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

[Thomas J. Cares]

Wouldn't the contradiction in the two cases likely derive its coherence
from national security's common trumping of constitutional ideals - more-so
than general welfare interests?

Corporate spending to influence elections and policy in ways that would
increase their profits might compromise "the general Welfare", but not "the
common defence".

A constitutional right for foreigners to spend money on election advocacy -
and perhaps have members of congress or presidents feel indebted to, or
politically fearful of, the respective nation - could compromise national
security.

There would seem to be some coherence to that.



Thomas Cares
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120109/e7aa8689/attachment.html>