[EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/6/11

Tue Dec 6 15:09:14 PST 2011

Well, that is an issue for the Court now to decide, but to say that CU  
decided it somehow that for the Court to uphold the foreigner ban it must  
"ignore the precedent of Citizens United" is just flat wrong, as your  question 
seems to assume.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 12/6/2011 5:34:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:

What's  the compelling interest Jim?  I contend in my piece that "national  
security" and excluding foreigners from devices of democratic 
decisionmaking  both boil down in the campaign finance context to one of the rejected  
compelling interests (corruption, antidistortion) rejected as a limitation on  
corporate independent expenditures in CU.

On 12/6/11 12:10 PM, _JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com)  wrote:  
Rich's comment could not be more wrong:

Whether or not the Court sets the case for a full hearing, it is  likely to 
conclude that our current law does not violate the First Amendment  rights 
of foreigners. That would be the right result. But it would require  
ignoring the precedent of _Citizens United v. FEC_ 
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html) , which upheld  similar rights for corporations

The analysis of CU requires (1) is the speech protected by the First  
Amendment, (2) if so is there a compelling governmental interest sufficient  to 
abridge it.   Regarding CU's (1), yes speech by foreigners,  aliens, and the 
Red Chinese Army is speech protected by the First  Amendment.  However, re 
CU's (2) CU did not decide if there is a  compelling governmental interest 
sufficient to abridge the speech of  foreigners.  That would be the question 
before the court not addressed  in CU.

So CU applies and use of its analysis is perfectly consistent with a  
holding that the speech of the Red Chinese Army may be banned.  Jim  Bopp

In a message dated 12/6/2011 12:21:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu)  writes:

_“Will Foreigners Decide the 2012 Election? The  Extreme Unintended 
Consequences of Citizens United.”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26137)  
Posted  on _December 5, 2011 9:18  pm_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26137)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

I have written _this commentary_ 
(http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98162/citizens-united-foreign-money)  for The New  Republic.  It begins: 
Let’s say that the leader of a foreign country, one with military or  
economic interests adverse to the United States, took a look at our 2012  
elections and decided to spend millions of dollars in hopes of  determining which 
party held control over the House, the Senate, or the  White House. Most of 
us would consider that scenario highly distressing,  to say the least. And 
current federal law does indeed bar most foreign  individuals, entities, and 
governments from spending money to influence  U.S. elections and contributing 
to candidates. 

This isn’t a law that inspires much opposition in Washington: Neither  
party asserts that foreigners have a First Amendment right to  participate in 
our elections. But according to the twisted logic of the  Supreme Court’s 
recent decision in _Citizens United v. FEC_ 
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html) , the law’s  constitutionality has been called into 
question. 
Fortunately, the Court may be wise enough not to use its own flawed  
decision as a future roadmap. On Friday, Supreme Court justices will  meet in a 
private conference _to consider_ 
(http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-275.htm)  whether to hear _Bluman v. FEC_ 
(https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1766-37) , a case that 
concerns the  rights of foreign non-citizens living in the U.S to spend money in 
U.S.  elections. Whether or not the Court sets the case for a full  hearing, 
it is likely to conclude that our current law does not violate  the First 
Amendment rights of foreigners. That would be the right  result. But it would 
require ignoring the precedent of _Citizens United v. FEC_ 
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html) , which upheld  similar rights for 
corporations.
it concludes: 
In _their_ (http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/bluman-js.pdf)  
_briefs_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Bluman-Opp-to-Motion-to-Dismiss-or-Affirm.pdf)  before the Supreme Court, the  Bluman plaintiffs 
point to some of my _earlier writing_ 
(http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1620576)  noting the contradiction  between the logic of 
Citizens United and the government’s  position in this case. They—though not 
most of the campaign finance  deregulation lobby, which (aside from the 
_Institute for Justice_ 
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/67591387/Bluman-v-FEC-amicus-brief) ) has sat out the  case—urge the Court to hear the case, rather than 
simply affirm the  lower court, to bring additional coherence to the law. But 
what the  current challenge makes clear is that the Supreme Court has erred—
not in  its failure to extend election spending rights to foreign nationals, 
but  in the faulty reasoning behind its decision in Citizens  United.

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26137&title=“
Will%20Foreigners%20Decide%20the%202012%20Election?%20The%20Extreme%20Unintended%20Consequences%20of%20Citizens%20United.”&description=) 

Posted  in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10)  | 
Comments Off 

_“The Broken System of Campaign Finance”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26134)  
Posted  on _December 5, 2011 9:02  pm_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26134)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

The San Diego Union Tribune offers _this editorial_ 
(http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/dec/05/the-broken-system-of-campaign-finance/) . 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26134&title=“The%20Broken%20System%20of%20Campaign%20Finance”&description=) 

Posted  in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10)  | 
Comments Off 

_“Mapping the Future: Chandler’s seat is focus of  redistricting in 
Kentucky, but Democrats may want more”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26131)  
Posted  on _December 5, 2011 8:39  pm_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26131)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

The Fix _reports_ 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/chandlers-seat-is-focus-of-redistricting-in-kentucky-but-democrats-may-want-more/201
1/12/05/gIQAlskvWO_blog.html) . 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26131&title=“Mapping%20the%20Future:%20Chandler’
s%20seat%20is%20focus%20of%20redistricting%20in%20Kentucky,%20but%20Democrats%20may%20want%20more”
&description=) 

Posted  in _redistricting_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6)  | Comments 
Off 

_Redistricting Back Before the California Supreme  Court_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26126)  
Posted  on _December 5, 2011 8:00  pm_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26126)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

Horvitz and Levy’s “At the Lectern” blog _reports_ 
(http://www.atthelectern.com/redistricting-back-before-supreme-court/) . 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26126&title=Redistricting%20Back%20Before%20the%20California%20Supreme%20Court&de
scription=) 

Posted  in _citizen commissions_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=7) , 
_redistricting_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6)  | Comments Off 

_“AlterNet: Bullies, Liars and Impostors: How  Facebook and Go Daddy Shield 
Scott Walker’s Online Guerillas”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26124)  
Posted  on _December 5, 2011 7:57  pm_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26124)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

_AlterNet_ (http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/153306)  on 
chicanery in the Wisconsin recall  and false information spread over the Internet. 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26124&title=“
AlterNet:%20Bullies,%20Liars%20and%20Impostors:%20How%20Facebook%20and%20Go%20Daddy%20Shield%20Scott%20Walker’s%20Online%20Guerillas”
&description=) 

Posted  in _campaigns_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59) , _chicanery_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12) , _recall elections_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=11)  | Comments Off 

_“Gingrich’s Health Care Consultancy: Is It  Lobbying?”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26121)  
Posted  on _December 5, 2011 7:54  pm_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26121)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

NPR _reports_ 
(http://www.npr.org/2011/12/05/143146399/gingrichs-health-care-consultancy-is-it-lobbying) . 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26121&title=“Gingrich’s%20Health%20Care%20Consultancy:%20Is%20It%20Lobbying?”
&description=) 

Posted  in _lobbying_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28)  | Comments Off 

_“LA’s Civic Action Against Dark Money”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26119)  
Posted  on _December 5, 2011 7:52  pm_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26119)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

Mother Jones _reports_ 
(http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/la-civic-action-against-dark-money) . 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26119&title=“LA’s%20Civic%20Action%20Against%20Dark%20Money”&description=) 

Posted  in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10)  | 
Comments Off 

_“Justice Kennedy Dissents: What Campaign Finance  And The Sixth Amendment 
Have In Common.”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26116)  
Posted  on _December 5, 2011 7:40  pm_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26116)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

HuffPo _reports_ 
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/justice-kennedy-dissents-campaign-finance-sixth-amendment_n_1126493.html) . 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26116&title=“
Justice%20Kennedy%20Dissents:%20What%20Campaign%20Finance%20And%20The%20Sixth%20Amendment%20Have%20In%20Common.”&description=) 

Posted  in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) , 
_Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29)  | Comments Off 

_“Maryland Case May Discourage Political Dirty  Tricks”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26113)  
Posted  on _December 5, 2011 7:36  pm_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26113)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

NPR offers _this report_ 
(http://www.npr.org/2011/12/05/143142090/maryland-case-may-dissuade-political-dirty-tricks)  on the robocall case. The case 
has  now _gone to the jury._ 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/jury-begins-deliberations-in-maryland-robocall-case/2011/12/05/gIQAN73nXO_sto
ry.html)  

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26113&title=“Maryland%20Case%20May%20Discourage%20Political%20Dirty%20Tricks”
&description=) 

Posted  in _campaigns_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59) , _chicanery_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12)  | Comments Off 

_“Democrats win fight over Colorado Congressional  boundaries”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26111)  
Posted  on _December 5, 2011 9:07  am_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26111)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

_Denver Post_ (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19473229) : “
Democrats have won this  decade’s congressional redistricting battle. The 
Colorado Supreme Court  this morning affirmed the ruling of a Denver’ chief 
district court judge,  who selected the Democrats’ map after an October trial. The 
Supreme Court  said in its ruling that a written opinion would be issued 
later.”   You can find the apparently unanimous court order _here_ 
(http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Case_Announce
ments/Files/2011/11SC842-%20Order%20and%20Mandate.pdf) . 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26111&title=“
Democrats%20win%20fight%20over%20Colorado%20Congressional%20boundaries”&description=) 

Posted  in _redistricting_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6)  | Comments 
Off 

_Read the Oppositions to Texas Congressional  Redistricting Stay Request_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26106)  
Posted  on _December 5, 2011 9:04  am_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26106)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

_Here_ (http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/pls-cong-opp.pdf)  
and _here_ (http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/malc-cong-opp.pdf) . 
The briefing now appears complete, unless  Texas files an optional reply.  
Justice Scalia, or the Court, could  rule at any time. 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26106&title=Read%20the%20Oppositions%20to%20Texas%20Congressional%20Redistricting
%20Stay%20Request&description=) 

Posted  in _redistricting_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6) , _Voting 
Rights Act_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15)  | Comments Off 

_A Repeat of Mid-Decade Redistricting Coming to  Texas?_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26103)  
Posted  on _December 5, 2011 8:47  am_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26103)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

_Could be._ 
(http://txredistricting.org/post/13782484051/gop-state-chair-promises-to-push-to-have-legislature)  

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26103&title=A%20Repeat%20of%20Mid-Decade%20Redistricting%20Coming%20to%20Texas?&d
escription=) 

Posted  in _redistricting_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6)  | Comments 
Off 

-- 
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and  Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite  1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 -  fax
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) 
_http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html_ 
(http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html) 
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/) 

_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_ 
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) 
_http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_ 
(http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election) 

-- 
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and Political  Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite  1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 -  fax
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) 
_http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html_ 
(http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html) 
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111206/f266289f/attachment.html>