Is it illegal for foreigners to pay US citizens to engage in political activities in the US?

Question

It's been reported that 13 Russian Federation citizens have been indicted in the US for waging a misinformation campaign during the last Presidential election cycle in the hopes of sowing discontent. They were indicted because (presumably) foreign nationals have no business making their opinion have undue influence on US elections.

It is known (or at least it is alleged) that the trolls were paid. Had they been US citizens, would that have been legal? They were not directly lobbying any government officials. So they didn't have to register as lobbyists. They did not work (at least not directly) for the Russian government.

The allegation is that they worked for foreign private companies. If these were US citizens, they would have been in the same situation as US citizens who work for any other private business in Russia who decide to espouse any kind of political views on their social media accounts. Which means they would not have had to register as foreign agents (because they would not work for a government).

They did not advocate for war or (at least according to the reports) for violence. So they did not incite rebellion or violence.

This may seem like a rhetorical question, but I genuinely can't tell anymore what's legal in this respect. Is it illegal for US citizens to accept payments (from foreign private concerns) for shilling political opinions they don't personally hold?

I guess this can count as political advertising by foreign private interests, but is it illegal to accept money from foreign entities to place political ads? Clearly, it's illegal for foreigners to buy political ads, but is it illegal to sell ad space for political ads to foreigners?

The 13 Russians who were indicted were not charged with accepting payments for illegal campaign ads (which is not to say that they didn't do it). But would that be something that US citizens have to be wary of?

By the way, I am obviously asking this in the context of the 1st Amendment.

Answer 1

I have found an FEC page which mostly answers my question.

Specifically,

• Despite the general prohibition on foreign national contributions and donations, foreign nationals may lawfully engage in political activity that is not connected with any election to political office...
• In a decision that was later affirmed by the Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the foreign national ban “does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues. It restrains them only from a certain form of expressive activity closely tied to the voting process—providing money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.” Bluman v. FEC

This answers the question of whether political activity, not related to a specific election, is permitted to foreign entities. It is.

The question about accepting employment for the purposes of shilling on social media (on behalf of foreign interests) to support, or oppose, a specific candidate is a question which remains open.

Clearly, such speech would be legal for US citizens if it is their own opinions. But, going with the current assumption that it is tentamount to accepting advertising from foreign sources, the question (of whether accepting payments to make statements is legal) is a question which is not answered by the FEC page.

Answer 2

They did not advocate for war or (at least according to the reports) for violence. So they did not incite rebellion or violence.

The evidence does not support a benign inference of non-violence. The prosecution argues the employees of Internet Research Agency of St. Petersburg (IRASP) were waging “information warfare against the United States of America.”

The 1st Amendment is about freedom of speech, speech being whatever people believe and say, however erroneous or misinformed. But it doesn't protect defamatory lies, forgeries, or deliberate fraud. It doesn't protect convincing the unstable to commit crimes and making weird instruments of them. Nor pulling fire alarms to make sport of panic. Etc.

The IRASP were mainly about pulling political fire alarms for the sake of increasing panic and general anxiety. It didn't advocate what its employees believed, nor what their employers believed, nor what their employer's employers believed. Rather IRASP advocated only just for things none of them cared were true or false, it was a factory that designed and distributed unbalancing ideas to confuse and divide a strategic maximum of voters. IRASP schemed to disinform the electorate, and undermine people's faith in each other, their nation, and democracy itself.