In this second installment in our series of articles about campaign finance in the wake of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, our resident law expert, Evan Palenschat, investigates the apparent contradictions to Citizens United in a subsequent ruling.

On January 9, 2012 the Supreme Court summarily affirmed a district court ruling that foreigners living the U.S. may not contribute or spend money in an attempt to influence U.S. elections. The case, Bluman v. F.E.C., is interpreted by some as a refusal by the Court to expand its now infamous 2010 decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C. In that case, the Court found that corporations and unions had an unfettered First Amendment right to spend money, independently, in an attempt to influence U.S. elections. The Court did not decide whether federal law could prohibit foreigners from contributing to candidates or from independently spending money to influence elections. However, one of the central principles of the Citizens United decision was that the law could not discriminate based on the speaker’s identity under the First Amendment. The federal law banning foreign spending seemed to do just that.

In response to this open question, plaintiff’s lawyers chose two individuals that were perfectly situated to invalidate the federal law. Benjamin Bluman is a Canadian citizen residing and working as a lawyer in a New York City firm. The other plaintiff, Asenath Steiman, is a dual citizen of Canada and Israel on a temporary visa authorizing her to work in the U.S. for three years. She is a medical resident at a hospital in New York. Both plaintiffs claimed that they wanted to make contributions to candidates for federal election and independently spend to voice their opinions during elections. Both Bluman and Steiman were integrated into U.S. society and were engaged in productive work here. The fear of foreign influence corrupting our elections did not seem to be present in this case.