This post contains more legal stuff than usual. Maybe don't read that part of it?

This morning I had the worst treadmill experience. Ok, the second worst; I didn't fall this time. That was embarrassing beyond belief. No, today I had a perpetual itch on my shin. I kept doing the hop/lean/scratch move, but it just was not working to get rid of the itch, no matter how many hop/lean/scratch moves I did or how ridiculous I looked.

Barrister's Ball was a lot more fun than I anticipated. The venue was really nice (it's been used as a set for West Wing) and the people were lively. I think it wins the award for law school event that involved the least amount of talking about law school. A great memory is the end of the night singing "Piano Man" in a large group that included Reza, Ryan, and Steph. It was simultaneously incredibly cliche and incredibly fun. Billy Joel knows how to help make a memory.
At the pregame someone busted out a bottle of Veuve Cliquot and offered it around. Well, who am I to say no to champagne that costs about 10 times what I generally spend on a bottle of wine. Growing up every Passover my neighbor would bring a half case of Veuve to seder. That's pretty much the only reason I know anything about nice champagne. But not only is it delicious, but it has a good association for me.

Today in Law of Democracy two guest speakers came in to talk to the class. They are bringing a challenge to the law that bans non-permanent resident aliens from making campaign contributions. Although they were much younger than I expected, they did a great job, and their brief is one of the best pieces of legal writing I have come across. I suppose I should not be surprised; they both clerked on the Supreme Court. But I enjoyed reading their brief and thinking about the issue, which is a sharp departure from 99% of law school work.
Upon first thinking about the issue, my gut reaction was that non-permanent resident aliens should not be allowed to contribute, so I disagreed with their position. To some extent, I am still uncomfortable with it, but it is difficult to articulate why. The answer cannot be that aliens cannot vote; children, corporations, PACs, and nonprofits cannot vote, but can contribute. They, like aliens, all retain First Amendment rights, including the right to political expression. There is certainly a governmental interest in disallowing those loyal to other governments to exert control over our electoral system, but what about permanent resident aliens and people with dual citizenship - they may contribute and even vote. We do not want aliens acting as conduits for foreign governments to infuse cash and impact elections, but there are other laws which prohibit such action. So why exactly should non-permanent resident aliens be prohibited from making political contributions? Why should a doctor and a lawyer who were born in Canada not be allowed to donate? The lawyers I heard today want them to be able to, though they still want to exclude others, like foreign agents and tourists. They advance the idea that there must be a "sufficient connection" between the alien and this country - demonstrated through factors like paying taxes and residence. There is obviously a line drawing problem in defining "sufficient connection." People who do not and never will reside in the U.S. may still pay taxes to this country, and some, like foreign agents, who reside in the U.S. should still be excluded. What about an alien who owns property in the U.S. and pays property taxes, but lives here for one week or one day? Why is it legal for residents of Massachusetts contribute to candidates for Connecticut state legislature? That seems to be quite a similar situation. Massachusetts and Connecticut are separate sovereigns with separate governments, and their mutual interests may be similar to the mutual interests between the U.S. and Canada.
The best reason I can come up with for being uncomfortable with disallowing non-resident aliens to give political contributions is that they are somehow not a full part of the United States' political community and therefore should be excluded from exerting such direct influence over our electoral process, a process fundamental to our government and nation. It is unclear how to exactly define who is and who is not an appropriate part of the political community, so again there is a line drawing problem similar to determining what is a "sufficient connection." In both cases the appropriate response may have to be pointing to the system of immigration classifications that Congress has enacted. The classifications may not have been designed with this goal in mind and may rest upon arbitrary distinctions, but at least they are a clear guideline.
The case is Bluman v. Federal Election Commission.
Sorry for that, I hope you didn't read it all. But it is interesting to me, and I wanted to preserve my thoughts in case I ever want to refer back to them. In case I ever can't think them again!