[ad_1]
A Russian company accused by special advocate Robert Mueller III of participating in an online operation to disrupt the 2016 presidential campaign is based in part on a decision of Supreme Court candidate Brett Kavanaugh to support the accusation should be dismissed
Kavanaugh's 2011 decision for a panel of three judges focused on the role foreign nationals could play in US elections. It has maintained a federal law that states that foreigners temporarily in the country can not give money to candidates, contribute to parties and political groups, or spend money defending the interests of candidates. Kavanaugh "did everything possible to limit the decision," said Daniel Petalas, a Washington lawyer and former acting general counsel for the Federal Election Commission.
19659002] A petition filed by the Russian company this week repeatedly quotes Kavanaugh's decision, bringing new attention to his decisions on campaign finance laws and regulations during his tenure at the Court of Appeal. District of Columbia appeal
analyzed his work, he seems to fit comfortably within the conservative majority of the high court, which found that restrictions on campaign-related expenses are in conflict with the guarantee of freedom of expression of the First Amendment. This argument supported the 2010 United Citizens case, which allowed corporations and other organizations to spend unlimited amounts on independent political activities.
In the case of the foreign national decision, Kavanaugh said that the government had to prove only restrictions of the law before asking for criminal charges. And he said the ban did not include foreign spending on "advocacy and public policy issues."
The Supreme Court upheld the decision in 2012 The Obama administration had requested that the opinion be upheld, arguing in a brief that the federal law was closely tailored to respect the rights of foreigners to speak.
Neither the law in question nor any other provision of the federal law prohibits foreign nationals from expressing themselves on matters of public order, "wrote Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. . . a wide range of expressive activities, from contributing to discussion groups, creating advocacy websites, financing mass television advertising.
Exceptions, said Richard Hasen, an expert on electoral law in Irvine. Mueller seeks to interrogate the probe & # 39; Manhattan Madame & # 39; in Russia, she says: "class =" trb_em_ic_img "title =" Mueller seeking to interrogate "Manhattan ma'am & # 39; in Kavanaugh's decision was passed by Concord Management and Consulting, one of 16 Russian people or companies charged by a federal grand jury in February over alleged participants in an "information war" campaign "aimed at influencing American voters.
The indictment alleges that Concord paid $ 1.25 million a month to the St. Petersburg-based Internet search agency for projects such as rallies for the president Donald Trump or various defense groups in the United States, creating Twitter and Facebook accounts to spread false information and "interfere in US political and electoral processes without detecting their Russian affiliation".
Concord would be under the control of Yevgeniy Prigozhin, a Russian restaurant mogul known as "Putin's leader" for his long-standing association with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In Concord's motion to dismiss the charge, his lawyers often cited Kavanaugh and his 2011 decision in the Bluman case. Federal Election Commission
. Kavanaugh distinguished between explicitly political advertisements – those that incite the public to vote for or against a candidate – and "publish advertisements".
"Foreigners are not prevented from issuing a political speech as described in the indictment.They are only precluded from deliberately making expenses that expressly advocate the election or the defeat of a particular candidate, "wrote Washington lawyers Eric Dubelier and Katherine Seikaly, who defend the company, citing the Bluman judgment.
to the Mueller inquiry that is sure to receive attention at Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing.He said in a 2009 article that presidents should not be distracted by civil lawsuits and criminal investigations and that Congress could be " "Kavanaugh is a Trump candidate, who seems to correspond to Judge Antonin Scalia, who joined the conservatives of the court." – Chief Justice John Robe Rt Jr. and Judges Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. – as skeptical about the constitutionality of many campaign funding restrictions. "Based on his opinions and public statements, as a Supreme Court Judge, Kavanaugh would definitely be a reliable vote to overturn Scalia / Alito / Roberts' in-mold campaign funding restrictions," said Andrew Herman, a lawyer from Washington.
Even before the Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United, Kavanaugh wrote for his court in a 2009 case entitled Emily's List v.
The rules "do not pass the precedents of the first amendment of the Supreme Court," wrote Kavanaugh. "The regulations are not narrowly drawn to serve a recognizable anti-corruption interest. Donations and expenses by a non-profit organization can not corrupt a candidate or official."
A year later, he asserted the limiting rules
In the report of the National Republican Committee c. FEC in 2010, Kavanaugh wrote for a panel of three judges in maintaining contribution limits on candidates and federal parties. He cited the Supreme Court's rulings that such limitations are justified because of the potential for corruption or the appearance of corruption.
In the wake of Citizens United and the arrival of super PAC, the RNC said the restrictions left political parties paralyzed. 19659002] RNC's position was logical, Kavanaugh agreed. "As a lower court, however, we do not believe that we have the authority to clarify or refine [Supreme Court precedent] in the manner advocated by the RNC, or to have it". other predictions before the Supreme Court, "he wrote
. The big question will be whether Kavanaugh would be skeptical about the restrictions on contributions to political parties and high court candidates. "I think we do not know," he said.
The Bluman decision should receive disproportionate attention in Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings because it is now cited in an active case concerning Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. [19659002] As a case test, his facts were rather mild. Benjamin Bluman and Asenath Steiman were foreign nationals legally and temporarily living in the United States.
Bluman, a Canadian, said he wanted to contribute to Democratic elections and print and distribute flyers in Central Park supporting the re-election of President Barack Obama. Steiman, a dual citizen of Canada and Israel, said that she wanted to contribute to the eventual Republican opponent of Obama and an independent organization that supports conservative candidates.
Bluman and Steiman stated that the federal ban on these activities was unconstitutional. Kavanaugh and his fellow judges said the Supreme Court had made it clear that the government could exclude foreign nationals from activities "intimately linked to the process of democratic autonomy", citing a precedent. Contributing to a political party and spending money to advocate for or against a specific candidate are easily included, he writes.
But he also stated "three important limits".
He said the ban might not apply to residents. The decision should also not be interpreted as prohibiting foreign nationals from spending money to express their views on issues, rather than advocating the election or defeat of specific candidates.
He said that in order to institute criminal proceedings, the defendant acted voluntarily in defiance of the law. "There are a lot of foreigners in this country who probably ignore the legal prohibition of foreign spending, in particular," he writes.
Herman says that Kavanaugh's exceptions show "that he is both a diligent jurist but also, for example, the rights of the first amendment of permanent residents could take precedence over more general security concerns." [19659002] Hasen said that Kavanaugh's decision provides a roadmap of how he might decide such a problem – finding a foreign candidate to fund an advertisement that says "Vote against Hillary", for example, but who does not not say, "Hillary is Satan."
Tom Jackman of the Washington Post contributed to this report.
Source link
