Foreign-source verification

Section 302P(1) statutorily mandates that persons and entities seeking to establish a donor is not foreign must obtain specified documentary evidence—not mere self-attestation. The statute exhaustively enumerates verification documents for individuals (citizenship/residency documentation), incorporated entities (incorporation certificates/ASIC records), and unincorporated entities (board minutes, activity documentation, or trust deeds evidencing Australian control/operations). This represents explicit statutory verification requirements with defined documentary standards, satisfying FOR.3's requirement for verification procedures beyond self-certification.

“A person or entity (the first person ) obtains appropriate donor information in relation to a person or entity (the donor ) making a gift, or on whose behalf a gift is made, establishing that the donor is not a foreign donor if the first person obtains information or a document specified in column 2 of the applicable item in the following table”

§ 13-37-505 codifies a source-verification step — on receiving a ballot-issue contribution, the committee treasurer must obtain a donor affirmation that the donor is not a foreign national, and retain the affirmation in the treasurer's records.

“the committee treasurer shall obtain from the donor an affirmation that the donor is not a foreign national”

Finance Law Article 27 codifies the verification mechanism: book-keeping is conducted by origin, amount, and structure of income/expenditure. The competent authorities annually control book-keeping records of political subjects.

“Књиговодство се води по пореклу, висини и структури прихода и расхода, у складу са прописима који уређују рачуноводство и ревизију.”

The section requires payment service providers to furnish 'all information required' per article R. 39-1 and an attestation of 'origin of funds and the status of the donor as a natural person,' but the text does not explicitly state whether this includes verification of non-foreign-source status or relies solely on attestation. The reference to external articles (L. 52-8, L. 52-7-1, R. 39-1) means the full verification standard cannot be assessed from this excerpt alone; however, the requirement for providers to establish 'procedures' to ensure compliance suggests some verification mechanism beyond self-attestation.

“Que le prestataire lui fournit, pour chaque donateur, toutes les informations requises en application de l'article R. 39-1, concomitamment au versement des fonds sur le compte de dépôt ouvert par le mandataire, ainsi qu'une attestation sur l'origine des fonds et la qualité de personne physique du donateur ou prêteur”

The statute requires donors to certify their foreign-national status and the origin of their funds, creating an attestation-based system. However, the statute does not mandate affirmative verification steps (e.g., document review, cross-checking, or due diligence procedures) beyond requiring the donor certification itself; it relies on certification without specifying verification methodology or audit procedures to confirm the accuracy of certifications.

“Each person who accepts contributions or expenditures as described in subsection (a) shall require each donor to certify that such donor is not a foreign national and has not knowingly accepted contributions or expenditures either directly or indirectly from any foreign national that in the aggregate exceed $100,000 within the four-year period immediately preceding the date of such donor's contribution or expenditure.”

The statute imposes a general duty to verify donor identity and whether donations are 'permissible' (which implicitly includes foreign-source restrictions), and mandates refusal of non-permissible donations with a 30-day return procedure and €5,000 penalty for non-compliance. However, the section does not explicitly define what constitutes a 'foreign' donor, enumerate the specific verification methods required, or clarify which verification procedures satisfy the 'reasonable steps' standard, leaving implementation to administrative interpretation.

“it shall be their duty to take all reasonable steps to carry out due diligence in order to verify: (a) the identity of the donor; and (b) whether the donation is a permissible donation.”

Article 54(5) clearly prohibits foreign-source financing by statute, which satisfies the existence of a rule. However, the section does not specify verification procedures that campaign committees must follow to verify contributors are not foreign-source. Paragraph (3) assigns responsibility for 'recordkeeping' but does not mandate affirmative verification methods, due-diligence requirements, or the documentation standards needed to distinguish foreign from domestic sources, leaving potential reliance on self-attestation.

Section 71H establishes a statutory prohibition on parties transacting with non-authorised participants (non-permissible donors), which incorporates foreign-source restrictions by reference to section 54(2)'s definition of permissible donors. However, the section does not explicitly mandate verification procedures, methods of confirmation, or what evidence parties must obtain to demonstrate compliance; it creates the substantive rule but delegates verification methodology to administrative guidance or common practice rather than statutory enumeration.

“A registered party must not— a be a party to a regulated transaction to which any of the other parties is not an authorised participant; b derive a benefit in consequence of a connected transaction if any of the parties to that transaction is not an authorised participant.”

The statute mandates that out-of-state political committees obtain a certification from contributors stating that contributions are not financed by foreign nationals and that foreign nationals are not involved in contribution decisions. However, the section requires only that committees receive a 'certification'—a passive receipt of attestation—rather than imposing affirmative verification duties (such as documentary review, identity checks, or beneficial-ownership investigation). The statute grounds the requirement in law but does not specify verification procedures, audit standards, or enforcement mechanisms beyond the filing requirement itself.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section is a political participation statute addressing the rights of government employees to engage in campaign activity and political expression, not a campaign-finance rule governing foreign-source verification. It contains no provisions requiring campaign committees to verify that contributors are non-foreign, nor does it establish any verification procedure or attestation mechanism. The statute is wholly outside the scope of FOR.3.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 15.13.040 establishes detailed reporting requirements for contributions (name, address, occupation, employer, and amount) and defines 'true source' for certain contributions, but contains no statutory requirement that campaign committees independently verify that contributors are not foreign nationals or foreign entities, nor any verification procedure beyond contributor self-reporting. The section mandates disclosure of contributor identity but does not impose a verification duty distinct from reliance on the information provided in contributor attestations.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 63 addresses penalties for misuse of accounts and failure to document fund sources/destinations, but does not establish any statutory requirement for campaign committees to verify that contributors are not foreign-source entities. The provision focuses on enforcement sanctions rather than procedural verification mechanisms. Foreign-source verification requirements would need to appear in earlier sections establishing affirmative verification obligations, not in a penalties-only provision.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 16-950 addresses clean elections funding qualification procedures, including verification of qualifying contributions through county recorder checks against voter registration. However, it contains no statutory requirement for campaign committees or the secretary of state to verify that contributors are not foreign-source, nor does it impose any foreign-source attestation or verification mechanism. The verification procedures described are limited to checking signatures, dates, and voter registration status of contributors.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 7-4-109 governs qualifications and training for election officials, commissioners, poll workers, and monitors. It contains no provisions regarding campaign-committee contributor verification, foreign-source screening, or campaign finance procedures. The section is entirely outside the scope of FOR.3, which concerns statutory requirements for verifying that campaign contributors are not foreign-source entities.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

Article 48 codifies state-budget funding for the official conduct of elections, which obviates the need for committee-level contributor verification in the dominant funding channel. Article 155 defines campaign-finance terms. No express statutory requirement for committees to verify non-foreign-source status of contributors surfaced — Belarus's model relies on enumerated permitted-subject lists rather than affirmative verification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 116 addresses candidate presentation requirements, voter signatures, candidate identification, and ballot symbols. It contains no provisions regarding campaign contributions, contributor verification, or foreign-source restrictions. The section is entirely procedural for candidate nomination, not campaign finance or contribution verification.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Чл. 374 codifies EU-citizen voter identification (ID + residence permit); not committee verification of contributor foreign-source status.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 282.4 prohibits undue influence by foreign entities and individuals during election periods, but does not establish any statutory requirement for campaign committees to verify that contributors are not foreign-source. The section addresses who cannot influence electors (subsection 1), defines undue influence (subsection 2), and carves out exceptions (subsection 3), but contains no procedural requirement for committees to conduct contributor-verification procedures or implement attestation mechanisms. FOR.3 requires procedural clarity regarding verification methods; this section imposes conduct prohibitions without specifying verification duties on campaign committees.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 9-710 addresses loans and personal funds in the Citizens' Election Program, setting dollar limits and repayment requirements. It contains no provisions—statutory or otherwise—regarding verification of foreign-source contributors, contributor attestation, or any mechanism to prevent foreign funding. The section is entirely silent on the topic that FOR.3 measures.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section establishes supervisory and audit bodies (State Election Commission and State Audit Office) and their general enforcement responsibilities, but does not specify verification procedures for foreign-source contributors. The text does not enumerate statutory requirements for campaign committees to verify that contributors are not foreign-source, nor does it distinguish between active verification and mere self-attestation. Procedural clarity on foreign-source verification is absent from this provision.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 28 of Law 62/2003 regulates voter registration for EU citizens in European Parliament elections, not campaign finance or contributor verification. It contains no provisions regarding campaign committees, contribution verification, foreign-source prohibitions, or attestation procedures relevant to FOR.3.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 7557 addresses election-day conduct, voting machines, challenger procedures, and electioneering rules—topics entirely separate from campaign-finance contribution verification. The section contains no provisions requiring campaign committees to verify that contributors are not foreign-source, nor does it establish any statutory verification procedure. This section deals with operational election administration, not campaign finance compliance.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

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

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 106.08 governs contribution limits, not foreign-source verification.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 24 (Rechenschaftsbericht) governs the form and content of financial reports submitted by parties, including enumeration of income categories and mandatory disclosure of donations above specified thresholds. However, the section does not address verification procedures for foreign-source contributions, nor does it impose duties on parties to affirmatively verify that contributors are non-foreign. The reporting requirements do not include statutory procedures for committees to verify contributor citizenship or foreign status, relying instead on post-hoc disclosure rather than pre-contribution verification.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 52 addresses only the procedural mechanics of reporting election results from polling places to the electoral board and the Electoral Committee (Valgnævnet). It contains no provisions regarding campaign contributions, contributor verification, foreign-source restrictions, or any campaign-finance procedure. This section concerns post-election result tabulation and reporting, not campaign finance regulation.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section is a definitions chapter that establishes foundational campaign-finance terminology (candidate, contribution, committee, etc.). It does not address foreign-source verification procedures, contributor attestation requirements, or any verification mechanisms. FOR.3 requires statutory procedure for verifying that contributors are not foreign-source; this definitions section provides none of those procedural elements.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: 10 ILCS 5/9-50 codifies vendor-contribution restrictions (automated traffic/speed/grade-crossing vendors); not foreign-source verification.

No matching sections in corpus.

Section 68A.201A imposes disclosure and registration requirements on out-of-state committees but does not establish a procedure requiring campaign committees to affirmatively verify that contributors are not foreign-source. The verified statement requirement in subsection 4 attests to compliance with section 68A.503 (which likely contains the foreign-source prohibition), but the statute does not mandate specific verification procedures—it relies on the submitting committee's attestation. The section addresses foreign-source compliance through attestation rather than independent verification by the receiving committee.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses extraordinary elections, maslikhat deputy elections, and akim (local executive) elections in Kazakhstan. It contains procedural rules for election timing, nomination of candidates, and candidate eligibility requirements, but contains no campaign-finance provisions whatsoever. It does not establish any framework for campaign committees, contributor verification, foreign-source attestation, or donor identity documentation. The criterion FOR.3 requires statutory verification procedures for foreign-source contributors; this section is silent on campaign finance.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Kentucky codifies a foreign-national verification requirement — KRS 121.252 requires a political issues committee treasurer to obtain a donor affirmation that the donor is not a foreign national — but that section was not surfaced for this datapoint; the surfaced candidates (committee registration and definitions) do not codify foreign-source verification.

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

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

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 24 addresses the procedural mechanics of electoral appeals and recourse to the district commissioner, covering filing deadlines, notification requirements, and record-keeping for disputed voter registration. The section contains no provisions regarding campaign finance, contributor verification, or foreign-source restrictions. It is entirely procedural with respect to electoral disputes, not campaign funding oversight.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 57 enumerates foundational principles for electoral campaigns, including transparency of financing sources, but does not establish any statutory procedure for verifying that contributors are not foreign-source entities. The provision lacks any mechanism, requirement, or procedure for campaign committees to conduct verification; it states only a principle of transparency without defining how foreign-source verification should occur or be enforced.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 1124 establishes the Maine Clean Election Fund structure, sources of funding, and administrative oversight. It does not address foreign-source verification, contributor identity verification, or any requirements for campaign committees to screen contributors. The section concerns public financing mechanics, not campaign contribution procedures or foreign-source restrictions.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 1-101 is a definitions section that establishes terminology for Maryland election law (e.g., 'absentee ballot,' 'candidate,' 'contribution'). It does not contain any statutory procedure requiring campaign committees to verify that contributors are not foreign-source, nor does it establish verification methods, standards, or enforcement mechanisms. Foreign-source verification procedures, if they exist in Maryland law, would be found in substantive provisions governing contributions and candidate committees, not in this definitional section.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section concerns voter registration procedures in the Federal Electoral Register (LGIPE art. 140), establishing data-collection requirements for electoral-roll administration. It contains no campaign-finance provisions, no contribution-verification procedures, no attestation requirements for campaign donors, and no foreign-source verification mechanisms. The criterion FOR.3 addresses campaign-committee verification of contributor nationality; this section addresses citizen registration for voting eligibility.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section requires out-of-state contributors to submit a self-certified statement attesting that contributions are not from funds prohibited by § 169.254 (foreign corporations). This is contributor self-attestation, not independent verification by the recipient committee, and applies only to out-of-state — not to in-state contributors more broadly.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

Missouri law requires only donor self-attestation (affirmation) rather than affirmative verification. The statute explicitly creates a rebuttable presumption from receipt of the affirmation, meaning committees satisfy their duty by collecting sworn statements without independent verification procedures. No statutory requirement mandates that committees verify the truthfulness of affirmations through cross-checking records, investigating sources, or using other verification mechanisms.

“Upon a committee's receipt of a contribution of more than two thousand dollars, the treasurer shall obtain from the donor an affirmation that the donor is not a foreign national”

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The section provided is merely a table of contents listing statutory sections in N.J. Rev. Stat. Title 19, Chapter 19:34. It contains no substantive text addressing foreign-source verification, contributor verification procedures, or any campaign-finance procedural requirements. The section does not enumerate verification procedures, penalty schedules, or enforcement mechanisms for foreign-source restrictions.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 14-108 codifies the time-for-filing of statements but does not impose committee-level affirmative verification of contributor non-foreign-source status. NY relies on contributor self-attestation plus federal preemption.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 163-278.27 is purely a penalty and enforcement statute that addresses criminal sanctions, referral procedures to prosecutors, and statute-of-limitations rules. It does not establish any verification procedures, contributor-attestation requirements, or mechanisms for campaign committees to verify that contributors are not foreign-source. The section presupposes violations of other statutes (§ 163-278.7 through 163-278.40J) but does not itself impose or clarify any substantive verification duty.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: ORC 3517.1011 governs electioneering-communication disclosure; does not require committee verification of contributor foreign-source status.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: ORS 260.039 addresses the content and filing requirements for statements of organization by candidates and principal campaign committees. It specifies required organizational information (names, addresses, occupations, committee structure, bank account details) and filing deadlines, but contains no requirement or procedure for verifying that contributors are not foreign-source entities. The section does not address contributor verification at all, relying instead on other provisions of Oregon's campaign-finance statutes for that purpose.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 1803-A is repealed/expired.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 132 establishes which sources of funds are permissible (Polish citizens with permanent residence, party electoral funds, bank credits) but contains no statutory requirement that campaign committees must verify contributor identity or foreign-source status. The provision restricts the categories of allowed sources but does not mandate verification procedures, audits, or identity-checking mechanisms that would operationalize this restriction. Enforcement and verification procedures are not addressed in this section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Art. 69.º addresses the cost and compensation framework for campaign media access (radio, television, press, public venues) and pricing for entertainment venues. It contains no provision whatsoever regarding verification of contributors' foreign or domestic source, contributor attestation, or any mechanism to prevent foreign-source funding. The section falls entirely outside the scope of contributor-source verification and is therefore inapplicable to FOR.3.

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: Article 59 covers expenditure authority. Article 2 covers definitions. Article 20 covers commission system. No specific verification-of-contributor-non-foreign-status requirement codified — Article 58 prohibits foreign contributions but relies on contributor self-attestation.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section § 7-3-20 addresses the appointment, qualifications, duties, and conduct of the State Election Commission's executive director. It does not contain any statutory requirement for campaign committees to verify that contributors are not foreign-source, nor does it establish any verification procedures or attestation mechanisms for contributors. The section is entirely administrative in focus and does not engage with campaign-finance contribution rules.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 12-27-1 (CF definitions) — no statutory affirmative foreign-source verification requirement codified. SD relies on federal FECA framework.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 86 of LOREG addresses voting procedures (ballot secrecy, electoral booths, voter identification at the polling station, and vote recording) and contains no provisions regarding campaign finance, contributor verification, or foreign-source donation controls. This section is entirely outside the domain of campaign-finance regulation and therefore cannot satisfy a criterion about campaign-committee verification of foreign-source contributors.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No matching sections in corpus.

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

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

Art. II-96 codifies electoral-fund formation rules — funds may only receive contributions from natural persons who are citizens of Ukraine (statutory enumeration of permitted-source classes effectively requires verification). Affirmative contributor-verification obligation lives in fund-manager duty (Art. III-153 / II-97 reporting requirements) rather than as a separate audit step.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: 52 USC § 21001 codifies HAVA requirements payments; not foreign-source verification.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 20A-11-101 is a definitions section that establishes terminology for Utah's campaign-finance rules (e.g., 'contribution,' 'candidate,' 'agent'). It does not impose verification requirements on campaign committees regarding foreign-source contributors. The section does not address verification procedures, enforcement mechanisms, or any statutory mandate that committees affirmatively verify contributor nationality or foreign status. Foreign-source verification requirements, if they exist in Utah law, would be found in operative provisions governing contribution receipt and reporting, not in this definitional section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 2103 is the definitions section. No foreign-source verification requirement for campaign contributions was surfaced.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 24.2-948.1 addresses exemption procedures and reporting thresholds for local candidates, not foreign-source verification requirements. It contains no language requiring campaign committees or their agents to verify contributor nationality or implement procedures to exclude foreign-source contributions. The section does not engage with the foreign-source verification criterion at all.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: The statute prohibits foreign currency contributions above $50 and requires disclosure of contributor identity and address for contributions over $250, but it does not mandate any affirmative verification procedure by campaign committees to confirm that contributors are not foreign-source persons (as defined by federal law). The text requires reporting of what was received but does not establish a statutory verification or attestation protocol that committees must follow to comply with the foreign-source bar.

No candidate sections returned by FTS.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 22-24-306 addresses sponsor and circulator qualifications and petition procedures, not foreign-source verification of contributors. The section requires contribution and expenditure reports under W.S. 22-25-106 but contains no statutory language imposing verification duties on campaign committees to screen for foreign-source contributions. FOR.3 requires affirmative statutory verification procedure; this section does not provide it.