Environment
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
StateNew HampshireIn Committee
SB 528: prohibiting receiving compensation for lobbying on behalf of a foreign adversary.
Regina Birdsell
SB 528 status: In Committee — Subcommittee Work Session: 09/30/2026 10:10 am GP 229 (updated Sep 14, 2026).
Source
LegiScan
Confidence
High
Analysis basis
LegiScan full bill text
01
What this bill does
Official summary alongside an AI-generated read on where it stands and why.
Overall Score
57OUT OF 100
Score:57/100 civic fit
Risk:Moderate Risk
Impact:Moderate Impact 40/100
Constitutionality70%
Bipartisan70%
Public opinion80%
Bill summary
What changes
The bill adds a new section to RSA 15, prohibiting lobbyists from receiving compensation for lobbying on behalf of designated foreign adversaries, their instrumentalities, or associated 'foreign adversary clients.' It authorizes the Attorney General to investigate potential violations through civil investigative demands and enforce compliance via disgorgement, civil penalties (up to $1,000 per violation), and injunctive relief.
Who is affected
Lobbyists operating in New Hampshire, domestic and foreign business entities with ties to designated foreign adversaries, and the Department of Justice, which would be responsible for enforcement.
Requirements and enforcement
Lobbyists must ensure no compensation is derived from prohibited foreign adversaries or their agents/entities; firms must navigate complex definitions of 'control' and 'ownership'.
Costs and funding
The bill mandates the addition of one full-time attorney position at the Department of Justice, estimated to cost $137,000 in FY 2027 and $138,000 in FY 2028/2029.
When it takes effect
The bill takes effect on July 1, 2027.
Potential benefits
Increases transparency in legislative influence, aligns state policy with federal national security goals regarding foreign adversaries, and provides clear legal mechanisms to combat foreign lobbying.
Risks and tradeoffs
Definitions of 'control' could capture entities with minimal, passive, or non-adversarial foreign investment; creates significant compliance risk for businesses; potential for administrative burden.
What is still unknown
The extent to which existing lobbying contracts might be retroactively impacted or how strictly 'control' thresholds will be applied by the Attorney General's office.
02
Impact analysis
✦ AI analysisModeled effects across six domains, estimated from bill text and comparable legislation.
Economy
Mixed / Neutral
45%
Benefits
- Limits potential foreign influence in state-level legislative processes.
- Creates a clear legal standard for disclosure of prohibited compensation.
- Protects state policy-making from potential conflicts of interest.
Risks
- Increases compliance and vetting costs for firms operating in global markets.
- Creates potential liability for firms with minority foreign investment.
- May discourage international investment by firms fearing broad entity definitions.
Society
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
Technology Industry
Critical outlook
40%
Benefits
- Aligns state lobbying policy with federal national security concerns.
- Reduces foreign adversary influence on technology-related legislation.
- Provides safe harbor for companies undergoing federally-approved divestitures.
Risks
- Creates regulatory uncertainty for firms with complex international ownership structures.
- Broad definition of 'control' could capture startups with small foreign venture capital stakes.
- Imposes administrative burdens to monitor and verify client backgrounds.
Civic Accountability
Positive outlook
85%
Benefits
- Increases the transparency of who influences New Hampshire legislation.
- Grants the Attorney General explicit investigative tools for lobbying violations.
- Creates deterrents against undisclosed foreign adversary influence.
Risks
- Concentrates significant investigative power within the Attorney General's office.
- Potential for politicized use of civil investigative demands.
- Ambiguity in 'control' definitions may lead to uneven application.
Public Health & Safety
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
03
How trustworthy & consequential it is
Sourcing already shown above, this is what the analysis found worth flagging.
Source
LegiScan
Official bill text or data from LegiScan.
Confidence
High
Information is complete and verified.
Analysis basis
LegiScan full bill text
Source used for this bill's analysis.
Source note
Definitions of 'control' and 'owned or operated' are broad and may inadvertently capture non-adversarial firms with minority international investment.
Analysis scope
Does not specify the standard of evidence for 'reason to believe' in AG investigations.
04
Where it stands
Official record- IntroducedComplete
- CommitteeCurrent
- Chamber votesUpcoming
- Final agreementUpcoming
- GovernorUpcoming
- EnactedUpcoming
05
How it affects your district
✦ Personalized
Set your location
Add your district to see how this bill may affect your community and who to contact.
Your Representatives
Your representatives appear here once you add your location.
06
Take action
Contact your representatives
Let them know how you feel about this bill.
Share your view
Join the discussion and see what others are saying.
Track this bill
Stay updated on progress and changes.