E-mail:

There has been a lot of commentary in the Corner and elsewhere about Obama’s statement that allowing corporate advocacy ads will “open the floodgates” for foreigners to influence U.S. elections. But why is that such a bad thing? After all, according to him, America is not an exceptional nation; we need to let other countries’ opinions play a leading role in shaping our policies; and we should naturalize as many foreigners within our borders as possible (including illegals). Furthermore, this is a man who had a campaign rally on foreign soil, in front of a thousands of foreigners. And *now* he’s getting squeamish about giving foreigners a voice in our politics? His principles would seem to demand that we *require* the rest of the world to influence — nay, to vote! — in our national elections.

UPDATE: Another e-mail:

On the same point:
http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2010/01/foreign-objections.php
For several years now, the Court has been collapsing the distinction between U.S. citizen and foreigner, (and, to a lesser degree, between U.S. law and foreign law). By what logic can U.S. law discriminate between U.S. corporations and foreign corporations in elections, when it can’t discriminate between the two in so many other ways?