SJC: 'Reasonable interpretation of FARA in Georgia will keep media and NGOs out of its scope'

FARA law interpretation in Georgia

According to the Social Justice Center (SJC), a reasonable interpretation of the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)—which Georgia plans to adopt—would exempt media and NGOs from its influence. However, the ruling Georgian Dream party seeks to use the law precisely to gain control over them.

SJC emphasizes that in the U.S., FARA does not regulate the transparency of funding sources for independent civil society and media organizations but rather focuses on the activities of agents acting on behalf of hostile foreign powers.

Georgian vs. American 'foreign agent' law: What's the difference?

Experts: “What matters is not where the law comes from, but who enforces it.”

What SJC assessment states:

● NGOs and media organisations do not meet the definition of a “foreign agent” as they have various sources of income rather than being fully or predominantly funded by a single source. An example of this is that, according to 2023 data, the share of non-profit legal entities registered under FARA in the US is less than 5%.

● In the US, the FARA law has not been practically enforced since the 1960s: between 1966 and 2015, the Department of Justice initiated only seven criminal cases under FARA. The relevance of the law increased in 2016 following Russia’s interference in the US elections.

● In the US, this law exists against the backdrop of: 1) its de facto non-enforcement for 50 years; 2) a narrow scope of application and regulatory objectives; 3) an independent judiciary; 4) political and legal consensus on freedom of expression. In Georgia, by contrast, FARA would be implemented within a hostile political environment, a judiciary controlled by the authorities, and a trend of suppressing freedom of speech and association.

● The US operates under a system of case law. Georgia does not have such a system. Therefore, it is impossible to simply adopt a copy-pasted version of FARA without considering the specifics of the local judicial system.

● If “Georgian Dream” still seeks to apply the law following the logic of American case law, it is evident that civil and media organisations funded from abroad but maintaining an independent agenda would not fall under its scope.

● Despite a number of legislative issues that allow for the political instrumentalisation of FARA, it is clear that, when interpreted correctly, this law would not place NGOs and media organisations within its regulatory framework.

Failure to comply with FARA-style law to be punishable by up to five years in prison in Georgia

According to the parliamentary legal department, the current draft of the bill does not align with Georgia’s legal system.

The Centre for Social Justice believes that the “Georgian Dream” intends to turn FARA into a tool for achieving the same goals it pursued a year ago when adopting the Transparency of Foreign Influence law.

“For the ‘Georgian Dream,’ the adoption of FARA is merely a mechanism to increase pressure on civil society organisations and activists who form critical opinions, and, ultimately, to silence their voices in the public space, as pointed out by the leaders of ‘Georgian Dream’ themselves,” the CJS writes in its report.

Amnesty International Director: 'I don't recall any parliament, other than Georgia's, passing repressive laws so quickly'

Denis Krivosheev: “Those responsible for violence against protesters must be held accountable.”

The Centre for Social Justice believes that the Georgian Dream intends to turn FARA into a tool for achieving the same goals it pursued a year ago when adopting the “Foreign Influence Transparency” law.

“For the Georgian Dream, the adoption of FARA is merely a mechanism to increase pressure on civil society organisations and activists who form critical opinions, and, ultimately, to silence their voices in the public space, as pointed out by the leaders of ‘Georgian Dream’ themselves,” the CJS writes in its report.