Nowhere in the Constitution is there any authority for Congress or any
federal official, to restrict who may donate to any campaign, or to
make any other expenditure or investment, or to require the disclosure
of who does it. That includes foreign donors. As much as some people
might argue there should be such authority, fearing dire consequences
if such authority is not exercised, an argument from necessity is still
a logical
fallacy:
Need implies Have: I have the need to do it, therefore I
have the (legal) authority to do it (Necesse ergo praesto).
Basis for legal doctrine of "inherent" powers.
Sorry, but even if the Universe were to come to an end if we don't do
something, that doesn't confer the legal authority to do it. As a
political matter we might be forgiven for doing it without legal
authority, but that that does not legitimize it. I would appreciate it
if people would stop pretending their policy preferences are
constitutional when they clearly are not. If you want us to ignore the
Constitution, then say so. Boldly fly your flag of usurpation, so we
can know where to aim.
If you are worried about undue foreign influence, try worrying about
what happens when all those mortgage notes are bought up by foreign
interests, they foreclose and buy up the properties, and then move in,
leaving the former American owners to live in cars or tents or under
bridges.
-- Jon
----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 Austin, TX 78757
512/299-5001 jon.roland@constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------