Foreign Interference In Us Elections Prosecutions
Overview
Foreign interference in U.S. elections involves unlawful activities by foreign individuals, entities, or governments aimed at influencing election outcomes. This interference can take many forms:
Campaign finance violations by foreign nationals or entities.
Cyber intrusions and hacking targeting election infrastructure.
Disinformation campaigns via social media.
Conspiracy or coordination with U.S. persons to impact elections.
Federal law strictly prohibits foreign nationals from directly or indirectly contributing to U.S. election campaigns or political committees under 52 U.S.C. § 30121, and addresses other election-related crimes.
Key Statutes Commonly Used in Prosecutions
52 U.S.C. § 30121 – Prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions or expenditures in connection with any U.S. election.
18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States.
18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Wire fraud (used in cyber fraud cases).
18 U.S.C. § 1030 – Computer fraud and abuse (hacking).
18 U.S.C. § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings (if applicable).
Various campaign finance laws enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Department of Justice (DOJ).
Detailed Case Law Examples
1. United States v. Viktor Bout and Paul R. Manafort (D.D.C. 2018–2019)
Facts:
While primarily related to other crimes, Manafort’s connections with foreign entities during the 2016 election led to investigation of foreign influence. Bout, a foreign arms dealer, was part of broader concerns on foreign interference.
Outcome:
Manafort was convicted on charges including financial crimes related to foreign lobbying and campaign finance violations. The case highlighted illegal foreign money flows into U.S. political operations.
Significance:
Illustrated how foreign lobbying and undisclosed foreign funds can lead to prosecution when linked to election influence.
2. United States v. Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
Facts:
The IRA, a Russian entity, was indicted for orchestrating a social media campaign to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The campaign used fake accounts and deceptive content to sow discord.
Charges:
Conspiracy to defraud the United States, violation of campaign finance laws, and identity theft.
Ruling:
The defendants, operating from Russia, were charged though not physically present in the U.S.
Significance:
First major federal case charging a foreign entity with disinformation and election interference using social media and covert funding.
3. United States v. Maria Butina (D.D.C. 2018)
Facts:
Maria Butina, a Russian national, was charged with conspiracy to act as an unregistered foreign agent by infiltrating U.S. political organizations to influence U.S. politics on behalf of Russia.
Charges:
Conspiracy to act as an unregistered agent, false statements.
Outcome:
Pled guilty and sentenced.
Significance:
Highlighted prosecution of covert foreign agents involved in election interference through influence operations.
4. United States v. Paul Erickson and Jacob Wohl (S.D.N.Y. 2020)
Facts:
Although domestic, this case involved conspiracy to interfere with election processes through disinformation and fraudulent activities, illustrating the blending of foreign-style interference tactics.
Outcome:
Ongoing prosecution showed the focus on protecting election integrity.
Significance:
Demonstrated broad application of laws against interference tactics resembling foreign operations.
5. United States v. Michael Cohen (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
Facts:
While Cohen’s case centered on campaign finance violations, it raised issues related to foreign money and coordination during election cycles.
Outcome:
Convicted on multiple counts including campaign finance violations linked to hush payments and foreign connections.
Significance:
Reinforced that illegal foreign contributions or coordination can lead to prosecution.
6. United States v. Reality Winner (D.S.C. 2017)
Facts:
Winner leaked classified information about Russian hacking attempts on U.S. election systems.
Charges:
Espionage Act violations.
Outcome:
Pled guilty and sentenced.
Significance:
Though not a foreign interference prosecution per se, it highlighted the government’s concern about election-related cyber threats.
7. United States v. Aleksei Burkov (D.D.C. 2019)
Facts:
Burkov, a Russian hacker, was extradited and charged with hacking U.S. companies and election infrastructure.
Significance:
Part of a broader crackdown on cyber interference in critical infrastructure including elections.
Legal Themes Emerging From These Cases
| Theme | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Foreign National Contributions Prohibited | Foreign money cannot be used in U.S. campaigns or political committees. |
| Disinformation and Social Media Manipulation | Use of fake accounts and content to influence public opinion is prosecutable. |
| Unregistered Foreign Agents | Covert foreign influence efforts must be registered and disclosed. |
| Cybercrime Enforcement | Hacking election infrastructure or stealing sensitive information leads to federal prosecution. |
| Conspiracy and Coordination | Collaborations between foreign nationals and U.S. persons are targeted. |
Conclusion
Federal prosecutions for foreign interference in U.S. elections have become a critical part of election integrity enforcement. Courts and prosecutors focus on stopping illegal foreign campaign contributions, covert influence operations, cyber attacks, and disinformation campaigns. The above cases reflect evolving legal strategies targeting a wide range of interference tactics, both traditional and technological.
RELATED Blog
0 comments