Footnotes (181)



Foreign Nationals, Electoral Spending, and the First Amendment

Toni M. Massaro

University of Arizona College of Law

March 9, 2011

Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 34, 2011
Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 10-33

The Court in January of 2010 rocked the nation when it decided Citizens United v. FEC – a case that critics described as a “threat to democracy.” The case lifted restrictions that prevented corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to engage in independent expenditures on behalf of electoral candidates, and thereby opened the spigot on significant new spending for political campaigns.

A long list of proposals followed in the wake of the decision, including proposals to further limit the already restricted right of foreign nationals to make campaign contributions to candidates for state or federal office, or to American political parties. The Court in Citizens United expressly declined to rule on the constitutionality of restrictions on foreign nationals’ electoral spending, though Justice Stevens argued in his vigorous dissent that the reasoning of Citizens United casts doubt on such speaker-based restrictions on campaign spending.

This Essay analyzes in detail whether foreign speakers, including foreign corporations, can be fenced out of campaign electoral spending, and concludes that the constitutional case against such restrictions is very powerful, if not overwhelming. It predicts that the Court nevertheless will be loath to defy Congress on this point, particularly if the government invokes a national security interest or so-called right to prevent “undue foreign influence” over American elections. Signs are that the current Court would defer to Congress and uphold restrictions on foreign national campaign expenditures, were it to address the question directly. But to do so, it would need to ignore its own first amendment logic and especially its soaring rhetoric about the sophistication of American voters and the value of robust political expression fueled by private expenditures.

Whether this constitutional point matters, however, is questionable given the rapid development of new communications technologies. Foreign nationals, like American citizens, now have multiple ways of reaching potential voters that make efforts to territorialize such influence infeasible. Consequently, the most important constitutional question on the post - Citizens United horizon may not be who can expend funds, but whether donor identity can be disclosed so that voters can better evaluate electoral messages from foreign and non-foreign sources, and whether the privacy objections to such disclosure can, or should, be overcome.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 42

Keywords: Citizens United, Campaign Finance, International Corporation, Foreign Corporation, First Amendment, Equal Protection, National Security, Elections, McCain-Feingold Act, Bipartisan Electoral Reform, Free Speech, Electoral Spending, Technology and Elections

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: September 24, 2010 ; Last revised: October 20, 2011

Suggested Citation

Massaro, Toni M., Foreign Nationals, Electoral Spending, and the First Amendment (March 9, 2011). Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 34, 2011; Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 10-33. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1682202

Contact Information

Toni Marie Massaro (Contact Author)
University of Arizona College of Law ( email )
P.O. Box 210176
Tucson, AZ 85721-0176
United States
520-626-2687 (Phone)
520-621-9140 (Fax)

Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,112
Downloads: 187
Download Rank: 112,133
Footnotes:  181

© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 3.016 seconds