Indirect / pass-through foreign rules

Alaska Statute § 15.13.068 comprehensively addresses indirect foreign-source channels through statutory definition of 'foreign-influenced corporation,' which explicitly requires tracing of beneficial ownership percentages (5% threshold for single foreign nationals, 20% for aggregated foreign owners) and captures indirect participation in expenditure decisions. The statute further requires verification procedures (shareholders registers, SEC filings, litigation records, proxy information) with timing rules for publicly vs. privately held entities, providing clear enumeration of how indirect foreign control is identified and prohibited.

§ 12³(2) closes indirect channels structurally — conduit donations 'made via a natural person and at the expense of the assets of a third party' are prohibited, and all legal-person donations are banned outright, so there is no corporate vehicle through which foreign money could pass and ownership tracing is unnecessary.

“7) donation made via a natural person and at the expense of the assets of a third party;”

Section 125 comprehensively addresses indirect foreign-source channels by explicitly requiring foreign entities (companies, bodies corporate, unincorporated bodies) to maintain a physical office in the State and provide evidence thereof, thereby blocking pass-through arrangements and foreign-controlled domestic entities. The statute uses the 'directly or indirectly' framing and conditions both natural persons and corporate entities with explicit verification requirements, covering the corporate-ownership tracing dimension of the criterion.

The statute comprehensively addresses indirect foreign-source channels by defining foreign nationals to include U.S. entities that are wholly or majority-owned by foreign nationals, and then imposing conditions (U.S.-derived funds and U.S.-citizen decision-makers) to permit such entities to contribute. This tracing requirement is statutorily enumerated and covers pass-through structures, exceeding a minimal standard.

“any United States entity, such as a partnership, association, corporation or organization, that is wholly or majority-owned by any foreign national, unless: (1) Any contribution or expenditure that such entity makes is derived entirely from funds generated by such United States entity's United States operations; and (2) all decisions concerning the contribution or expenditure are made by individuals who are United States citizens or permanent residents, except for setting overall budget amounts.”

KRS 121.254 reaches indirect and pass-through foreign-source channels: a foreign national shall not 'directly or indirectly' make, solicit, or 'direct, dictate, control, or participate in another person's decision' to influence a ballot measure. KRS 121.252 reinforces this with a presumption-of-violation rule where a donor has knowingly accepted funds aggregating over $100,000 from a foreign national. Indirect/pass-through foreign rules codified.

§ 35(5) closes indirect channels — campaign funding may not be obtained directly or indirectly from foreign legal persons and citizens, nor through the intermediation of a third party; the third-party-conduit ban is defined in detail.

“obtained with the intermediation of a third party”

Lithuania closes both direct and indirect foreign donations — § 12 enumerates the eligible donors and § 28 treats financing 'with the donations of the persons who under this Law do not have the right to make donations' as a gross violation, also covering decisions to use such funds through intermediaries.

“donations of the persons who under this Law do not have the right to make donations”

Maine statutory law comprehensively addresses indirect foreign-source channels by defining 'foreign government-influenced entity' to include domestic entities with as little as 5% foreign government ownership or control, and those where a foreign government participates in decision-making. The statute then prohibits such entities from making contributions, expenditures, and other disbursements. This captures pass-through structures and corporate-ownership tracing, establishing clear statutory procedure without delegating the determination to administrative discretion.

“"Foreign government-influenced entity" means: (1) A foreign government; or (2) A firm, partnership, corporation, association, organization or other entity with respect to which a foreign government or foreign government-owned entity: (a) Holds, owns, controls or otherwise has direct or indirect beneficial ownership of 5% or more of the total equity, outstanding voting shares, membership units or other applicable ownership interests; or (b) Directs, dictates, controls or directly or indirectly participates in the decision-making process with regard to the activities of the firm, partnership, corporation, association, organization or other entity to influence the nomination or election of a candidate or the initiation or approval of a referendum”

The statute comprehensively addresses indirect foreign-source channels by requiring disclosure of foreign-national ownership, investment, or control of election service providers—explicitly capturing pass-through entities and corporate structures. The definition of 'foreign national' includes corporations and organizations organized under foreign laws or with principal place of business abroad, enabling tracing of indirect ownership. The requirement applies at contract award and for material changes throughout contract duration, supported by a defined enforcement mechanism (State Administrator termination authority) and a mandatory notification procedure to appropriate persons.

“The State Board may not approve a contract with an election service provider unless the contract includes a clause requiring the election service provider to provide the State Board notice of: (1) any ownership of or investment in the election service provider or control of the election service provider by a foreign national at the time of the award of the contract; and (2) any material change in any ownership of or investment in the election service provider or control of the election service provider by a foreign national at any time for the duration of the contract.”

§ 211B.15 codifies the 'foreign-influenced corporation' category — explicitly addressing INDIRECT foreign influence by defining corporations with specified foreign-ownership stakes (single foreign owner ≥1%, aggregate foreign owners ≥5%, or foreign participation in decision-making) as barred from political spending. § 211B.13 codifies bribery/treating. Indirect / pass-through foreign rules explicitly codified.

Montana closes indirect channels — § 13-37-211 bars a joint fundraising committee from acting as an intermediary for otherwise-prohibited contributions, § 13-37-217 bars contributions in the name of an undisclosed principal, and § 13-37-502 reaches foreign funding made 'through an intermediary'.

“A joint fundraising committee may not act as an intermediary for contributions or expenditures by any entity, including participants, that is otherwise prohibited”

§ 16.1-08.1-03.15 explicitly covers both DIRECT and INDIRECT foreign-source channels: 'may not make or offer to make, directly or indirectly, a contribution or expenditure'. Subsection 2 prohibits soliciting/accepting/receiving 'directly or indirectly' a contribution from a foreign national. § 16.1-10-06.1 codifies prohibited payment for election-related activities. Indirect/pass-through channels expressly addressed.

“directly or indirectly”

The statute addresses indirect participation by foreign nationals ('directly or indirectly') through solicitation and decision-making control, establishing a procedural prohibition grounded in law. However, the section does not enumerate verification mechanisms, ownership-tracing procedures, or enforcement methods for detecting foreign control of domestic entities (LLCs, shell corporations, etc.), nor does it specify penalties or audit-access requirements for verifying compliance.

Section 302H addresses one indirect foreign-source channel (formation or participation in Australian body corporates) and fragmentation via multiple below-threshold gifts, providing statutory codification of pass-through avoidance mechanisms. However, the provision does not comprehensively address corporate-ownership tracing, foreign control of domestic entities, or other common indirect channels. The anti-avoidance mechanism is reactive (notice-based after scheme identification) rather than establishing prospective corporate-ownership verification or beneficial-ownership declaration requirements.

“(c) as a result of the scheme or part of the scheme: (i) the foreign donor engages in a course of conduct of giving the gift, and one or more other gifts, to or for the benefit of the member of the House of Representatives, Senator, political entity, significant third party, associated entity or third party in those circumstances, where the amount or value of each of those gifts is below the amount specified in the provision but the total amount or value of the gifts is more than that amount; or (ii) the foreign donor forms, or participates in the formation of, a body corporate in Australia”

§ 24a(5)6 explicitly prohibits donations from foreign natural and legal persons exceeding €500, providing statutory grounding for direct foreign-source restrictions. However, the statute does not address indirect/pass-through channels: there is no requirement for corporate-ownership tracing, no mechanism to identify foreign-controlled domestic entities, and no verification procedure to detect circumvention via intermediaries. The section covers direct foreign donations but lacks enumeration of verification methods or ownership-transparency rules necessary to prevent indirect foreign funding.

“ausländischen natürlichen oder juristischen Personen, sofern die Spende den Betrag von 500 Euro übersteigt”

The statute directly prohibits foreign entities and foreign governments as contributors (Item I), establishing a clear statutory ban on direct foreign-source funding. However, the section does not address indirect or pass-through channels—such as foreign nationals acting through domestic intermediaries, foreign-controlled domestic entities, or corporate-ownership tracing mechanisms. Only the direct foreign-source prohibition is codified; the statutory framework lacks enumeration of verification procedures, ownership-transparency requirements, or tracing rules for detecting indirect foreign influence.

“entidade ou governo estrangeiro”

The statute addresses one indirect foreign-source channel: foreign-incorporated corporations and entities, including those carrying on business in Canada if their primary purpose is to influence electors. However, the provision does not require ownership tracing (e.g., tracing beneficial ownership to foreign nationals, foreign-controlled domestic corporations, or shell entities). It addresses entity-level incorporation location but lacks comprehensive rules for detecting foreign control or foreign-person pass-through mechanisms.

“if the third party is a corporation or entity, (i) it does not carry on business in Canada, or its primary purpose in Canada during an election period is to influence electors during that period to vote or refrain from voting, or to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate or registered party, at the election, and (ii) it was incorporated, formed or otherwise organized outside Canada”

Connecticut Statute § 9-622(18) explicitly prohibits persons from soliciting, accepting, or receiving contributions from foreign nationals, providing clear statutory language on direct foreign-source restrictions. However, the section does not address indirect channels such as foreign nationals operating through domestic entities, foreign-controlled LLCs, straw purchasers, or other pass-through mechanisms. The statute targets the foreign national directly but lacks enumeration of tracing requirements or verification procedures for corporate ownership or entity control structures.

“Any person who solicits, accepts or receives any contribution or covered transfer from a foreign national.”

The statute prohibits direct foreign entities (foreign states, foreign political parties, foreign legal persons) and also addresses one form of pass-through mechanism: domestically-incorporated entities with public-sector ownership. However, it does not comprehensively address all indirect channels such as foreign nationals operating through domestic shell companies, foreign-controlled private LLCs without public ownership, or beneficial-ownership verification procedures. The provision is partially codified but lacks the systematic tracing of foreign control and ownership that would constitute comprehensive indirect-channel coverage.

The statute prohibits parties from owning property outside Czech territory, which provides a direct asset-ownership restriction. However, the section does not comprehensively address indirect foreign-source channels such as foreign nationals funding domestic entities that donate to parties, foreign-controlled domestic corporations, or pass-through mechanisms. The prohibition is narrowly tailored to asset location rather than tracing foreign influence through corporate structures or domestic intermediaries.

“Strana a hnutí nesmějí vlastnit majetek mimo území České republiky.”

§ 104.061 criminalizes indirect corrupt influence of voters. § 106.295 governs leadership funds (potential pass-through vehicle). Partial — addresses corruption indirect rules but not foreign pass-through specifically.

Ν. 3023/2002 Άρθρο 7(1)(β) extends the foreign-source ban to all legal persons (public or private law), preventing indirect/pass-through routing through Greek-registered entities.

“Νομικά πρόσωπα δημοσίου ή ιδιωτικού δικαίου”

The statute addresses one indirect channel: state or municipal majority-owned or controlled companies are prohibited from contributing. However, the statute does not comprehensively address other indirect foreign-source channels such as foreign-controlled private corporations, shell entities, or domestic entities with foreign beneficial owners. The prohibition is narrowly tailored to public-sector entities, leaving a significant gap in indirect foreign-source verification procedures.

“Óheimilt er að veita viðtöku framlögum frá fyrirtækjum að meiri hluta í eigu, eða undir stjórn, ríkis eða sveitarfélaga.”

10 ILCS 5/7-10.1 requires candidates to swear they are not affiliated with any 'communist organization or any communist front organization, or any foreign political agency, party, organization or government' — touches foreign affiliation on the candidate side, not directly indirect-source contributions.

“foreign political agency, party, organization or government”

The statute addresses indirect foreign ownership through vendors by requiring disclosure of foreign nationals who directly or indirectly own or control vendors, with amendment requirements within 30 days. However, the section lacks enumeration of what ownership percentages trigger disclosure, what forms of 'control' qualify, how to verify ownership chains, and what penalties apply for false statements or non-compliance—leaving significant procedural and enforcement gaps.

Article 50(2)(15) statutorily prohibits direct acceptance of foreign donations for electoral purposes, addressing the basic foreign-source rule. However, the provision does not address indirect or pass-through channels (foreign nationals operating through domestic entities, foreign-controlled LLCs, shell companies, or ownership-tracing mechanisms). The statute identifies the prohibited source but lacks enumeration of verification procedures, record-retention requirements, or enforcement mechanisms specific to detecting indirect foreign involvement.

“acceptance of donations from foreign states, organizations, citizens and stateless persons in order to elect a candidate”

The section addresses indirect/pass-through mechanisms by prohibiting arrangements that facilitate donations by non-permissible donors ('any person or body other than by a permissible donor'), which implies coverage of intermediaries and disguised channels. However, the statute does not enumerate specific indirect pathways (foreign nationals via domestic entities, shell corporations, ownership-tracing requirements, or verification procedures), nor does it define what constitutes a 'permissible donor' in this excerpt. The penalty is defined, but statutory procedure for verifying corporate ownership or tracing beneficial ownership is absent.

“Whosoever knowingly does any act in furtherance of any arrangement which facilitates or is likely to facilitate, whether by means of any concealment or disguise or otherwise, the making of donations to a political party or candidate, by any person or body other than by a permissible donor, shall, be liable to an administrative fine of not more than twenty thousand euro (€20,000).”

The statute explicitly prohibits contributions from foreign persons (both natural and legal) in Article 401(d), providing clear statutory grounding for restricting foreign sources. However, the section does not address indirect channels such as foreign-controlled domestic entities, pass-through arrangements, or corporate-ownership tracing, which limits the comprehensiveness of the foreign-source restriction to direct foreign actors only.

“Los partidos políticos, personas físicas o morales extranjeras”

General anti-straw-donor rule that would catch indirect channels (including a foreign national contributing in another's name), but the statute does not specifically address foreign-controlled LLCs, pass-through entities, or require corporate-ownership tracing — so coverage is 'some', not 'comprehensive'.

“must not be made, directly or indirectly, by any person in a name other than the name by which that person is identified for legal purposes.”

The statute prohibits contributions 'whether directly or indirectly' from prohibited sources, establishing statutory language that addresses pass-through channels. However, the section does not define what constitutes a 'prohibited source,' does not specify verification or tracing procedures for corporate ownership or intermediary entities, and does not enumerate the indirect mechanisms (foreign-controlled LLCs, straw donors, etc.) that must be screened. The operative rule is stated but procedural implementation and definition are absent.

“the committee shall not knowingly or willfully receive, solicit, or accept contributions from a prohibited source, whether directly or indirectly”

The statute directly prohibits foreign natural persons (§5(b)), foreign legal persons and joint ventures (§5(g)), and anonymous contributions or pass-throughs to third parties (§5(c)). However, the prohibition does not enumerate verification procedures, ownership-tracing mechanisms, or how domestic entities with foreign control are to be identified and screened. The statute states what is banned but does not define the procedural apparatus—audit protocols, disclosure of beneficial ownership, documentation requirements—necessary to detect and enforce indirect channels.

The statute requires ballot question committees to certify that preliminary activity was not funded 'directly or indirectly' by foreign nationals, which addresses pass-through channels. However, the provision is limited to ballot question committees only, does not define verification procedures or detail what constitutes indirect funding (e.g., foreign control of domestic entities), and lacks a penalty schedule or enforcement mechanism within this section. The statute provides some statutory grounding for addressing indirect foreign funding but incompletely enumerates the procedural requirements and limits scope.

“If the committee is identified as a ballot question committee, a certification that no preliminary activity was directly or indirectly funded by one or more foreign nationals”

The statute prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions 'directly or indirectly,' which nominally addresses pass-through channels. However, the section lacks statutory mechanisms for detecting or verifying indirect contributions (such as corporate-ownership tracing, beneficial-ownership disclosure, or LLC-member identification requirements). The verification procedure in subsection 3 addresses only direct contributions via passport verification, not indirect foreign control of domestic entities. Enforcement relies on the recipient's knowledge or reasonable inquiry, but no statutory procedure requires systematic tracing of entity ownership.

ORC 3517.121 prohibits foreign nationals from contributing 'directly or indirectly through any person or entity' and defines 'foreign national' to include entities organized under foreign law or with principal place of business abroad. This catches some indirect channels (foreign government, foreign political party, foreign-organized entity, conduits) but does not codify corporate-ownership tracing of US-domestic entities owned by foreign interests — so 'some' rather than 'comprehensive'.

“directly or indirectly through any person or entity”

The statute prohibits foreign nationals and foreign entities from making contributions 'directly or indirectly' and defines 'foreign national' by reference to federal law (22 U.S.C. 611(b)) with specific carve-outs for US citizens, nationals, and permanent residents. This addresses some indirect channels (foreign nationals acting through others). However, the section does not address indirect channels via foreign-controlled domestic entities (e.g., LLCs, corporations controlled by foreigners) or require corporate-ownership tracing to verify domestic-entity non-foreign-control. The statute covers some indirect conduits but lacks the comprehensive corporate-ownership verification framework.

Article 59 codifies management of electoral funds (only candidates/election associations have authority). Article 48 defines campaigning subjects. Anti-circumvention rules for indirect/pass-through foreign sources partially codified (Article 58 enumeration excludes foreign-owned domestic entities). 'Foreign agent' designations under Russian law (separate framework) extend this prohibition further.

The section delegates to the Secretary of State by order the power to specify circumstances in which non-permissible donors may be treated as authorised participants, addressing indirectly some pass-through scenarios. However, the statutory text itself does not enumerate specific indirect foreign-source channels (e.g., foreign-controlled entities, corporate-ownership tracing) or define the procedure for identifying foreign beneficiaries through domestic intermediaries; the delegation to administrative order means key procedural detail is not grounded in statute.

“The Secretary of State may, by order, specify circumstances or any description of circumstances in which a person who is not a permissible donor is to be treated as an authorised participant.”

52 USC § 30121 codifies 'directly or indirectly through any person or entity' foreign-national ban. § 30121(b) defines foreign nationals to include entities organized under foreign law or with principal place of business abroad (via 22 USC § 611(b) FARA definition). Some indirect coverage (foreign-organized entities, conduits) but no codified corporate-ownership tracing of US-domestic entities owned by foreign interests.

“a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make”

The statute explicitly prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions 'directly or indirectly,' which addresses the concept of indirect channels. However, the section lacks statutory detail on verification mechanisms, corporate-ownership tracing, or procedures to identify and block pass-through contributions via domestic entities or foreign-controlled LLCs—key procedural elements needed for comprehensive implementation. The enumeration of the rule itself is clear, but the machinery to enforce it against sophisticated indirect schemes is absent.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 32 addresses electoral-account procedures (opening, reporting, closure, and fund flows) but contains no statutory language addressing indirect foreign-source channels, foreign nationals acting through domestic entities, foreign-controlled corporate structures, or verification mechanisms to trace beneficial ownership. The provision is entirely silent on foreign-source restrictions or procedures.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section is a legislative findings and policy statement regarding Communist Party activity and national security concerns, not a campaign-finance statute addressing the mechanisms of foreign-source contributions or indirect pass-through channels. It contains no procedural rules, disclosure requirements, verification mechanisms, or enforcement procedures related to foreign nationals funding campaigns through domestic entities, foreign-controlled LLCs, or other indirect vehicles. The section does not establish statutory criteria for identifying or tracing foreign ownership or control of domestic campaign-finance conduits.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Constitution Article 13 (Foreign Policy) is constitutional principle, not campaign-finance pass-through rule. Specific indirect-channel rules not codified in surfaced corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 33 codifies Central Commission competences (general election conduct). Article 53 codifies early voting. Neither addresses indirect / pass-through foreign-source channels (foreign-controlled domestic entities). No statutory codification surfaced.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 19205 is the network-isolation requirement for voting systems — not foreign-funding pass-through rules. CA PRA covers pass-through in Gov Code 84211/84222.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This constitutional article addresses religious freedom and state protection of religious activities, with a provision that 'Religious groups and religious affairs shall not be subject to control by foreign forces.' However, this language does not constitute a campaign-finance rule or address indirect foreign-source channels for campaign contributions. The section contains no procedural framework for identifying, tracing, or regulating foreign-sourced funds through domestic entities, corporate ownership, or pass-through mechanisms—which is the substance of FOR.2. The criterion is entirely absent from this section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 308 addresses political activity restrictions on state election officials, not foreign-source contribution channels. It contains no statutory definition, enumeration, or procedure regarding indirect foreign-source contributions, pass-through entities, corporate-ownership tracing, or verification mechanisms. The section is wholly outside the scope of FOR.2.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article L52-9 addresses disclosure and identification requirements for electoral fundraising associations and financial representatives. It requires documentation to specify the candidate(s) or list receiving donations and to identify the fundraising entity or mandatary, but contains no provisions addressing foreign-source funds, indirect foreign channels, foreign nationals operating through domestic entities, or foreign-controlled legal structures. The section focuses entirely on transparency and attribution of domestic fundraising vehicles, not on the prevention or verification of foreign-source contributions through pass-through mechanisms.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Constitution Article 36 (Parliament authority). Article 55 (Prime Minister). Neither addresses indirect/pass-through foreign-source rules.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 31c addresses penalties for unlawfully accepted or undisclosed donations but does not itself establish rules governing indirect foreign-source contributions (foreign nationals acting through domestic entities, foreign-controlled corporate structures, etc.). The section enforces prior restrictions but does not enumerate the substantive criteria for identifying or blocking pass-through foreign funding. FOR.2 requires statutory rules addressing indirect channels; this section is a penalty provision referencing § 25 but does not establish the indirect foreign-source framework itself.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 11-342 addresses fundraiser notice, timing restrictions during legislative sessions, and definitions of elected officials and fundraiser events. It contains no language addressing foreign-source contributions, indirect foreign-source channels, foreign nationals, foreign-controlled entities, or corporate-ownership tracing. This section is entirely silent on the FOR.2 criterion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section governs voter privacy and ballot secrecy during voting, not campaign finance or foreign-source contributions. It contains no procedural rules, statutory definitions, or enforcement mechanisms related to indirect foreign-source channels, corporate-ownership tracing, or pass-through contribution structures. The criterion FOR.2 requires codified procedures for addressing foreign nationals' use of domestic entities to fund campaigns; this section addresses an entirely different regulatory domain.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses promises of political position in exchange for campaign support—a quid pro quo corruption provision entirely unrelated to foreign-source funding or indirect pass-through channels. It contains no reference to foreign nationals, foreign entities, corporate-ownership structures, or any mechanism for tracing foreign sources of campaign funds or in-kind support.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses bribery and intimidation of election officials and candidates, not foreign-source contributions or indirect foreign-financing channels. It contains no statutory provisions regarding foreign nationals, foreign entities, foreign-controlled pass-throughs, or corporate-ownership tracing for campaign finance purposes.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses voter bribery, a criminal offense under general election law, and contains no provisions regarding foreign-source contributions, indirect foreign funding channels, corporate-ownership tracing, or campaign-finance disclosure of any kind. It is entirely unrelated to the criterion's subject matter of foreign-source campaign financing.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 23-15-1021 addresses contribution limits for individuals and unaffiliated PACs in judicial races, but contains no provisions addressing foreign-source contributions, foreign nationals, foreign-controlled entities, or any mechanism to trace corporate ownership for foreign connections. The section is silent on indirect foreign-source channels entirely.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: N.H. Rev. Stat. § 652:16-c addresses voting eligibility for absent uniformed services voters and their dependents. It contains no provisions whatsoever regarding foreign-source contributions, indirect funding channels, foreign nationals, foreign-controlled entities, or campaign finance. This section is entirely outside the scope of campaign-finance regulation.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses voter intimidation and coercion, not foreign-source funding or campaign finance. It contains no statutory framework for identifying, restricting, or tracing indirect foreign-source channels through domestic entities, corporate ownership, or pass-through structures. The section is entirely outside the domain of foreign-source contribution rules.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses employee coercion and political opinions, not foreign-source campaign financing or indirect foreign-funded channels. It contains no statutory framework for addressing foreign nationals, foreign-controlled entities, corporate-ownership tracing, or pass-through contribution mechanisms.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 17-148 codifies bribery/intimidation of military electors; § 17-110 / § 17-140 / § 17-144 codify general bribery/franchise penalties; § 1-108 codifies local mandatory referendum expenses. None specifically codify indirect/pass-through foreign rules — these are addressed by reference to federal law.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 163-271 addresses voter intimidation by government employees and contains no provisions regarding foreign-source contributions, indirect foreign channels, corporate-ownership tracing, or any campaign-finance disclosure or restriction mechanism. This section concerns coercion of voters, not regulation of campaign funding.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section criminalizes bribery to influence votes and is unrelated to foreign-source contribution rules. It contains no statutory framework addressing indirect foreign-source channels, pass-through entities, corporate-ownership verification, or any mechanism to trace foreign control of domestic contributors. FOR.2 requires procedural rules for detecting and preventing foreign money via intermediaries; this section provides none.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 410 codifies the machine-inspector oath ('not directly or indirectly interested in any bet or wager on the result'); not foreign-source channels.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses voter bribery and intimidation — a criminal offense — but contains no statutory procedure governing foreign-source contributions, indirect channels, corporate-ownership verification, or any campaign-finance disclosure mechanism. FOR.2 requires statutory rules on indirect foreign-source funding (pass-throughs, foreign-controlled entities); this section is silent on campaign finance sourcing entirely.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Art. 82^1 codifies overseas-section Saturday-night sealing procedure; not foreign-channel rules.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 82 addresses election officer qualifications, duties, impartiality requirements, and removal procedures—matters of electoral administration and personnel governance. It contains no provisions addressing foreign-source contributions, indirect foreign funding channels, corporate-ownership tracing, domestic entities controlled by foreign nationals, or any mechanism to verify or prohibit foreign money flowing through intermediaries. The section is entirely removed from campaign-finance regulation and has no bearing on FOR.2.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 8-13-322 addresses prohibited ex parte contact with ethics investigators during pending complaints—an investigative-integrity rule—and contains no language whatsoever regarding foreign-source contributions, indirect foreign funding channels, corporate-ownership tracing, or any mechanism to verify or restrict foreign nationals' participation in campaign finance via domestic entities. This section falls entirely outside the foreign-source regulatory framework.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 12-26-14 codifies prohibition on use of public relief/loans/grants to influence political activity. § 12-26-12 codifies persecution/threats prohibition. § 12-26-16 codifies bribery acceptance. § 12-26-19 codifies betting. None directly address indirect/pass-through foreign rules — those are addressed under federal FECA.

No matching sections in corpus.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses solicitation restrictions on public officers and employees, and contributions from persons benefiting from public funds. It contains no reference to foreign nationals, foreign-source funds, foreign-controlled entities, or any mechanism for tracing indirect foreign contributions through domestic pass-through entities. The section is entirely domestic in focus and does not engage with the criterion's topic.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The FTS query surfaced only § 1.019 (use of compelled evidence 'directly or indirectly derived' — a criminal-procedure provision), which is unrelated to indirect or pass-through foreign-source contribution channels. No indirect-foreign-funding rule was surfaced.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: FTS surfaces Anayasa Articles 27 (academic freedom), 74 (right to petition), 174 (secular-reform laws), and Law 298 Madde 94/C (overseas voter procedure) — none codify anti-circumvention rules for indirect/pass-through foreign sources (foreign-controlled domestic entities, foreign nationals via shell companies, etc.).

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Art. II-86 / III-143 / III-148 / II-91 codify CEC general powers and financial support for elections — none specifically address indirect / pass-through foreign rules. Indirect channels (foreign-controlled domestic entities) not addressed in the Electoral Code (Anti-Money-Laundering Law applies separately).

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses poll-worker conduct during vote counting and does not pertain to campaign finance, foreign-source contributions, or indirect funding channels. It is a criminal-conduct statute governing election administration, not a campaign-finance rule.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 2012 criminalizes wrongfully procuring changes to the voter checklist — unrelated to indirect or pass-through foreign-source campaign funding. No indirect-foreign-funding rule was surfaced.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 24.2-1006 concerns ballot assistance and voter conduct at polling places; it contains no language addressing foreign-source contributions, indirect channels, corporate-ownership tracing, or any mechanism for verifying the nationality or foreign control of entities making political contributions. This section is entirely outside the foreign-source campaign-finance framework.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: RCW 29B.10.410 defines 'political advertising' by form and medium, addressing what constitutes political advertising for disclosure and regulatory purposes. It does not address foreign-source funding, indirect channels, pass-through entities, corporate-ownership tracing, or any mechanism to verify or prohibit foreign nationals' involvement in campaign finance. The section has no relevance to foreign-source rules.

Wis. Stat. § 12.08 prohibits 'directly or indirectly' causing contributions to influence the election or recall — anti-circumvention principle. Specific foreign-source pass-through rules live in Ch. 11.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses only intra-party primary spending restrictions and contains no statutory language addressing indirect foreign-source contributions, pass-through entities, foreign nationals, or any mechanism for tracing foreign control of domestic corporate or LLC contributors. It is entirely silent on the foreign-source dimension.