Top court backs foreigner campaign donation ban

Chicago Tribune ^ | January 9, 2012 | James Vicini

[americanophile]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court rejected on Monday a free-speech challenge to the longtime ban on campaign contributions by foreign citizens who temporarily live and work in the United States.

The justices affirmed a ruling by a three-judge federal panel that upheld the ban adopted by Congress to keep foreigners from financially influencing U.S. elections.

The court's last federal campaign finance law ruling was in January 2010, when it gave corporations the free-speech right to spend freely to support or oppose candidates.

PresidentBarack Obama and fellow Democrats in Congress criticized that ruling while Republicans praised it.

The new challenge was brought by two foreign nationals who temporarily live in the United States and want to contribute money to certain political candidates. One wanted to support Obama's 2012 re-election bid.

They said in their lawsuit that the law at issue violated constitutional free-speech rights under the First Amendment.

[americanophile]

Another story buried by the MSM. This should be national headlines. Obama and the Democrats actively trying to undermine our rights as American citizens. Not to worry, they can still contribute, en mass, to Obama's campaign illegally, as they did last time. Obama's campaign even admitted to having turned off the anti-fraud protections on his website. Of course is was McCain who was audited, as he had accepted public funds. If the GOP allows this kind of illegal campaign financing this time around, they deserve to lose.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Obama and the Democrats actively trying to undermine our rights as American citizens. Not to worry, they can still contribute, en mass, to Obama's campaign illegally,

According to the article, there were two plaintiffs, one of whom was an Israeli living in New York who wanted to donate to conservative candidates.

[americanophile]

Oh please, this is plaintiff shopping pure and simple. The plaintiff wanting to contribute to the Club for Growth is a straw man used to try and give the lawsuit a bi-partisan appearance. This is a Democrat ploy to try to open the campaign finance door to socialists worldwide. Benjamin Bluman (the case is Bluman v. FEC) is an attorney with Sidley Austin, which is Michelle Obama’s old law firm...

[bjorn14]

Good that should stop Øbama /s

[bjorn14]

Good that should stop Øbama /s

[BuckeyeTexan]

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[1010RD]

Has anyone been able to trace all the Internet money that poured into the Obama 08 Campaign?

[apoliticalone]

Good decision. Also believe Citizens United decision was wrong.

We can not allow foreign globally owned corporations or groups (and all major multinationals are foreign owned) to have the ability to sway our elections for their benefit. Our elections should not be influenced by only USA citizens and not foreigners or even those with dual citizenship. We will inevitably lose US sovereignty if we allow it.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Oh well. Dear leader will still be able to collect foreign donations as he did before via the internet (link to archived)

[depressed in 06]

...o keep foreigners from financially influencing U.S. elections.

Unless, they are illegal.

[americanophile]

I don’t even think they bothered looking. Astonishing as it is.

[SweetCaroline]

*

[VeniVidiVici]

Interesting. So a foreigner living in the US does NOT have the same rights as a citizen.

[RedMDer]

Click