The very least we should expect is that Republican state legislators would embarrass Democrats by proposing to enforce the above stricture with a statute forbidding the selection of any elector pledged to vote for a violator of that constitutional rule.
- Article 1 Section 9:
- No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state
What would be objectionable about a law forbidding electors to be elected to vote for someone who was an officer in any organization - including a marriage - which accepted, and did not disgorge, funds from a foreign government or creature thereof?
The precedent that SCOTUS overturned term limits implemented via ballot access limitation does not, IMHO, apply. Although the Constitution calls for election of Congressmen by the people, it explicitly assigns the choice of means of selecting the electors of each state to the legislature of thereof. The state and not the people thereof selects its electors - the only reason we think otherwise is that there is a gentleman’s agreement that Congress won’t contest a selection of electors by the people of a state. But note, even then the selection is subject to variation among states; in Nebraska and one NE state only two electors are elected at large in the state; each of the others is elected within a congressional district of the state.
And under what rationale would a judge overturn enforcement of a provision of the Constitution??
Arguably, any candidate for POTUS holds an office of “trust” in the sense that we have no reason to accept a candidate for POTUS who is bought and paid for by foreigners (we even have -albeit unconstitutional, IMHO - laws limiting how much Americans can contribute to a candidate’s campaign!) whether or not such candidate was an office holder when taking the swag from foreign governments.