Reader Simon emailed this to Jeff, who passed it along to me, with reference to this post:

Jeff,
Your update to this post may have apologized to Sullivan too soon.

Although the site provided a disclaimer that “foreign nationals are prohibited from making contributions to this campaign,” and although Sullivan is not a citizen, that isn’t the end of the story. The term “foreign national” means, for purposes of federal election law, something narrower than we might intuitively expect it to mean. The FEC website puts it concisely:

although “[f]oreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S.,” permanent residents – a class that includes Sullivan – “are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute” (emphasis added). See 2 U.S.C. §§441e(a) and (b)(2)

(banning foreign nationals from “mak[ing] a contribution or donation[] in connection with a Federal, State, or local election,” emphasis added, but defining foreign national as above).

It is possible that the No on Eight ban on foreign national contributions isn’t a result of federal election law, but rather, was imposed by the campaign itself, or by California election law; if so, the term could have broader meaning in the context of Prop. 8. Consider, however, that similar language warning against contributions by foreign nationals appears prominently on the donations page of national political entities (“e.g. the RNC: “Contributions from corporations and foreign nationals are prohibited”), federal candidates (e.g. Norm Coleman: “Donations by corporations, foreign nationals, and federal government contractors are prohibited”), and even state candidates (e.g. Mitch Daniels: “The committee may not accept contributions from foreign nationals”), from all parts of the country. I suspect that a more extensive search would find that such disclaimers are entirely typical and rooted in § 441e.

So, if Sullivan wants to avoid charges of not putting his money where his mouth is, he’s left to argue that he believed that he was unable to contribute. The obvious question to ask is whether he has contributed to other candidates, who will have had similar disclaimers.

Regards,
Simon