[EL] Breaking News: Summary Affirmance in Bluman v. FEC

Mon Jan 9 08:49:54 PST 2012

Under this ruling, can a 501c4 take contributions from foreign nationals (including temporarily resident foreign citizens) and transfer them to a SuperPAC making pro-candidate expenditures, or must it segregate out before making such a transfer?  Does it depend on whether the foreign national knows (or has reason to know) at the time that contributions to such a c4 may be used for such purposes?

Adam C. Bonin
The Law Office of Adam C. Bonin
1900 Market Street, 4th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 864-8002 (w)
(215) 701-2321 (f)
(267) 242-5014 (c)

adam at boninlaw.com

http://www.boninlaw.com <http://www.boninlaw.com/> 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 11:02 AM
To: JBoppjr at aol.com
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Breaking News: Summary Affirmance in Bluman v. FEC

Jim,

We've been down this road before.  If we engaged in a long enough discussion, I would say that you would end up having to concede (though you never would) that your concern about these groups affecting U.S. elections comes down to an argument about corruption, appearance of corruption, or distortion/equality.  Each of these arguments were rejected by SCOTUS in the corporate context in CU.

Perhaps we can both agree on this statement: when it comes to the First Amendment, sometimes the identity of the speaker does matter.

Rick

On 1/9/2012 7:56 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote: 

So President Obama was wrong all along.  I am sure he will appologize for his mistake.

And there is no "doctrinal incoherence," it is perfectly consistent for the Supreme Court to hold that there is no compelling interest in prohibiting corporate and labor union speech but that there is a compelling interest in prohibiting foreign interests from contributing to candidates in U.S. elections.  I for one agree that the Red Chinese Army, the Iranian government and Hamas can be prohibited from contributing.  Jim

In a message dated 1/9/2012 10:40:10 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:

Breaking News: Supreme Court Affirms that First Amendment Not Violated by Barring Foreign Individuals from Spending Money (or Contributing) in U.S. Elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27557>  

Posted on  <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27557> January 9, 2012 7:38 am by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>  

As I had hoped <http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98162/citizens-united-foreign-money>  and <http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/05/should-foreign-money-be-allowed-to-finance-us-elections/bluman-v-fec-is-a-trojan-horse>  expected <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27513> , the Supreme Court issued a summary affirmance this morning in the  <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bluman-v-federal-election-commission/> Bluman v. FEC case, in which the lower court had upheld against first Amendment challenge the federal law barring foreign individuals (even those living legally in the U.S. but who are not permanent residents) from spending money on U.S. election campaigns or contributing money to them.  (There were no noted dissents.)

As I’ve explained <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/12/the_obama_administration_s_risky_voter_id_move_threatens_the_voting_rights_act.html> , this came to the Court on an unusual procedure: an appeal from a three-judge court.  A summary affirmance of an appeal (unlike a simple denial of a writ of certiorari) does have precedential value.  In other words, by today’s order, the Supreme Court agreed that the lower court got it right (even if it might not necessarily agree on the precise reasoning in the case).

Is this ruling consistent with Citizens United v. FEC, the case holding that corporations may not be barred from independently spending money in U.S. elections?  In Citizens United, the Supreme Court expressly reserved the question whether the foreigner spending ban violated the First Amendment.  I have argued <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1620576> , however, that the logic of Citizens United should have led the Court to strike down the foreign spending ban too.  But I also predicted that the Court would not do so:

Despite the apparent application of Citizens United’s reasoning to the question of foreign spending limits, I have little doubt that the Court would uphold such limitations even though the foreign spending limit is more severe than the corporate limitation. It is an actual ban, as there is no PAC alternative for foreigners. As I explain in Part III, at least some of the Justices appear to care about public opinion, and the public outcry over Citizens United could well pale compared to a Court decision allowing unlimitedforeign funds in our elections.206 Indeed, it was probably to forestall such an attack after Citizens United itself that the majority added those three sentences keeping the issue open.

So how could the Court sustain a law imposing foreign spending limits without overturning Citizens United?207 The short answer is through doctrinal incoherence. For example, the Court could state that the threat from foreign spending influencing U.S. elections is one different in kind than that posed by domestic corporate spending, and that when it comes to protecting the country from foreign influence, the First Amendment must give way. Or the Court could state that barring foreign influence is supported by the same interest “in allowing governmental entities to perform their functions”  that justifies limitations on some political activities of government employees under the Hatch Act,210 an interest the Court reaffirmed in Citizens United. As the last Section showed, neither of these arguments would be convincing under a literal application of the principles of Citizens United, because the arguments are premised on corruption, appearance of corruption, or distortion. Most likely, a majority that would make an argument favoring foreign spending limits would simply ignore the inconsistent parts of Citizens United and move on. In short, there is no reason we should expect a consistent application of Citizens United in the context of foreign election spending.

Thanks to the summary affirmance, the Court majority does not have to explain its doctrinal incoherence.

 <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D27557&title=Breaking%20News%3A%20Supreme%20Court%20Affirms%20that%20First%20Amendment%20Not%20Violated%20by%20Barring%20Foreign%20Individuals%20from%20Spending%20Money%20%28or%20Contributing%29%20in%20U.S.%20E> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=27557&title=BreakingNews: Supreme Court Affirms that First AmendmentNot Violated by Barring Foreign Individuals fromSpending Money (or Contributing) in U.S.Elections&description=

Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>  | Comments Off 

-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's 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
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
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's 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
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120109/4bf4d6b5/attachment.html>