of the environment in which the masses may be managed into  the voting booth to produce respectable results. 

These environment managerial issues generally revolve around the also crude but effective efforts by foreigners to "interfere" with internal elections (as if such election choices can be undertaken in a fake environment in which the only people and territory existing for purposes of the voting decision is the state in which the elector is a citizen).  Here one can roughly divide this sort of interference into two kinds. And even this crude taxonomy is tip of the iceberg type stuff.

Pix credit here

The first is ancient and unlikely to change much except in the form of delivery--the good old fashioned and quote transparent bullying discourse of foreign states that may project an opinion about the character of the people standing for election or the consequences from their perspective of electing one candidate over another. This can take the form of official bullying (for example from foreign state officials or official state organs, including news and social media organs). Or it can take the form of disaggregated bullying in the form of discourse of individuals with no official connection to the state. These can include public intellectuals (academics and think tank people tend to be quite useful, but also the middle and low brow public commentators who may speak more directly to identified sub-groups of voters in the target state. But then so can media figures, artists and others with no particular value other than that people tend to listen to those who are admired for some trait or other than is fashionable at the time.  All of this is perhaps annoying but fair game--if only because the targeted voters know exactly who it is that is urging them to vote in ways that would please them (though may undermine the Republic). These can be countered on their own terms--as foreign interference for which there are substantial methods of countermeasures. 

Pix credit here

The second is equally ancient but is sourced in and derives its power from its fundamental subterfuge: foreign projections of electoral preferences that are hidden in local mouthpieces. One puts aside for the moment the phenomenon of the useful idiot--these have also existed likely since the dawn of politics, and they may be unmasked (but one wonders what happens when a large percentage of the electorate choices the path of useful idiocy). These projections may take a large variety of forms.  Before this century these usually involved money (an ancient corrupter), or social relations with key local influencers (satisfying the cravings of humans has always served others well, and not just foreigners--whether in the form of sex, drugs, or more euphemistically "rock and roll"). Sometimes the projection was more institutional--just as a foreign state could domesticate its production in host states through the formation or operation/control of a domestic entity, so a foreign state might either form (surreptitiously of course), fund, or otherwise control (honey is useful)  either special purpose private speech organs established for that purpose, or use already established entities. These might be found anywhere--in the university, among think tanks, as innocuous social media influencers or users, and the like. 

Pix credit here

Technology has added a layer of complexity. These include the usual suspects--bots and fake accounts by fake individuals or entities, or more sophisticated uses of predictive analytics (whether or not aided by generative intelligence). But they also now appear to include online platforms used to raise money to be used to advance some position or other, or the election of some person or other. The idea here is also a species of subterfuge. Not just foreign states but perhaps as well important non-state actors (or wealthy individuals), for example large transnational criminal groups, non-criminal NGOs,  etc., may hide their contribution to useful instruments in election campaigns This requires a bit of work given the monitoring of contribution levels by the State. But technology has also made it easier to avoid these through the fracturing of contributions through the use of disguised virtual persons deployed to those ends.  All it takes is money and will. The possibilities of countering these internal projections of indirect foreign preferences for national elections  can produce substantial distortions not because of the information or campaigning that us undertaken but because it is undertaken without knowledge of its source (and their motives). One can envision, for example, Tren de Aragua now investing substantial sums for the election of cadidates whose policies might make the operation of their enterprises (including the movement fo their members) in and out the Republic much easier.

Generally the political branches tend to focus on the management of such interference in the physical realms (if only because it is easier to understand and there are substantially larger likelihoods of political profit to be made). Everything else tends to be relegated to state security organs tend to be relegated if only because these are substantially more challenging and the ratio of political capital to political rewards ratios are not tempting enough. And besides, it is usually better practice in liberal democracies (but also in Marxist Leninist systems) to shift high risk tasks down, out or sideways. Leaders, especially the core of leadership, tends to be substantially risk averse personally even if they appear to advance risk loving projects. 

None of this is particularly difficult to understand or hidden. And States have sought to manage (suppression appears to be an elusive goal, what with the creativity of determined enough humans) some or another aspects of these activities. And it is to one aspect of the management of foreign interaction with domestic elections that the Trump Administration has now turned its attention. In his memorandum of 24 April 2025, Investigation into Unlawful “Straw Donor” and Foreign Contributions in American Elections, President Trump has directed his counsel and the Attorney General, inconsulattion with the Secretary of the Treasury,  "to use all lawful authority, as necessary, to investigate allegations regarding the unlawful use of online fundraising platforms to make “straw” or “dummy” contributions or foreign contributions to political candidates and committees, and to take all appropriate actions to enforce the law."

The focus of this directive are "malign actors." How one distinguishes between acceptable foreign actors and malign ones masking their self-projections into the Republic's electoral politics remains unclear. One might assume that annoying but transparent blustering by foreign actors whether public or private, whether, for example Russia or Tren de Aragua, are not included.  Perhaps even direct or indirect participation to the extent that the political branches, in their wisdom, have deemed innocuous, are exempted.  That seems to be at least part of what is driving the directive (though one has to navigate through layers of statutory meaning making to get there):

Federal law (52 U.S.C. 30121 and 30122) strictly prohibits making political contributions in the name of another person, as well as contributions by foreign nationals. Notwithstanding these laws designed to protect American democracy, press reports and investigations by congressional committees have generated extremely troubling evidence that online fundraising platforms have been willing participants in schemes to launder excessive and prohibited contributions to political candidates and committees. (Investigation into Unlawful “Straw Donor” and Foreign Contributions in American Elections, )

One can hope for some clarity here. Perhaps it will come.  

Piux credit here

And the focus is on money or its equivalent (52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign national) as the "speech-act" of central interest.  But why stop there?  Perhaps this is an effort at template making. But only some sorts of money; Americans with power over these things may avoid the complicated issue of masking donations where the corrupting or foreign influence is absent. The Wall Street Journal reminded readers in 2021 that donor disclosure laws chill speech rights--but perhaps that may not matter when the rights are those of foreign sovereigns or other actors, unless perhaps if they or their entities are properly domesticated.  The issue in 2021revolved around compelled disclosure of donors, and in the case that considered the issue (compelling disclosure of certain large donors to certain NGOs), Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the ideologically conservative majority of the court determined that mandatory contributor disclosure chilled speech, But it was a case of odd reversals. Donor proteciton was an artifact of the civil rights era when the Court resisted efforts to weaken  civil rights organizations by seeking their member lists (NAACP v. Alabama (1958)). But in the Bonta case it was conservative organizations that sought the same protection and liberal justice that objected. "In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor [joined by Justices Kagan and Breyer] suggested that the ruling could have an effect beyond the nonprofit and charitable spheres, including on campaign contributions, writing that the ruling marks reporting and disclosure requirements with a bulls-eye." (Divided court invalidates California donor-disclosure rules).  And now it seems that President Trump appears to be channeling Justice Sotomayor in yet another turn around. It may well be that what joins all these efforts is another powerful principle of this jurisprudence--intent has constitutional significance.

Once this is "sorted", and after an appropriate time for the appreciation of the ironies,  it might then be generalized through the maze that s American election law. And, of course, as with most things "tech", the state is usually, as the expression goes, a day late and a dollar short. But there it is. Here it might be useful to direct the President's counsel and the Attorney General to the President's executive order (Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence) though not just as  a money making scheme (the crypto thing) but as a reinforcement of a basic postulate of State government that tends to be lost on its leaders (except as a talking point)--the need to coordinate among policy objectives that may be more related than a cursory place might suggest. And, indeed there is something like a glimmering here, though one potentially mired in backwards looking  politics (White House Releases New Policies on Federal Agency AI Use and Procurement; Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence, and Fact Sheet: Eliminating Barriers for Federal Artificial Intelligence Use and Procurement). And this is certainly not the time for a presidency of cursory glances and half perceptions. But that is the call of those with the power to make them, and they may not lose re-election on this issue alone.

The text of the directive Investigation into Unlawful “Straw Donor” and Foreign Contributions in American Elections, White House Releases New Policies on Federal Agency AI Use and Procurement; Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence, and Fact Sheet: Eliminating Barriers for Federal Artificial Intelligence Use and Procurement follow.  

Investigation into Unlawful “Straw Donor” and Foreign Contributions in American Elections

Presidential Memoranda

April 24, 2025

April 24, 2025

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
               THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
               THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
 
SUBJECT:       Investigation into Unlawful “Straw Donor” and Foreign Contributions in American Elections

 
Federal law (52 U.S.C. 30121 and 30122) strictly prohibits making political contributions in the name of another person, as well as contributions by foreign nationals.
 
Notwithstanding these laws designed to protect American democracy, press reports and investigations by congressional committees have generated extremely troubling evidence that online fundraising platforms have been willing participants in schemes to launder excessive and prohibited contributions to political candidates and committees. 
 
Specifically, these reports raise concerns that malign actors are seeking to evade Federal source and amount limitations on political contributions by breaking down large contributions from one source into many smaller contributions, nominally attributed to numerous other individuals, potentially without the consent or even knowledge of the putative contributors.  The reports also raise concerns that such “straw donations” are being made through “dummy” accounts, potentially using gift cards or prepaid credit cards to evade detection.
 
Further, there is evidence to suggest that foreign nationals are seeking to misuse online fundraising platforms to improperly influence American elections.  A recent House of Representatives investigation revealed that a platform named ActBlue had in recent years detected at least 22 “significant fraud campaigns”, nearly half of which had a foreign nexus.  During a 30-day window during the 2024 campaign, the platform detected 237 donations from foreign IP addresses using prepaid cards, indicating that this activity remains a pressing concern. 
These activities undermine the integrity of our electoral process.  Therefore, I direct the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to use all lawful authority, as necessary, to investigate allegations regarding the unlawful use of online fundraising platforms to make “straw” or “dummy” contributions or foreign contributions to political candidates and committees, and to take all appropriate actions to enforce the law.
 
I further direct the Attorney General to report back to me through the Counsel to the President within 180 days of the date of this memorandum on the results of the investigation.
 
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
 
 
 
                              DONALD J. TRUMP

 

 

White House Releases New Policies on Federal Agency AI Use and Procurement

The White House

April 7, 2025

WASHINGTON D.C — Today, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is delivering on President Trump’s decisive Executive Order to remove barriers to American leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) by releasing two revised policies on Federal Agency Use of AI and Federal Procurement. These memos were revised at the direction of the Executive Order and in coordination with the Assistant to the President on Science and Technology and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).  

Under President Trump’s leadership, America is well positioned to maintain our global dominance in AI. To better serve the public, the Federal Government must capitalize on the advantages of American innovation while maintaining strong protections for Americans’ privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties.

“President Trump recognizes that AI is a technology that will define the future. This administration is focused on encouraging and promoting American AI innovation and global leadership, which starts with utilizing these emerging technologies within the Federal Government. Today’s revised memos offer much needed guidance on AI adoption and procurement that will remove unnecessary bureaucratic restrictions, allow agencies to be more efficient and cost-effective, and support a competitive American AI marketplace,” said Lynne Parker, Principal Deputy Director of the White House OSTP.

The Office of the Federal Chief Information Officer’s Greg Barbaccia continued, stating that “Federal agencies have experienced a widening gap in adopting AI and modernizing government technology, largely due to unnecessary bureaucracy and outdated procurement processes. OMB’s new policies demonstrate that the government is committed to spending American taxpayer dollars efficiently and responsibly, while increasing public trust through the Federal use of AI.”

Learn more:
OMB Memorandum M-25-21, Accelerating Federal Use of AI through Innovation, Governance, and Public Trust
OMB Memorandum M-25-22, Driving Efficient Acquisition of Artificial Intelligence in Government
View the Fact Sheet  
 
Questions? Contact MBX.OMB.Media@OMB.eop.gov

 

REMOVING BARRIERS TO AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

The White House

January 23, 2025

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. The United States has long been at the forefront of artificial intelligence (AI) innovation, driven by the strength of our free markets, world-class research institutions, and entrepreneurial spirit. To maintain this leadership, we must develop AI systems that are free from ideological bias or engineered social agendas. With the right Government policies, we can solidify our position as the global leader in AI and secure a brighter future for all Americans.
This order revokes certain existing AI policies and directives that act as barriers to American AI innovation, clearing a path for the United States to act decisively to retain global leadership in artificial intelligence.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance in order to promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security.

Sec. 3. Definition. For the purposes of this order, “artificial intelligence” or “AI” has the meaning set forth in 15 U.S.C. 9401(3).

Sec. 4. Developing an Artificial Intelligence Action Plan. (a) Within 180 days of this order, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Director), and the heads of such executive departments and agencies (agencies) as the APST and APNSA deem relevant, shall develop and submit to the President an action plan to achieve the policy set forth in section 2 of this order.

Sec. 5. Implementation of Order Revocation. (a) The APST, the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, and the APNSA shall immediately review, in coordination with the heads of all agencies as they deem relevant, all policies, directives, regulations, orders, and other actions taken pursuant to the revoked Executive Order 14110 of October 30, 2023 (Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence). The APST, the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, and the APNSA shall, in coordination with the heads of relevant agencies, identify any actions taken pursuant to Executive Order 14110 that are or may be inconsistent with, or present obstacles to, the policy set forth in section 2 of this order. For any such agency actions identified, the heads of agencies shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, suspend, revise, or rescind such actions, or propose suspending, revising, or rescinding such actions. If in any case such suspension, revision, or rescission cannot be finalized immediately, the APST and the heads of agencies shall promptly take steps to provide all available exemptions authorized by any such orders, rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, until such action can be finalized.
(b) Within 60 days of this order, the OMB Director, in coordination with the APST, shall revise OMB Memoranda M-24-10 and M-24-18 as necessary to make them consistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 23, 2025.

• 
  

 Fact Sheet: Eliminating Barriers for Federal Artificial Intelligence Use and Procurement
SUPPORTING AND EMBRACING AMERICAN INNOVATION: Under President
Trump’s leadership, America is well-positioned to maintain its global dominance in artificial
intelligence (AI) innovation. Today, the White House Office of Management and Budget, in
coordination with the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, issued two revised
policies to facilitate responsible AI adoption to improve public services. These policies
fundamentally shift perspectives and direction from the prior Administration, focusing now on
utilizing emerging technologies to modernize the Federal Government.
• The Executive Branch is shifting to a forward-leaning, pro-innovation and pro-
competition mindset rather than pursuing the risk-averse approach of the previous
administration.
• The Federal Government will no longer impose unnecessary bureaucratic restrictions on
the use of innovative American AI in the Executive Branch.
• By embracing AI adoption, agencies will be more agile, cost-effective, and efficient.
• This shift will deliver improvements to the lives of the American public while enhancing
America’s global dominance in AI innovation.
PROMOTING RAPID AND RESPONSIBLE AI ADOPTION: M-25-21 gives agencies the
tools necessary to embrace AI innovation, while maintaining strong protections for Americans’
privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties.
• Agencies will empower AI leaders to remove barriers to AI innovation.
o Agency Chief AI Officer roles are redefined to serve as change agents and AI
advocates, rather than overseeing layers of bureaucracy.
o Chief AI Officers are tasked with promoting agency-wide AI innovation and
adoption for lower risk AI, mitigating risks for higher-impact AI, and advising on
agency AI investments and spending.
• Agencies will produce an AI adoption maturity assessment to better track progress and
needs.
• Policies introduce a single “high-impact AI” category to track AI use cases that require
heightened due diligence because of potential impacts on the rights or safety of the
American people.
• Accountability for AI will mirror the existing process for using government IT, instead of
creating new layers of approvals.
• Use of American AI will be maximized when seeking new AI solutions.
DRIVING EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT AI ACQUISITION: M-25-22 provides agencies
with concise, effective guidance on how to acquire best-in-class AI quickly, competitively, and
responsibly.
• Agencies must support a competitive American AI marketplace, maximizing the use of
American AI systems and services in support of American AI leadership, human
flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security.
• This policy recognizes the importance of competition, communicating clear and specific
requirements that avoid vendor lock-in.
• The new approach removes burdensome agency reporting requirements and optimizes the
acquisition process, while continuing to protect privacy and ensure lawful use of
government data.
• Agencies will use performance-based techniques to best harness the rapidly developing
AI marketplace and create an online shared repository of resources and tools to assist
with AI procurement.
AI WORKING FOR AMERICANS: Federal agencies are maximizing the benefits of AI to
promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security. Illustrative
examples include the following:
• The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) optimizes patient care through AI tools that help
identify and standardize Veterans’ care.
o The VA uses AI to support the identification and analysis of pulmonary nodules
during lung cancer screening exams. The AI functionality improves detection of these
nodules, assisting clinicians with life-saving diagnoses.
• The Department of Justice (DOJ) improves public safety by leveraging AI to protect the
American public.
o The DOJ is using AI to better understand the global drug market and the impact of
illicit drugs on communities and individuals, in order to further drug trafficking
investigations and protect the American public.
• The National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) expands humanity’s ability to
safely traverse Mars by using AI.
o NASA is using AI on the Mars2020 Rover to help it navigate with limited direction
from Earth, optimizing scientific discovery from the rover’s sensors and assuring it
safely traverses the planet’s hazardous terrain.