Large foreign-aligned group illegally funding U.S. political causes?

ITServe Alliance, a massive India-aligned organization, presents itself as a professional trade association for IT services companies. But its own materials suggest the organization is built around a political financing model that may violate federal law.

According to ITServe’s published membership structure, every $1,000 annual membership fee automatically allocates $300 to what the group openly labels its “PAC” (political action committee), with additional funds directed to “CSR” (corporate social responsibility) and services the organization itself describes as advancing immigration policy goals. This structure raises serious questions about whether ITServe is illegally funding its PAC, particularly given that many of its members are not U.S. citizens.

Automatic PAC funding eliminates any claim of ‘voluntary’ political contribution

Federal election law strictly prohibits foreign nationals from contributing directly or indirectly to U.S. political campaigns or PACs. Yet ITServe’s own materials explicitly state that $300 of every membership fee “goes to PAC (Policy Advocacy),” making political funding a condition of membership rather than a voluntary act. Because ITServe’s membership includes H-1B visa holders, OPT workers, L-1 transferees and foreign-owned staffing firms, this automatic PAC allocation creates a substantial risk that prohibited foreign-national funds are being funneled into U.S. political activity through mandatory dues.

ITServe openly acknowledges its PAC funds political campaigns and legislation

In internal publications, ITServe states that its CONNECTED PAC “receives and disburses financial contributions to political campaigns in support of candidates, ballot measures, or proposed bills.” This admission places ITServe squarely within the regulatory scope of the Federal Election Commission. When combined with mandatory PAC funding through dues, the organization’s structure appears to blur or ignore legally required separation between voluntary political contributions and general association membership, a distinction that is central to U.S. campaign-finance law.

CSR funds also appear tied to lobbying and political messaging

ITServe markets an additional $200 portion of each membership fee as “CSR,” commonly understood to mean charitable or community-focused spending. However, ITServe’s own descriptions state that these CSR funds are used to “convey to the public our contribution to this country” and to “get ground-level support to our high-skilled immigration policies.” Under IRS rules, charitable funds cannot be used for lobbying or political advocacy. If CSR funds are being used to shape public opinion or influence lawmakers on immigration policy, that would raise serious questions of charitable misuse and deceptive solicitation.

Lobbying is not incidental: ITServe describes it as a core organizational pillar

ITServe does not merely engage in occasional advocacy. In its own newsletters and PAC materials, the organization describes its mission as resting on three core pillars: “educate, lobby and litigate.” That framing is critical. When lobbying is the central purpose of an organization, services such as conferences, networking, training and “member benefits” cannot be easily separated from political activity. Instead, they function as mechanisms to support and sustain lobbying operations, meaning that most membership funds may ultimately trace back to political influence efforts.

Litigation victories further reinforce ITServe’s political role

ITServe frequently cites its litigation against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of Labor as proof of value to members. While these cases were won largely on administrative-procedural grounds, ITServe’s own messaging celebrates the outcomes as dismantling enforcement mechanisms and advancing industry interests. The organization explicitly links litigation, lobbying and PAC activity as coordinated strategies, reinforcing the view that member dues are not paying for neutral services, but for a unified political campaign targeting U.S. immigration policy.

Why the legal risk is significant

If even a portion of ITServe’s membership dues comes from individuals who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and those funds are automatically routed to a PAC or used for campaign-related activity, that could constitute illegal foreign-national political contributions under federal law. The risk is compounded by ITServe’s own admissions that political advocacy is central to its mission and funding model. At minimum, the organization’s structure warrants close scrutiny by the FEC, IRS and state attorneys general.

A trade group … or a political machine?

Trade associations routinely lobby, but few embed mandatory PAC funding directly into membership dues while simultaneously marketing themselves as a powerful political force. ITServe’s own documents suggest its primary value proposition is not business development, but political influence – influence funded automatically by members, many of whom may be legally barred from participating in U.S. elections. That structure, taken as a whole, raises unavoidable questions about legality, transparency and compliance with U.S. campaign-finance law.

Policy demands shaped by questionable funding undermine legislative integrity

Taken together, ITServe’s own materials provide compelling justification for why the currently pending High-Skilled Immigration Reform for Employment (HIRE) Act should not merely be debated, but decisively rejected. The organization openly admits its PAC exists to “educate, lobby and litigate” on behalf of member companies whose business models depend on expanded foreign labor access and weakened immigration enforcement.

Legislation impacting U.S. workers, wages and immigration enforcement must be shaped by transparent and lawful advocacy. ITServe’s documented approach – combining mandatory PAC funding, litigation campaigns, lobbying conferences and coordinated political outreach – raises serious concerns as to whether the policy demands embedded in the HIRE Act reflect broad public interest or the narrow economic priorities of visa-dependent staffing firms. If the advocacy behind a bill is tainted by potential campaign-finance violations, the legislation itself becomes compromised.

The concern does not stop with ITServe. Any elected official who has endorsed ITServe’s policy agenda, appeared at its PAC-funded events or accepted support from its CONNECTED PAC should be subject to heightened scrutiny. Lawmakers have an obligation to ensure they are not benefiting, directly or indirectly, from political funding streams that may violate federal law. Transparency requires determining whether endorsements, campaign contributions or legislative support were influenced by an organization whose own documents suggest systemic legal vulnerabilities.

Because ITServe’s membership includes non-citizens and foreign-owned firms and because its PAC advocates for immigration policies that directly benefit those members, the risk of improper foreign influence is not theoretical. Federal law draws a hard line against foreign participation in U.S. elections and campaign financing. When an organization embeds political funding into mandatory dues and markets itself as a “collective voice” for immigration expansion, regulators and lawmakers alike must ask whether U.S. policy is being shaped by interests that are legally barred from influencing it.

At minimum, the evidence demands two actions: First, the HIRE Act should be shelved until the legality of the advocacy behind it is fully reviewed. And second, federal and state authorities should closely examine ITServe’s funding structure and political activities for compliance with campaign-finance, lobbying and charitable-solicitation laws.

Protecting American workers and preserving the integrity of the legislative process requires more than slogans about “innovation” or “talent shortages”; it requires enforcing the law without regard to political pressure or industry influence.

SEE THE EVIDENCE ARCHIVE: To access a comprehensive and ever-expanding archive of additional evidence supporting this exclusive WND investigative report, visit “Foreign Influence and Lobbying Network Hub.”