Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281

Foreign citizens on temporary U.S. visas seek to donate to candidates, parties, and outside groups and to make express-advocacy expenditures.
Plaintiffs Bluman and Steiman are foreign nationals not citizens or permanent residents, lawfully in the U.S. on temporary visas.
Section 441e(a) prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions, expenditures, and related activities in federal, state, or local elections.
Plaintiffs challenge §441e(a) as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
The FEC moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); plaintiffs move for summary judgment.
Court concludes §441e(a) passes strict scrutiny and grants FEC’s motion to dismiss, denying summary judgment for plaintiffs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is §441e(a) constitutional under strict scrutiny?	Foreign nationals have First Amendment rights.	Statute serves compelling interest in preventing foreign influence.	§441e(a) survives strict scrutiny.
May foreign nationals lawfully present in the U.S. be barred from political spending?	Temporary residents should have rights to participate.	Government may exclude non-citizens from democratic processes.	Yes, as applied to temporary foreign nationals.
Is the statute narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest?	Underinclusive and overbroad; excludes only some non-citizens.	Carved-out permanent residents and other distinctions are constitutionally permissible.	Statute narrowly tailored to prevent foreign influence.
Does the statute violate rights by restricting contributions and express-advocacy but not issue advocacy?	Speech about elections should be protected even for foreigners.	Express-advocacy tied to elections is core to democratic self-government and barred for aliens.	Statute is valid as applied to contributions and express-advocacy; issue advocacy allowed.

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (established limits and distinctions in campaign finance; uses strict scrutiny for certain restrictions)
Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) (recognizes government may distinguish foreigners from citizens in election regulation)
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 551 U.S. 449 (2007) (express-advocacy and issue-advocacy distinctions in campaign finance)
Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. 291 (1978) (upheld foreign citizens’ limits on government service; sovereignty considerations)
Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68 (1979) (barring foreigners from teaching in public schools upheld on sovereign-interest grounds)
Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, 454 U.S. 432 (1982) (alienage and participation in governmental processes; broad latitude to exclude non-citizens)