ICNL’s report develops a typology of salient features of foreign influence registration laws to assess their potential impact on civil society and to help compare and contrast these laws across countries. It then shares key recommendations for substantive arguments against overbroad foreign influence registration laws and potential response strategies. Governments worldwide have implemented foreign influence registration laws to enhance transparency about foreign involvement in domestic affairs, aiming to defend democratic governance. While some of these laws have the potential to promote transparency, many are criticized for being overly broad and vague, burdening CSOs with excessive regulatory requirements that stigmatize and criminalize them. In response to concerns about hostile foreign influence, historic democracies like Australia, the United Kingdom, and the European Union have adopted such laws. However, these laws have also been used to restrict civil society’s operational space, with examples from Russia and Nicaragua illustrating how they can target and stigmatize CSOs receiving foreign funding. Read the report here.
Source: ICNL