Scalia/Alito debated with Sotomayor about the Supreme Court not taking a fact based habeas case, Scalia calling out the Ninth Circuit in particular (citing a few cases, some split decisions, over a span of years) for going out of its way to second guess state courts. It's one of those interesting windows into the Supreme Court among mostly boring looking orders.
The same can be the case when the Supreme Court doesn't take a certain case or affirms a lower court ruling without comment. Consider the fairly important affirmance of Bluman v. FEC. As Scotusblog notes:
Still, this is an important ruling, especially with the concern with foreign influence, including China. This was an issue back to the days of Clinton and Gore, for instance. Will this ruling be noted or will -- like disclosure and disclaimer limits -- be ignored, the Supreme Court Five allegedly open to all unlimited campaign funds? We shall see. Meanwhile, Rick Hasen argues this way of ruling on the matter let the Supreme Court set up in effect arbitrary exceptions to CU, well, arbitrarily.
[Update: Someone more of a fan of CU, disagrees, but moves between "citizens" and "residents" a bit much. And, what about foreign media corporations? Do "press" protections -- however that term is used -- apply differently to non-citizens too? How much? Seems worthy of full review.]
The same can be the case when the Supreme Court doesn't take a certain case or affirms a lower court ruling without comment. Consider the fairly important affirmance of Bluman v. FEC. As Scotusblog notes:
Specifically at issue in the new case was a complete ban on contributions and on any independent spending in U.S. elections by foreign nationals, even if they were living lawfully in the country. In challenging the District Court ruling in a Supreme Court appeal, two individuals contended that the decision was based precisely on the identity of the spender, something that it argued directly contradicted the Citizens United rationale. The lower court, the two individuals’ appeal argued, departed in every way that it could from Citizens United.Citizens United specifically noted that the ruling did not deal with this issue, leaving it open. As with disclaimer and disclosure law, the Supreme Court provided here a limited means to regulate campaign finance. To cite the summary of the lower court, which again the Supremes affirmed without comment, from the FEC:
The court said these cases provide a straightforward precedent: “It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government.” For purposes of First Amendment analysis, the court stated the United States has a compelling interest in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in such activities, and “thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process.” The court found that political contributions and expenditures are a vital aspect of the process of American democratic self-government. The court said the ban on foreign election spending was also in line with the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010).The ruling does not concern limits on all "foreign citizens," including long term permanent residents, but the opening is there. More:
Benjamin Bluman and Dr. Asenath Steiman (Plaintiffs) are both foreign nationals who lawfully live and work in the United States. Both Plaintiffs wish to express their political views by making contributions to candidates for office in the United States, including federal candidates . Current federal law and Commission regulations prohibit foreign nationals (other than those who have been admitted to the United States for permanent residence) from “directly or indirectly” making “a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value…in connection with a federal, state or local election;” making “a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party;” or making an “expenditure,” “independent expenditure,” or “disbursement for an electioneering communication” in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States. 11 CFR 110.20. A knowing and willful violation of the foreign national ban is punishable by a civil penalty not exceeding the greater of $10,000 or 200 percent of any contribution or expenditure involved in the violation. It is also punishable criminally by up to five years’ imprisonment. 2 U.S.C. §§437g(a)(5) and (d).This is pretty extreme, particularly the "other thing of value." There might be various limitations to the regulation, but someone here for let's say a few months and wanting to donate use of a car to support a local environmental measure would seem to be covered. It shows to me the need to have perspective. Kramer Inc. can be a "corporation" but we should be less worried about it than the influence of the Koch Brothers acting as individuals. The same applies to foreign nationals. Spending large sums of money would be a problem. Some small amount, maybe not.
Still, this is an important ruling, especially with the concern with foreign influence, including China. This was an issue back to the days of Clinton and Gore, for instance. Will this ruling be noted or will -- like disclosure and disclaimer limits -- be ignored, the Supreme Court Five allegedly open to all unlimited campaign funds? We shall see. Meanwhile, Rick Hasen argues this way of ruling on the matter let the Supreme Court set up in effect arbitrary exceptions to CU, well, arbitrarily.
[Update: Someone more of a fan of CU, disagrees, but moves between "citizens" and "residents" a bit much. And, what about foreign media corporations? Do "press" protections -- however that term is used -- apply differently to non-citizens too? How much? Seems worthy of full review.]