As noted earlier, on August 8, 2011, a 3-judge U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., upheld federal campaign laws that make it illegal for aliens who lawfully reside in the U.S., but who do not have permanent residency status, to make contributions to candidates. The case, Bluman v Federal Election Commission, has already been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is the jurisdictional statement. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
The “question presented” is: “Whether Congress violates the First Amendment by making it a crime for individuals who lawfully reside in the United States, but are neither U.S. citizens nor ‘permanent residents’ under the immigration laws, to make independent expenditures or campaign contributions in connection with any federal, state, or local election; or whether, as the district court held, the ban satisfies strict scrutiny as a ‘piecemeal’ attempt to reduce the ‘influence’ on ‘how voters will cast their ballots’ of aliens whom Congress may suspect of lacking ‘primary loyalty’ to the nation.” One of the plaintiffs is a citizen of Canada and wants to contribute to Democrats; another is a citizen of Israel and wants to contribute to Republicans.”
B.A.N. will go out on a limb here, and predict that the U.S. Supreme Court will not hear this case.
How does a corporate person establish residence in the United States? Does he/she have to produce a phone bill or some such thing?
As you know, corporations are not permitted to make contributions to candidates for federal office.
Seeing as the Constitution says that Congress may not make a law abridging the freedom of speech and this law apparently abridges speech (under the jurisprudence of Buckley v. Valeo), I don’t see how it can stand.
The Constitution doesn’t say Congress may not make a law abridging the speech of citizens only or of any other particular class. The only question is “Is Congress abridging speech?” If the answer is “yes”, then the law is unconstitutional.
Making ANY predictions of what the SCOTUS robot party hacks may do in any case is one more waste of time and effort.
AREA – Electors
Everybody else is a political ALIEN from another universe / dimension.
Ask any 10 year if he/she can detect a corporation — invisable, no soul, etc.
2 –
I’m in a supermarket. I see some melons I’d really like to have. But I look in my wallet and see that I don’t have enough money to buy them. I have only enough for the eggs and milk that I have to buy.
I’m looking very forlorn, which is noticed by a very good corporate person friend of mine. He offers to put five dollars into my wallet so that I can buy the melons. I tell him “I’m sorry, corporate person friend, you are not allowed by law to put money into my wallet.” He winks and puts a few melons into his shopping cart.
When I come out of the market he hands me the melons. I did not pay for these melons myself, nor did the corporate person friend put into my wallet any of his cash.
5 –
But wait! Just because the corporate person didn’t pay for the melons by giving money directly to you, he DID pay for them, didn’t he? And if you were a candidate for federal office, and instead of wanting to buy melons you wanted to buy advertising promoting one side of an issue that was central to your campaign for office, then having the corporation pay for the advertising helps your campaign, and it also frees up cash in your treasury to spend on other things your campaign needs to buy. So what difference does it make which pocket the cash comes from – the candidate’s pocket or the corporate friend? Suppose the corporation was a supplier of electrical power? Can the corporation legally decide not to bill the candidate for the electricity provided? After all, no cash is going directly into the candidate’s treasury. But since corporate friend bought advertising favorable to your campaign, you have cash to pay for the electricity. Maybe ONLY because corporate friend bought your melo…er…favorable advertising.
6 –
6 –
BrightBulb, you have a pretty good grasp of the consequences of Citizens United v. FEC. You should create a blog.
But do it before self-interested corporations spend hundreds of millions of dollars on “independent” advertising in support of candidates for federal office who think that we allow way too much free speech in this country for persons with arms and legs who can only contribute $2,500 to the candidates of THEIR choice.
See Blackstone’s Commentaries about the fictions regarding corporations.
Way beyond the brain dead SCOTUS MORONS in the CU case.
Richard…nothing to say?
#9, tell me your real name (privately if you wish, richardwinger@yahoo.com) and let’s talk on the phone some time. 415-922-9779. I am tempted to tell the world that brightbulb and baronscarpia each have the same e-mail address.
10 –
Shhhh! Don’t reveal my “secret.” I’m sure NO ONE but YOU figured that out!
11 –
Well shucks, I sure didn’t figure that out…
10 –
Just wondering, Richard…why do you think in-kind contributions need to be reported to the FEC by candidates for federal office? Do you think that’s an impingement on free speech?
And what about the federal ban on tobacco advertising? Don’t you think it ironic that American Tobacco can’t even promote its own product commercially, yet they are now able to, hypothetically, pour millions into political adverts supporting a candidate for Congress who supports removing the ban and whose opponent does not (not that tobacco companies would ever do so, mind you)? Wouldn’t that be one whopper of an in-kind contribution?
BrightBulb – what do you think?
13 –
BrightBulb you dimwit, you’re Baronscarpia.
14 –
Just because I have the same email address as
you?