## Facts

- Benjamin Bluman (Canadian citizen) and Asenath Steiman (Israeli-Canadian dual citizen) were foreign nationals living and working in the United States on temporary visas, not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
- They sought to participate in U.S. elections by making contributions to candidates and political parties and by funding independent expenditures expressly advocating for or against candidates.
- Federal law and implementing regulations barred foreign nationals (other than lawful permanent residents) from making contributions, party donations, independent expenditures, and electioneering-communication disbursements in connection with U.S. federal, state, or local elections, backed by civil and criminal penalties.
- Plaintiffs brought an as-applied First Amendment challenge seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; the FEC moved to dismiss and plaintiffs moved for summary judgment.
- A three-judge district court granted the FEC’s motion to dismiss and denied plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motion; the Supreme Court later summarily affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment permits Congress to prohibit foreign nationals who lawfully reside and work in the United States, but are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents, from making campaign contributions or independent expenditures in connection with U.S. elections.
2. Whether the challenged restrictions should be construed narrowly to cover only contributions and express-advocacy/electioneering spending tied to candidate elections, and whether they are constitutional as applied to plaintiffs’ intended conduct.

## Decision

- The court upheld the statutory and regulatory ban as applied to plaintiffs and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- It concluded that Congress may bar foreign nationals (other than lawful permanent residents) from making contributions to candidates and parties and from making expenditures aimed at influencing candidate elections.
- It rejected the argument that precedent invalidating certain domestic speaker restrictions on independent expenditures compelled invalidation of the foreign-national ban.
- It construed the restrictions to reach contributions and express-advocacy/electioneering spending connected to candidate elections, not all political expression by foreign nationals.

## Legal Principles

- Government may exclude foreign citizens from participation in activities that are part of democratic self-government and may reserve such political functions to the American political community.
- Campaign contributions and express-advocacy expenditures intended to influence the election of candidates are treated as participation in democratic self-government, not merely generalized issue discussion.
- The First Amendment does not require that foreign nationals who are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents be permitted to finance candidate elections through contributions or express-advocacy/electioneering expenditures, even if they are lawfully present.
- A limiting construction that targets electoral spending tied to candidate elections helps confine the restriction to its core application, while leaving foreign nationals free to engage in other forms of political speech and association not covered by the contribution/expenditure prohibitions.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Constitution permits Congress to bar noncitizen, non–lawful-permanent-resident foreign nationals from financing U.S. candidate elections through contributions and express-advocacy/electioneering expenditures, because such conduct is part of democratic self-government that may be limited to the American political community.


Bluman v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281 (D.D.C. 2011)