This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].  
ICYMI
 
By Barnaby Zall
.....What would you do if a powerful government regulator “suggested” you drop one of your customers because she didn’t like the customer’s political speech? What if she pointed out that lots of your “responsible” competitors had cut off that customer already, and that she had just levied millions of dollars in fines against three competitors who failed to follow her “advice?”
And what if you were that disliked customer, a well-known and controversial advocacy group? Can a government official choke off your access to banks and insurance companies because she didn’t like your politics? Does punishing regulated companies because they do business with the government’s political foes violate the First Amendment? The Supreme Court has just been asked that question, and the question is important enough that 18 states just urged the Court to consider it, citing “troubling allegations of governmental abuse of power.”
Supreme Court

By Robert Barnes
.....Of the thousand unwelcome comments a stalker sent to the object of his obsession, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. opined Wednesday that the most threatening one was “You’re not being good for human relations. Die. Don’t need you.”
But seeing it in the “cold print” of a Facebook message, how could the recipient know what that meant? Roberts wondered.
“You can convey that message in a hostile way, or in a way that’s sort of like, you know, ‘you’re dead to me’ kind of thing,” Roberts said.
And so it went for nearly two hours as the Supreme Court picked at a Colorado law used to convict Billy Raymond Counterman of stalking and causing “emotional distress” for Coles Whalen, a singer-songwriter he had never met. Counterman, who had previously been convicted of making threats to others, served four years in prison in the Whalen case.
The Courts

By John Berlau and Stone Washington
.....The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal bureaucracy with a vast jurisdiction, is testing a novel approach to crime and punishment. In a lawsuit against Townstone Financial, a small Chicago-area nonbank mortgage firm, the CFPB is signaling that it may attempt to punish anyone who complains about neighborhood crime.
.....On Tuesday, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in Missouri v. Biden, calling on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to stop the Biden Administration from “jawboning” social media companies to censor viewpoints the government does not agree with. 
By David Enrich
.....The last-minute settlement of Dominion Voting Systems’ lawsuit against Fox News defused a high-stakes test of the First Amendment protections afforded to the media. But more challenges are likely on the horizon.
Congress
 
By Gabe Kaminsky
.....Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) is demanding answers from one of the leaders of the Global Disinformation Index, a British entity blacklisting conservative media outlets, after the Washington Examiner revealed that its two affiliated U.S. nonprofit groups are hiding key information about their operations from the public.
The private AN Foundation, also known as the Disinformation Index Foundation, and its affiliated public charity, Disinformation Index Inc., cited an obscure federal exemption law on "harassment" as part of its decision to provide the Washington Examiner with copies of its 2021 tax forms that omit officers, board members, and the source of a donation. Buck, who in March pressed the State Department over its grants to the conservative blacklist network, is calling on GDI co-founder and CEO Clare Melford to release a "complete and unredacted list of donors" for both American entities.
"News reports allege that in IRS tax filings, both the Disinformation Index Foundation and the public charity Disinformation Index Inc., redacted the names of their biggest donors, hiding their main sources of funding from public view," Buck wrote in a letter on Tuesday to Melford.
FEC
 
.....At its open meeting today, the Federal Election Commission approved an advisory opinion and a new Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Justice. The Commission also approved a motion instructing the Press Office to decline to confirm or deny the agency’s receipt of complaints.
.....I would like to take a few minutes to outline for my colleagues and the American people what a dark day I believe this to be for our Republic. Not since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1789 has there been a more grievous affront to the First Amendment than what we have before us today. This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is harmful to the free, public discourse of ideas, and the transparency mission of this agency, in four significant ways. First, there is no statutory authority for this agency to enter into such an information sharing agreement with another executive branch agency. Second, this MOU will significantly, and I believe irreparably, harm the level of candor between the entities that are regulated by the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) and this agency. Third, I believe there are significant Constitutional concerns that are implicated in this type of MOU. Finally, as a matter of policy, this MOU is just another example of the recent move to criminalize the participation of the American people in the necessary open exchange of ideas which is the foundation of our political system.
SEC
 
By Kevin Stocklin
.....The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sided with conservative investors this week in their request to investigate what they say is PayPal’s systemic political and religious discrimination against customers.
Over the objections of PayPal’s management, the agency allowed a proposal by the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) to go to a shareholder vote at the company’s next annual meeting. This decision follows a similar decision on March 29, in which the SEC green-lighted a proposal regarding alleged political and religious discrimination at JPMorgan Chase, the United States’ largest bank.
Online Speech Platforms

By Robby Soave
.....Who's that sliding into your Twitter DMs? Is it the federal government? Well, according to Elon Musk, who took over the social media platform last year, government bureaucrats were routinely taking a close look at users' content.
The States
 
By Sam Spangler
.....Hawaii’s political system could undergo significant reform as a bill providing public money to finance election campaigns for political candidates has successfully passed both the State House and Senate.
This initiative is designed to eliminate the need for special interest money, which has been linked to corruption in the State.
Read an article you think we would be interested in? Send it to Tiffany Donnelly at [email protected]. For email filters, the subject of this email will always begin with "Institute for Free Speech Media Update."  
The Institute for Free Speech is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that promotes and defends the First Amendment rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government. Please support the Institute's mission by clicking here. For further information, visit www.ifs.org 
Follow the Institute for Free Speech