Bill would require half of outside political spending to come from in-state donors

What it does

This bill requires that when a political committee makes independent expenditures (ads or spending not coordinated with a candidate) in a state to influence a House, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner race, at least half of the money spent must come from donors whose home address is in that state. The stated goal is to reduce 'outside influence' by requiring local funding for at least half of independent political spending in congressional races.

Why we flagged it

The bill directly restricts how independent-expenditure committees can fund political spending by imposing a geographic sourcing requirement. It is a narrow amendment to federal election law targeting the composition of funding for a specific category of political spending.

What the text implies

• The bill may be vulnerable to First Amendment challenge under Citizens United and related precedent, which has held that restrictions on independent political spending are subject to strict scrutiny. A court may find that a funding-source restriction on independent expenditures violates the First Amendment right to political speech.
• The bill does not define 'address' or 'person' — it is unclear whether this applies to individuals only, or also to entities (corporations, LLCs, nonprofits) and how their 'address' is determined. This ambiguity may create compliance uncertainty for political committees.

The full analysis lists 4 implications of this text.

Who it affects

The bill aims to reduce out-of-state money in congressional races, which may reduce voter exposure to outside-funded political messaging and could strengthen local political voice. However, it also restricts the ability of citizens and groups outside a state to spend money on political speech in that state, raising First Amendment concerns and potentially limiting the reach of political movements that cross state lines.