ADVERTISEMENT
The book suggests that EB‑5 visas enabled foreign investors to secure lawful residency, after which they or intermediaries made political donations that would otherwise be illegal.
It cites cases like Danhong “Jean” Chen, described as a Chinese citizen and facilitator whose business directed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic campaigns.
It’s important to note that the book’s assertions intertwine historical political controversies — especially the 1996 campaign finance scandal often referred to as Chinagate — with interpretations about how the EB‑5 program intersected with them.
Setting the Stage: Campaign Finance Controversies in the 1990s
To understand the claims, we need to revisit the 1996 U.S. campaign finance controversy. According to official Senate and House investigations from that time, there were allegations that individuals with ties to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) attempted to influence American elections through political contributions — something explicitly prohibited under U.S. law if made by foreign nationals.
Senate Report 105‑167, one of the key documents from that investigation, described a Chinese plan theoretically designed to improve contacts with U.S. officials and the public. The controversy included:
FBI and Justice Department investigations into improper fundraising activities involving members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign.
Identification of key intermediaries, such as Charlie Trie and John Huang, involved in soliciting and directing contributions that were potentially illegal because they originated from foreign sources.
Chinese government denials of accusations that foreign money was intended to influence U.S. elections.
However, official findings did not conclude that Chinese government funds directly made their way into the 1996 presidential campaign, and evidence connecting political contributions to Clinton herself was not established in these reports.
Under U.S. federal law, foreign nationals — including non‑permanent residents — are prohibited from contributing to political campaigns or political action committees (PACs). The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) makes it unlawful for foreign citizens to directly or indirectly make contributions in connection with federal, state, or local elections. This prohibition exists to prevent outside influence over U.S. political outcomes.
The book’s claim revolves around whether residency through EB‑5 gave foreign investors a pathway to contravene this rule by becoming permanent residents before contributing — a nuance that critics interpret as a loophole.
To be clear: while the book alleges political influence via this route, there is no widely accepted evidence that systemic coordinated foreign influence via EB‑5 personally benefitted Hillary Clinton’s own campaigns. Instead, the underlying history involves documented investigations into illegal contributions tied to individuals with foreign connections — a mix of private donors, intermediaries, and legal controversies that overwhelmed the political narrative of the late 1990s.
Terry McAuliffe and More Recent EB‑5 Scrutiny
Beyond historical claims, the EB‑5 program itself has been subject to scrutiny well into the 21st century. For example, reports and legal disputes have involved politically connected individuals like Terry McAuliffe — former DNC chair and close ally of Hillary Clinton — in controversies connected to EB‑5 visa approvals and investment projects. Critics charged that McAuliffe and others profited from Chinese investment schemes tied to EB‑5 without delivering legitimate job creation or economic benefit; such allegations ended up in lawsuits and public debate.
In the 2020s, some Republican lawmakers have urged review of possible abuse of the EB‑5 program by Chinese investors seeking influence or residency, arguing that a disproportionate number of EB‑5 visas went to Chinese nationals due to demand and backlog patterns.
What Official Records and Investigations Say
Investigations Confirmed Foreign Donation Probes
Official investigation reports from the late 1990s acknowledged Chinese efforts to engage with U.S. political figures and fundraising intermediaries, and that illegal foreign contributions did occur at various levels — treated as violations by prosecutors and congressional investigators.
Yet:
Those reports did not conclusively establish that the Chinese government directly funded specific presidential campaigns, including Hillary Clinton’s own operations.
Court prosecutions tied to improperly funneled donations often involved individuals who broke campaign finance law, not state‑sanctioned sponsored efforts.
The EB‑5 program itself was not a direct focus of those old controversies in official record; it’s through modern interpretation that critics retell the history in the context of investor visa influence.
How Perspective Shapes the Story
The narratives around foreign influence, visa programs, and political donations are often shaped by political perspective:
Critics of Democratic leaders emphasize the possibility of policy and immigration outcomes being influenced by foreign capital facilitated through investor programs like EB‑5.
Supporters emphasize that while individual abuses and fraud existed, systemic foreign interference such as state‑directed influencing tied to specific politicians has not been proven in congressional records or judicial outcomes.
Neutral analysts point out that foreign entities often seek influence across many democracies — and that political systems need robust laws and enforcement to prevent illegal contributions regardless of country or party.
Why This Matters Today
Whether one views the book’s claims as validated or exaggerated, the discussion touches on enduring and important questions about:
1. Immigration Policy and National Security
Programs like EB‑5 aim to boost economic growth but may pose risks if they allow undue influence or obscured financial flows without adequate transparency.
2. Campaign Finance and Foreign Influence
Protecting political systems from foreign influence remains a priority across administrations and parties — a bipartisan necessity for election integrity.
3. Public Trust and Accountability
Controversies around fundraising and foreign connections fuel broader distrust in public institutions. Even when claims are not fully substantiated, the perception of undue influence can erode confidence.
Conclusion: Claims, Context, and Clarity
The notion that a visa program was “abused by China to support Hillary Clinton and Democratic candidates” reflects a particular interpretation of historical controversies — notably the intersection of investor visa programs and campaign finance issues. The claim primarily originates from Peter Schweizer’s book The Invisible Coup and related blog reporting that highlight these interpretations.
At the same time:
Official historical investigations confirm illegal foreign contributions and fundraising abuses during the 1990s, but do not conclusively show a state‑directed campaign by China that flowed through visa programs into Hillary Clinton’s own campaign coffers.
The EB‑5 visa program has faced legitimate scrutiny for fraud, misuse, and regulatory gaps, including concerns about foreign investor influence — a subject of bipartisan debate.
Understanding the full picture requires separating documented facts from interpretation, examining the evidence critically, and recognizing how political perspectives shape narratives. Discussions about foreign influence in U.S. politics remain vital — but they must be grounded in verifiable record, not assumptions or incomplete historical framing.
ADVERTISEMENT
