A Russian firm charged in a special board case quotes Kavanaugh's decision to argue that the charge should be dismissed

WASHINGTON – Une société russe accusée par l'avocat spécial Robert Mueller III de participer à une opération en ligne pour perturber la campagne présidentielle de 2016 en partie sur une décision de Brett Kavanaugh, candidat à la Cour suprême, d'argumenter que l'accusation devrait être rejetée.

La décision de Kavanaugh de 2011, pour un panel de trois juges, portait sur le rôle que les étrangers pouvaient jouer aux États-Unis. elections. Il a maintenu une loi fédérale qui stipule que les étrangers temporairement dans le pays ne peuvent pas donner de l'argent aux candidats, contribuer aux partis et groupes politiques, ou dépenser de l'argent en défendant les intérêts des candidats. Mais il n'a pas exclu de laisser les étrangers dépenser de l'argent pour des campagnes de plaidoyer indépendantes.

Kavanaugh "s'est démené pour limiter la décision", a déclaré Daniel Petalas, avocat à Washington et ancien conseiller général par intérim de la Commission électorale fédérale. 19659157] Une requête déposée par la société russe cette semaine cite à plusieurs reprises la décision de Kavanaugh, portant une nouvelle attention à ses décisions sur les lois et règlements de financement de campagne pendant son mandat à la Cour d'appel du district de Columbia. ont analysé son travail, il semble s'adapter confortablement au sein de la majorité conservatrice de la haute cour, qui a constaté que les restrictions sur les dépenses liées à la campagne sont en conflit avec la garantie de la liberté d'expression du Premier Amendement. Cet argument était à la base de l'affaire Citoyens Unis de 2010, qui permettait aux entreprises et autres organisations de dépenser des sommes illimitées pour des activités politiques indépendantes.

Dans le cas de la décision nationale étrangère, Kavanaugh a déclaré que le gouvernement devait prouver des restrictions de la loi avant de demander des accusations criminelles. Il a ajouté que l'interdiction n'incluait pas les dépenses étrangères pour «défendre les intérêts et s'exprimer sur les questions de politique publique».

La Cour suprême a confirmé la décision en 2012 dans une ordonnance d'une phrase, sans dissidence une audience. L'administration Obama avait demandé que l'opinion soit confirmée, arguant dans un mémoire que la loi fédérale était étroitement adaptée pour respecter les droits de parole des étrangers.

Ni la loi en question ni aucune autre disposition de la loi fédérale n'interdit aux ressortissants étrangers de s'exprimer. sur les questions de politique publique », a écrit le solliciteur général, Donald Verrilli. "La loi laisse donc ouverte … un large éventail d'activités expressives, allant de la contribution à des groupes de discussion, à la création de sites web de plaidoyer, au financement de la publicité télévisée de masse."

l'Université de Californie à Irvine, créer "potentiellement une énorme faille pour les publicités étrangères et non divulguées sur les élections fédérales."

La décision de Kavanaugh a été adoptée par Concord Management and Consulting, l'un des 16 individus ou sociétés russes accusés par un grand jury in February in connection with allegedly taking part in an "information warfare" campaign aimed at swaying American voters.

The indictment alleged that Concord paid $1.25 million a month to the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency for projects such as setting up rallies for President Donald Trump or various advocacy groups in the United States, creating Twitter and Facebook accounts to spread false information and "to interfere in U.S. political and electoral processes without detection of their Russian affiliation." The company was charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Concord is alleged to be controlled by Yevgeniy Prigozhin, a Russian catering magnate known as "Putin's chef" for his longtime association with Russian President Vladimir Putin. It is the only one of those charged to have responded to the indictments.

In Concord's motion to dismiss the charge, its attorneys frequently cited Kavanaugh and his 2011 decision in Bluman v. Federal Election Commission.

The lawyers noted that Kavanaugh distinguished between explicitly political ads – those that urge the public to vote for or against a candidate – and "issue ads".

"Foreign nationals are not barred from issue advocacy through political speech such as what is described in the indictment – they are only precluded from willfully making expenditures that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a particular candidate," wrote Washington lawyers Eric Dubelier and Katherine Seikaly, who are defending the company, citing the Bluman decision.

It is the second issue related to Mueller's investigation that is sure to receive attention at Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. He said in a 2009 law review article that presidents should not be distracted by civil lawsuits and criminal investigations and that Congress might be "wise" to provide such protection until they are no longer in office.

Like Justice Neil Gorsuch, who also was a Trump nominee, Kavanaugh appears to fit the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia, who joined the court's conservatives – Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. – as skeptics of the constitutionality of many campaign finance restrictions.

"Based on his opinions and public statements, as a Supreme Court justice Kavanaugh would almost certainly be a reliable vote to overturn campaign finance restrictions in the Scalia/Alito/Roberts mold," said Andrew Herman, a Washington lawyer who practices campaign finance law.

Even before the Supreme Court decided Citizens United, Kavanaugh wrote for his court in a 2009 case called Emily's List v. FEC, ruling against regulations tha t required independent nonprofit organizations to comply with federal contribution limits.

The rules "do not pass muster under the Supreme Court's First Amendment precedents," Kavanaugh wrote. "The regulations are not closely drawn to serve a cognizable anticorruption interest. Donations to and spending by a non-profit cannot corrupt a candidate or officeholder."

A year later, he affirmed rules limiting how much money can flow to political parties – noting that Supreme Court precedent gave him no choice.

In Republican National Committee v. FEC in 2010, Kavanaugh wrote for a three-judge panel in upholding contribution limits on federal candidates and parties. He cited the Supreme Court's rulings that such limitations are warranted because of the potential for corruption or the appearance of corruption.

In the wake of Citizens United and the advent of super PACs, the RNC said the restrictions left political parties hamstrung.

The RNC position was logical, Kavanaugh agreed. "As a lower court, however, we do not believe we possess authority to clarify or refine [Supreme Court precedent] in the fashion advocated by the RNC, or to otherwise get ahead of the Supreme Court," he wrote.

Hasen said a big question will be whether Kavanaugh would be skeptical of restrictions on contributions to political parties and candidates on the high court. "I think that we don't know," he said.

The Bluman ruling is likely to receive outsize attention in Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings because it is now being cited in an active case about Russian interference in the 2016 campaign.

As a test case, its facts were rather benign. Benjamin Bluman and Asenath Steiman were foreign nationals living legally and temporarily in the United States.

Bluman, a Canadian, said he wanted to contribute to Democrats running for office, and print and distribute fliers in Central Park supporting President Barack Obama's reelection. Steiman, a dual citizen of Canada and Israel, said she wanted to contribute to Obama's eventual Republican opponent and to an independent organization that supports conservative candidates.

Bluman and Steiman said the federal ban on those activities was unconstitutional.

But Kavanaugh and his fellow judges on the panel said the Supreme Court had made it clear that the government may exclude foreign nationals from activities "intimately related to the process of democratic self-government," quoting a precedent. Contributing to a political party and spending money to advocate for or against a specific candidate are easily included, he wrote.

But he also articulated "three important limits."

He said the ban might not be applicable to permanent legal residents. Nor should the ruling be read to support bans on foreign nationals spending money to express their views on issues, as opposed to advocating for the election or defeat of specific candidates.

He said that to bring criminal prosecutions, the government must show that the defendant acted willfully in defiance of the law. "There are many aliens in this country who no doubt are unaware of the statutory ban on foreign expenditures, in particular," he wrote.

Herman said Kavanaugh's carve-outs show "that he is both being a careful jurist but also indicating to Congress that he would be more skeptical of the types of restrictions referenced in that paragraph. For example, permanent residents' First Amendment rights might take precedence over more general security concerns."

Hasen said that Kavanaugh's decision provides a road map of how he might decide such an issue – finding it improper for a foreign national to finance an ad that says, "Vote against Hillary," for example, but not one that says, "Hillary is Satan."

—

The Washington Post's Tom Jackman contributed to this report.