If you care to peer over your still-jerking knee, you would see that I was not making an assertion either way about whether American Indians are "foreign." I'm merely pointing out the flaw in their argument. State residents are subject to campaign finance laws, are they not? If the tribes were arguing that they're sovereign in the way states are, they would not be able to opt out of campaign laws anymore than you or I can. They are clearly arguing something else altogether.
Add to that an apparent major chip on the shoulder. No one here (that I read, anyhow) objected to Indians as American citizens (see his post #50). The objection appears to be no sense of fair play ("we are from a sovereign entity and we don't have to play by your voting rules though we can spend money outside your voting laws in an attempt to alter the outcome and there's nothing you can do about it").
Well, I happen to agree with you on that. There IS a flaw in their argument. I do, however, like to make sure people understand that we are NOT "foreign sovereigns", but we ARE American citizens.
On another thread, indians were compared to columbian drug cartels and Saudi Wahhabists, so maybe I overreacted. However, several people, as I mentioned, thought it would be good if american indians were denied the right to participate in any political campaigns, except tribal elections. I agree that we should be bound by the same laws as everyone else (one reason I choose to live off the rez - that, and I have constitutional rights out here) - but we SHOULD be equal, not denied rights. Does that make sense?
:0)