[EL] Fwd: CU Tomorrow?

Thu Jan 18 06:29:20 PST 2018

Thank, you Jeff, for this incisive piece, which includes this nugget:

All of the sources spoke on condition of anonymity because Mueller’s
investigation is confidential and mostly involves classified information.

So much for disclosure and the informational interest.

But I digress. In all seriousness, I expect the pressing issue of foreign
influence will be further explored at Represent’s “Unrig the System Summit”
in just a few short weeks.

All you reformers lucky enough to get per diem (maybe even honorarium?):
don’t let indications that foreign money from around the world might be
supporting your unrigging effort give you pause.

https://pillaroflaw.org/2017/10/13/did-represent-us-just-bag
-a-bunch-of-omaze-ing-foreign-money/

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/
article195231139.html#storylink=cpy

Like disclosure, fighting foreign money is really a case-by-case platitude.

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Jeff Hauser <jeffhauser at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 <(614)%20236-6317>*
> 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 <(614)%20236-6317>*
>> 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 <(614)%20236-6317>*
>>> 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)%20736-1466>
>>>> >> (213)380-3769 <(213)%20380-3769> - 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)%20736-1466>
>>>> > (213)380-3769 <(213)%20380-3769> - 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
Steve Klein
Attorney*
https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenrklein

**Licensed to practice law in Illinois and Michigan*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180118/a2d9c9bc/attachment.html>