So if the objection isn't to foreign nationals donating to religious institutions (which my example was), why did you include it in your "draft law"? If the objection is to hate speech, why bother with the whole "foreign funding" stuff and just jump to charging the person for hate speech? Again, if the issue is about the preachers who violate hate speech laws, charge them with hate speech. If a person hasn't broken any laws then infringing upon their rights -especially their free speech and free association rights- is a pretty gross violation of the cornerstones of Western political thought. It boils down to "we don't like what you are saying so we are going to harass and single you out". I don't know about you, but I definitely am getting whiffs of the Soviet Union in that one. The Soviet Union accomplished many impressive things, but their treatment of ideological minorities is not one of the things they had a great record on.