Proposal for the Expansion and Clarification of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) to Safeguard United States Political Integrity

Below is a formal proposal designed for presentation to the United States Congress in an official capacity. It expands the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) to include political parties, members of Congress, state elected officials, appointees, and judges, with clear definitions, conditions, and consequences aligned with the U.S. Constitution.


Title: Proposal for the Expansion and Clarification of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) to Safeguard United States Political Integrity

Date: [Insert Date]

Presented to: The Congress of the United States of America

Introduction

The sovereignty and integrity of the United States depend on the unwavering allegiance of its elected officials, political parties, appointees, and federal employees to the interests of the American people. The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), enacted in 1938, mandates transparency for individuals and entities acting as agents of foreign principals. However, its current scope does not adequately address the potential for foreign influence within our domestic political structures. This proposal seeks to amend and expand FARA to include political parties, members of Congress, state elected officials, appointees—including judges—and federal employees, ensuring that all such positions serve exclusively the interests of the United States. By clarifying the conditions under which these entities may be classified as foreign agents, establishing strict requirements for allegiance, and defining consequences for violations, this proposal reinforces the constitutional framework and protects the trust of the American people.


Section 1: Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this proposal is to:

  • Expand FARA to encompass all individuals and entities in positions of political power or governance within the United States.

  • Define clear conditions under which these entities may be deemed foreign agents due to advocacy for foreign nations.

  • Mandate that all such positions hold sole allegiance to the United States, prohibiting dual citizenship and the creation of laws or policies favoring foreign nations.

  • Establish violations of these requirements as “bad behavior,” with consequences including recall, removal, or abolishment of tainted laws, legislation, rules, or policies.

  • Align these modifications with the U.S. Constitution to ensure legal and democratic integrity.


Section 2: Definitions

To provide clarity and enforceability, the following terms are defined:

  • 2.1 Political Party: Any organization that nominates candidates for public office at the federal, state, or local level.

  • 2.2 Elected Official: Any individual elected to a federal, state, or local office, including members of Congress and state legislators.

  • 2.3 Appointee: Any individual appointed to a federal, state, or local government position, including judges, cabinet members, and other officials.

  • 2.4 Federal Employee: Any individual employed by the federal government in a capacity related to governance or policy-making.

  • 2.5 Foreign Agent Activity: Engaging in actions—including legislation, law-making, public advocacy, or policy decisions—at the direction of, or for the primary benefit of, a foreign principal (government, political party, or entity), as determined by evidence of intent, funding, or coordination.

  • 2.6 Sole Allegiance: Exclusive loyalty to the United States, demonstrated by the absence of dual citizenship and the creation of laws, legislation, rules, or policies that serve only U.S. interests.


Section 3: Expansion of FARA Registration Requirements

3.1 Scope of Inclusion

  • Political parties, elected officials (including members of Congress and state officials), appointees (including judges), and federal employees shall be subject to FARA if they engage in Foreign Agent Activity.

3.2 Conditions for Classification as a Foreign Agent

An individual or entity shall be classified as a foreign agent under FARA if they:

  • Advocate for the interests of a foreign nation through legislation, law-making, public statements, or policy decisions that favor a foreign principal over U.S. interests.

  • Receive funding, instructions, or compensation from a foreign principal to influence U.S. governance.

  • Violate the Constitution by enacting laws or policies that undermine U.S. sovereignty or favor foreign nations, as determined by judicial review or oversight.

3.3 Registration Obligations

  • Upon engaging in Foreign Agent Activity, affected parties must register with the Department of Justice within 10 days, disclosing:

    • All contacts with foreign entities.

    • Funding sources tied to foreign principals.

    • Specific activities undertaken on behalf of foreign interests.


Section 4: Requirements for Sole Allegiance

4.1 Prohibition on Dual Citizenship

  • No elected official, appointee, or federal employee may hold dual citizenship. Current officeholders must renounce foreign citizenship within 90 days of this act’s enactment or vacate their position.

  • Rationale: Dual citizenship may create conflicts of loyalty, undermining the sole allegiance required for governance of the United States.

4.2 Legislative and Policy Restrictions

  • All laws, legislation, rules, and policies created by political parties, elected officials, appointees, or federal employees must exclusively serve the interests of the United States.

  • Any action found to favor a foreign nation under any condition—whether through intent, effect, or foreign influence—shall be deemed a violation of FARA and subject to review.


Section 5: Consequences for Violations

5.1 Classification as “Bad Behavior”

  • Failure to register as a foreign agent when required, or engaging in Foreign Agent Activity without disclosure, constitutes “bad behavior” and a violation of the public trust, aligning with constitutional standards for removal (e.g., Article I, Section 5, and Article II, Section 4).

5.2 Specific Consequences

  • For Elected Officials:

    • Grounds for impeachment, expulsion (per Article I, Section 5), or state-level recall where applicable.

    • Immediate ineligibility for re-election or appointment.

  • For Political Parties:

    • Loss of ballot access, legal recognition, or federal funding.
  • For Appointees (Including Judges):

    • Removal from office via impeachment (for federal judges) or administrative action (for other appointees).
  • For Federal Employees:

    • Termination of employment and potential criminal prosecution under existing FARA penalties.

5.3 Abolishment of Tainted Laws

  • Any law, legislation, rule, or policy enacted under the influence of undisclosed Foreign Agent Activity may be:

    • Challenged in federal court for invalidation.

    • Subject to legislative repeal or amendment upon recommendation by an oversight body.

  • Determination of foreign influence shall be based on evidence of intent, funding, or coordination with a foreign principal.


Section 6: Oversight and Enforcement

6.1 Establishment of Oversight Body

  • A Foreign Influence Review Board (FIRB) shall be created within the Department of Justice to:

    • Monitor compliance with FARA among political entities and officials.

    • Investigate allegations of Foreign Agent Activity.

    • Recommend disciplinary actions or legal challenges to tainted laws.

6.2 Constitutional Alignment

  • The FIRB shall operate within constitutional bounds, respecting separation of powers and judicial review (e.g., Article III). Its findings shall serve as recommendations to Congress, state legislatures, or courts for action.

Section 7: Public Transparency

  • All FARA registrations, disclosures, and FIRB findings shall be publicly accessible via a federal database, ensuring the American people can hold their representatives accountable.

Section 8: Constitutional Justification

This proposal aligns with the U.S. Constitution as follows:

  • Article I, Section 5: Grants Congress the power to judge the qualifications of its members and expel them for misconduct, including “bad behavior” tied to foreign influence.

  • Article II, Section 4: Provides for impeachment of federal officials for treason, bribery, or other high crimes, encompassing unregistered Foreign Agent Activity.

  • Article VI, Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause): Reinforces that federal laws like FARA supersede conflicting state actions, ensuring uniform application.

  • First Amendment: Preserves free speech while regulating undisclosed foreign influence, a recognized national security concern (e.g., Schenck v. United States, 1919).

The prohibition on dual citizenship and foreign-favoring legislation, while not explicitly addressed in the Constitution, serves the overarching purpose of protecting national sovereignty, a core constitutional principle.


Conclusion

The sole purpose of political parties, members of Congress, state elected officials, appointees, judges, and federal employees is the governance of the United States for the benefit of its citizens. This proposal expands and clarifies FARA to ensure that any advocacy for a foreign nation triggers classification as a foreign agent, with strict requirements for allegiance and transparency. By establishing violations as “bad behavior” with consequences such as recall, removal, or abolishment of tainted laws, we safeguard the democratic process and uphold the trust of the American people. We urge Congress to adopt these amendments to protect our nation’s integrity and align with the Constitution’s enduring principles.


This proposal is structured for formal presentation, printed submission, and congressional review, balancing legal precision with the user’s intent to prioritize U.S. interests exclusively.

4 Likes

Great job. This should have way more votes than it does.

tyvm, and yes I agree it should have more. Starting to think this site is just a fraud. Made to give the illusion that you have a voice.

1 Like

Probably. It mostly is a mess, and full of mouth breathers in the middle of the bell curve, but there are a few bright spots, like your post, and others. Just like in real life.

I suspect there are a few officials/reps that may have browsed and contributed, left feed back, at least initially. Activity is way down since the election, and yet, it could still be a good place to make and refine policy proposals. Where else does such a thing exist?

The administration need to make adjustments to unlimited single policy votes. So that the good policies can get the traction they deserve. The view counts are high, which tells me there are some real people here reading, not bots or trolls, but can’t vote because of the vote cap limit. Frustrating. This could be an ongoing useful site.

Excellent policy. Because the policies and bills that were passed in the last four years were all anti American, anti sovereignty, they were harmful to our constitutional federal republic,

Everything they did was in lock step with the globalists agenda for a rules based Global governance, or a rules based Democracy , it’s basically a technocracy.

which is all written in Klaus Schwab’s book the great reset.
They are all in line with the
WEF, The U.N , The Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, etc…

And Biden signed that authoritarian style treaty with the WHO.

I could go on. With all the authoritarian policies and bills they passed but you get the point.

This is a great policy. Nicely done. :heart::heart::heart::heart:

thank you very much. Though it appears as stated above that this site is just another facade to present the idea we have the ability to make a difference.

As far as I can tell anything that is of worth to the people, but would interfere with absolute control and authority of a political member is not only discarded but censored.

1 Like

Do you really think that it’s just a facade?
I really hope not. I’m still trying to figure out how to use it. :heart:

1 Like

Ya I have posted some undeniable stuff on here and it gets nothing.

People will say stupid shit like
“ban all lobbying” and that will get some attention but then you attempt to create a literal policy that is applicable it gets zero focus.

Separation of corporate and political
definition of “bad behavior”

Things that in any normal, common sense, American viewed individual would see as pieces of a more perfect union but would limit or restrict the unchecked authority of the government they receive zero votes and get zero attention.

I even created a flawless method for use with LNP and mRNA that removes all risk of genome contamination, myocarditis, and the government acts like the method doesn’t exist. I have even sent them it directly and still, nih, cdc. They are not either real organizations, or they are facades that are present to provide the idea of the facade.

It becomes more and more clear the further you look into it, that the idea it is a central casting script reading, facade seems quite literal.

It becomes also clear that the government, political parties are 100% not upholding the law, the constitution, they grant immunity even when they literally are violating the constitution to do so, the checks we have like the AG, or IG refuse to do anything, judges violate the law to uphold and protect those that create or write such unlawful things.

The reality is this:
The Constitution is the backbone of our government, and the First Amendment guarantees free speech, stating: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…” It’s a right every American has, and no public official can take it away without breaking the rules. When this man took his oath of office, as required by Article VI, he swore to “support and defend the Constitution”, promising to protect our rights, not destroy them.
By attacking free speech, he’s not just violating that oath—he’s undermining the very foundation of our democracy. Officials might have immunity, a kind of shield from legal trouble when they’re doing their job. But here’s the deal: his job is to uphold the Constitution, not tear it apart. When he steps outside that role—like a teacher trashing the school instead of teaching—he loses that shield. Courts agree, as seen in cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio, that violating clear constitutional rights opens the door to arrest and prosecution.
On top of that, any laws, rules, or policies he tries to create that go against the Constitution are worthless. The Constitution is the supreme law—nothing that contradicts it can stand. He can’t attack free speech, break his oath, and then expect his title to protect him. No one gets a free pass to violate the foundation of our system, especially not those who swore to defend it.

The act of violating the constitution through any means is not a protected action in which the title or position they hold gives them protection.

1 Like

Can you please clarify you’re point? I’m not quite sure what you want to achieve exactly?
:heart:

:slightly_smiling_face:
@Eric_K

The Constitution is the backbone of our government, and the First Amendment guarantees free speech, stating: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…” It’s a right every American has, and no public official can take it away without breaking the rules. When this man (Gavin Newsome) took his oath of office, as required by Article VI, he swore to “support and defend the Constitution”, promising to protect our rights, not destroy them.
By attacking free speech, he’s not just violating that oath—he’s undermining the very foundation of our democracy. Officials might have immunity, a kind of shield from legal trouble when they’re doing their job. But here’s the deal: his job is to uphold the Constitution, not tear it apart. When he steps outside that role—like a teacher trashing the school instead of teaching—he loses that shield. Courts agree, as seen in cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio, that violating clear constitutional rights opens the door to arrest and prosecution.
On top of that, any laws, rules, or policies he tries to create that go against the Constitution are worthless. The Constitution is the supreme law—nothing that contradicts it can stand. He can’t attack free speech, break his oath, and then expect his title to protect him. No one gets a free pass to violate the foundation of our system, especially not those who swore to defend it.

This same concept applies to any political party member that attempts to undermine the constitution.

I suppose my point is, these people have lost their fucking minds.

1 Like

absolutely, dual citizenship is the open door to have the interest of the other country not US

1 Like