[EL] Fwd: CU Tomorrow?
Jeff Hauser
jeffhauser at gmail.com
Thu Jan 18 05:30:25 PST 2018
In light of indications that Russian oligarchs helped Trump via the NRA (
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article195231139.html
),
a reminder of this election law listserv debate from 2010.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
Date: Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: [EL] CU Tomorrow?
To: Allison Hayward <ahayward at gmu.edu>, Jonathan Singer <
jonathanhsinger at gmail.com>
Cc: election-law at mailman.lls.edu
Allison is correct, of course, but to further clarify, "foreign nationals"
does not include permanent resident aliens. So foreign citizens can and
do make not only expenditures but direct contributions. I certainly think
that that is a good thing and further, that it is constitutionally
protected, even though these alien residents are not eligible to vote under
most state laws, and have been found not to have a constitutional right to
vote.
*Bradley A. Smith*
*Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law*
*Capital University Law School*
*303 E. Broad St.*
*Columbus, OH 43215*
*(614) 236-6317*
http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp
------------------------------
*From:* Allison Hayward [mailto:ahayward at gmu.edu]
*Sent:* Wed 1/20/2010 5:29 PM
*To:* Jonathan Singer
*Cc:* Smith, Brad; election-law at mailman.lls.edu
*Subject:* Re: [EL] CU Tomorrow?
HI, Jonathan - I'll give this a shot.
As the law stands right now, foreign nationals are prohibited from making
independent expenditures in federal elections. They are also prohibited
from making decisions related to such expenditures, or from fundraising.
They can. however, volunteer. Generous, isn't it? So I am not sure your
scenario plays out.
I think this is hard to defend, frankly. We are a big, powerful,
important country, and our policies affect everybody else quite
profoundly. I do not see why its a good idea, and I don't see how it is
constitutional, to insulate American voters from the opinions of foreign
nationals, other things being equal.
We aren't talking about foreign funding into candidate coffers. Just
spending.
r>
On Jan 20, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Jonathan Singer wrote:
I'm not sure I understand to what the "no" refers. That foreign nationals
and corporations in fact do have a right to make expenditures in American
elections? Or something else (in which case which of my questions)?
I'm not trying to be argumentative, and if it's a discussion that has
already occurred on [EL] I apologize for bringing it up again. But the flow
of foreign capital into American elections is something that interests me,
at the least, and presumably some others, too.
Jonathan
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:
> No.
>
> *Bradley A. Smith*
> *Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law*
> *Capital University Law School*
> *303 E. Broad St.*
> *Columbus, OH 43215*
> *(614) 236-6317*
> http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Jonathan Singer [mailto:j onathanh *Sent:* Wed 1/20/2010 4:07 PM
> *To:* Smith, Brad
> *Cc:* <jonathanhsinger at gmail.com>jboppjr at aol.com;
> election-law at mailman.lls.edu
>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] CU Tomorrow?
>
> Okay. So if foreign nationals do not have the right to make campaign
> expenditures, nor do foreign corporations, why should their money be
> allowed to play a role in American elections as shareholders in
> corporations chartered in the United States? If a British national owned a
> major stake in an American corporation, wouldn't his or her dollars be
> flowing into our elections if that corporation were allowed to spend
> unlimited dollars? If a foreign owned company -- say Dubai Ports World --
> has a subsidiary chartered in the United States, and that American
> corporation were allowed to spend freely, would n't DPW e right to spend
> unlimited amounts of money on American elections simply by chartering a
> subsidiary in the states?
>
> Or would there be some sort of balancing test to determine the extent to
> which foreign dollars could be funneled into American elections through
> corporations chartered in the United States in a way they wouldn't be
> allowed if not funneled as such? In which case where's the line?
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Jon,
>>
>> The reasons h ave noth to do with being a "non-voter."
>>
>> *Bradley A. Smith*
>> *Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law*
>> *Capital University Law School*
>> *303 E. Broad St.*
>> *Columbus, OH 43215*
>> *(614) 236-6317*
>> http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* election-law-bounces at mailm an.lls.e han Singer
>> *Sent:* Wed 1/20/2010 2:51 PM <election-law-bounces at mailman.lls.edu>
>>
>> *To:* <election-law-bounces at mailman.lls.edu>jboppjr at aol.com
>> *Cc:* election-law at mailman.lls.edu
>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] CU Tomorrow?
>>
>> So are foreign nationals constitutionally protected to spend unlimited
>> amounts of money on American elections? How about foreign governments?
>> They're non-voters.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:46 AM, <jboppjr at aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am dying to know the authority for this strange statement:
>>>
>>> '"I I wouldn't be surprised if a Justice were
>>>
>>> to threaten resignation in protest or make some other especially harsh
>>> statement, if the opinion turns to embrace the conclusion that voters
>>> have no power to regulate the political speech of non-voters.
>>> I know of no court decision that suggests that just because you cannot
>>> vote, you cannot speak about politics or that voters have some special
>>> power to regulate non-voters. Where does this come from? Jim Bopp
>>>
>>> In a message dated 1/20/2010 1:11:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>>> lehto.paul at gmail.com writes:
>>>
>>> In other places I've been suggesting that there's not only a fight on
>>> the Supr as bad or worse than Bush v. Gore's
>>> wrangling on the court (we only learned about this subsequent to 2000
>>> for the most part).
>>>
>>> I've also been saying that I wouldn't be surprised if a Justice were
>>> to threaten resignation in protest or make some other especially harsh
>>> statement, if the opinion turns to embrace the conclusion that voters
>>> have no power to regulate the political speech of non-voters.
>>>
>>> Political parties have recognized associational rights and can kick
>>> out members, but apparently We the People will be deemed to have no
>>> right or power to regulate the political speech of non-members
>>> (non-voters). This kind of conclusion, namely that there's no power
>>> to regulate activities of non-voters, are shocking and grave, as
>>> directly suggested concerning money in elections by Ex Parte Yarbrough
>>> (holding broad implied powers exist, such as to protect elections from
>>> corruption of money, force, and fraud)
>>>
>>> Ex Pa rte Yarb as the First Amendment, the
>>> First Amendment only seems younger because it has been far more
>>> contested and thus spawned much litigation.
>>>
>>> Until relatively very recently in our country's history, it has not
>>> been seriously contested that the government lacks power to regulate
>>> finances in elections. A ruling that affirms any such principle will
>>> be a historical reversal and a revolution against democracy. Rather
>>> than using such a disturbing term, justices will instead in their
>>> dissents or concurrences in part draft a list of disturbing
>>> implications, but a revolution in our law is what it adds up to.
>>>
>>> As fundamental and important as the first amendment is, there's one
>>> thing even more fundamental, and that is free elections. Free
>>> elections are those free from corruption, fraud or force, and an
>>> election with unregulated money will not be perceived as legitimate by
>>> at least 75% of the electorate: All Po litician es or actions, will be
>>> deemed "bought and paid for.'
>>>
>>> Again, this approach is not mine, it's the approach of the court in Ex
>>> Parte Yarbrough -- see Jonathan Singer's post yesterday on that for a
>>> concise view of how that conservative court unanimously saw the free
>>> use of money as just as dangerous as Klan election violence.
>>>
>>> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor
>>>
>>> On 1/20/10, Rick Hasen <hasenr at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > I meant to write they have orders, not argument, Monday
>>> >
>>> > Rick Hasen wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Now They Are Toying With Us
>>> >>
>>> >> The Supreme Court has announced a special sitting Thursday, and my
>>> >> understanding is that one or more opinions will be released.
>>> >>
>>> >> It is hard to imagine why they would do this if not to release
>>> Citizens
>>> >> United.
>>> >>
>>> >> But it is odd eve , why not wait until Monday,
>>> >> when they won't have argument in any cases? Here's my thinking: some
>>> of
>>> >> the Justices might not be in town Monday (they meet on Friday in
>>> >> conference, but have no arguments on Monday). If some Justices want to
>>> >> read parts of their opinions aloud, especially dissents, they may
>>> want the
>>> >> Thursday session to do so in person. I recall Justice Breyer's oral
>>> >> dissent in 2007: "It is not often in the law that so few have so
>>> quickly
>>> >> changed so much."
>>> >>
>>> >> Posted by Rick Hasen at 09:34 AM
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Rick Hasen
>>> >> William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
>>> >> Loyola Law School
>>> >> 919 Albany Street
>>> >> Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
>>> >> (213)736-1466
>>> >> (213)380-3769 - fax
>>> >> rick.hasen at lls.edu
>>> >> < a href=" ics/faculty/hasen.html" target="_blank">http://www.
>>> lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
>>> >> http://electionlawblog.org
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Rick Hasen
>>> > William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
>>> > Loyola Law School
>>> > 919 Albany Street
>>> > Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
>>> > (213)736-1466
>>> > (213)380-3769 - fax
>>> > rick.hasen at lls.edu
>>> > http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
>>> > http://electionlawblog.org
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
>>> P.O. Box #1
>>> Ishpeming, MI 49849
>>> lehto.paul at gmail.com
>>> 906-204-40 26
>>> __ ____________________
>>> election-law mailing list
>>> election-law at mailman.lls.edu
>>> http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> election-law mailing list
>>> election-law at mailman.lls.edu
>>> http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Singer
>> http://www.mydd.com
>> Cell: (503) 705-2952
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Singer
> http://www.mydd.com
> /div>
>
--
Jonathan Singer
http://www.mydd.com
Cell: (503) 705-2952
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law at mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law at mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180118/6254ddb8/attachment.html>
View list directory