A law banning contributions from foreign nationals for the support or defeat of a proposed amendment to the Kansas constitution went into effect on July 1, 2025, after attempts to block the bill in court failed.
Political Action Committee “Kansans for Constitutional Freedom” which describes itself as “a bipartisan coalition of reproductive rights advocates and allied organizations committed to protecting the constitutional rights of Kansans and the right to safe, legal abortion” had sued to block the bill, but on the day before the law was to take effect, United States District Judge for the District of Kansas Daniel Crabtree issued a sweeping 37 page ruling denying the request for a preliminary injunction.
House Bill 2106, which Democratic Kansas Governor Laura Kelly allowed to become law without her signature, is what Crabtree described as a “narrowly tailored” statute that satisfies a “compelling interest” for the state in preventing foreign interference in changes to the state constitution.
According to Americans for Public Trust — which filed an “amicus brief” to join the case — KCF had accepted foreign funds to oppose the failed 2022 “Value Them Both” constitutional amendment, which would have placed limits on abortion in the state of Kansas.
Indeed, the court agreed, writing “even KCF’s exhibits suggest that it received a not insignificant amount of foreign-backed funds to oppose Kansas’s 2022 abortion amendment. But those funds didn’t come directly from a foreign national — they were one-step removed. That is, KCF received funds from another entity — the Sixteen Thirty Fund — which received funds from Swiss billionaire (Hansjörg) Wyss.”
KCF appears to have received about $1.6 million from the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which is self-described as “empowering progressive changemakers.”
House Bill 2106 seeks to eliminate the “one-step removed” problem by requiring any one who is promoting or opposing an amendment to the Kansas Constitution — and who accepts money or property above $500 in donations — to require the donor to provide an affidavit that no portion of the money came from a foreign national.
Attorneys for KCF argued that the statute was vague and overbroad, suggesting it would ban “vast amounts of protected speech.”
The judge did not find any of those arguments compelling, writing the statute “explicitly ties those contributions and expenditures to ‘moneys or property for the purpose of engaging ‘in any activity promoting or opposing the adoption or repeal of any provision of the constitution of the state of Kansas.'”
“So, the court isn’t convinced that HB 2106 ‘imposes a complete bar on speech of U.S. citizens,” premised on “any contributions or expenditures . . . for any purpose.'” Crabtree wrote.
Finally, Crabtree said KCF was simply unlikely to win in court and declined to issue a preliminary injunction.
“The court concludes KCF is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claim,” he wrote. “Subjecting HB 2106 to strict scrutiny, the court decides that Kansas likely has a compelling interest in limiting foreign influence in its constitutional amendment ballot issue elections. And defendants have established sufficiently at this preliminary stage that HB 2106 is narrowly tailored … so the court denies KCF’s motion for a preliminary injunction.”