Potential indictment of Assange and jurisdiction
<p>I was discussing this sealed indictment against Julian Assange with my wife and she was making the argument that this is not an attack against freedom of the press as granted by the Constitution.  She was making the case to me that because Assange has made public statements about his desire for Hillary Clinton to not be POTUS and the strategic release of documents with intent to harm her election, that Assange could potentially be indicted on the below:</p>
<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121</a></p>
<p>I get that the public release of these damaging documents could be argued as &quot;contributions&quot;, and that intent makes all the difference here. It seems rather clear that as worded Assange is in violation of this law.</p>
<p>The part where I am confused is how such a law could actually be valid against foreign nationals, especially foreign nationals that have never operated or even set foot in the United States. Does jurisdiction for such a law extend potentially to any action deemed harmful to a US election anywhere in the world?</p>
<p>If so then what would stop a country like Iran from passing a law stating that a foreign national depicting an image of the prophet Mohammed is illicit and harmful to the people of Iran? What would stop them from demanding extradition of any person in the world?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The part where I am confused is how such a law could actually be valid against foreign nationals</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It is valid against them because it explicitly applies to them.  In fact, it applies only to them: The title of the section in question is "Contributions and donations by foreign nationals," and the text of the section reflects that.</p>

<p>A campaign contribution must be received by the campaign organization to be a campaign contribution, so there is the source of US jurisdiction: A foreign person, even one who has never <a href="https://archives.cjr.org/language_corner/missed_step.php" rel="nofollow noreferrer">set foot in</a> the US, can nonetheless be subject to US jurisdiction because of an act whose effects are felt in the US, regardless of where in the world the act was initiated.</p>

<p>The restrictions on "electioneering communications" are implicitly concerned with communications inside US territory, but (even ignoring that) they concern only "broadcast, cable, or satellite" communications, which implies that only audio and video communications are in scope.  Publication of documents is not covered by this law.  So if Assange escapes liability under this law it is likely to be because his acts were not prohibited by it, not because of his citizenship or location </p>

us-constitution jurisdiction extradition indictment