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.

John B. Anderson has this lengthy op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor of September 1. The op-ed suggests that Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation would be good for the United States.

Anderson’s column seems to have a slight factual error. It seems to imply that Lisa Murkowski, write-in candidate for U.S. Senate in Alaska in 2010, came in second. Actually she won. Also, because Anderson reached all the way back to 1990 to mention the independent gubernatorial wins in Alaska and Connecticut, it is surprising he didn’t mention that two independent candidates won U.S. Senate elections in 2006, in Vermont and Connecticut. Thanks to Rob Richie for the link.

Four years ago, Rock the Debates was seeking out opportunities to question leading presidential candidates on whether they would agree to at least one general election presidential debate (if that candidate became the Democratic or Republican presidential nominee). Especially active were Larry Reinsch of Iowa, and Seth Cohn of New Hampshire. They attended public meetings at which Democratic and Republican presidential candidates were speaking and answering questions. If they were able to ask a question of the candidate, they would ask about that candidate’s attitude toward inclusive general election debates.

By October 2007, ten Democratic and Republican presidential contenders had been asked the question. Generally the exchange was videotaped. Hillary Clinton gave one of the best responses. Unfortunately, Rock the Debates has become inactive, but perhaps the organization, or a similar organization, will be revived.

Rock the Debates always asked the candidates if they would accept the idea of at least one general election debate in which every presidential candidate who was on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win, would be invited. In the entire history of United States presidential elections, there have never been more than seven such candidates. In 2004 and 2008, there were six such candidates. We know from the experience of presidential primary debates that a 6-candidate debate is not unwieldy.