April 24, 2023

Click here to subscribe to the Daily Media Update.

This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].

Supreme Court

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Intervening to Stop "True Threats" from Delusional Stalkers and Devious Stalkers

By Paul Cassell

.....I just finished listening to the live feed of the Supreme Court oral argument in Counterman v. Colorado. The question presented is "whether the First Amendment precludes criminal conviction of a defendant who makes a communication that a reasonable person would understand as a threat of injury or death unless the prosecution has proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's subjective intent or knowledge that it would be taken as such a threat." Along with Allyson Ho and Brad Hubbard from Gibson Dunn, I filed an amicus brief in the case for the victim: singer-songwriter Coles Whalen. In the brief, we explained that a ruling for the defendant (Counterman) would make it very difficult for law enforcement to protect victims of delusional stalkers and devious stalkers. Both Colorado and the Solicitor General referred to our brief in their powerful presentations to the Court. I hope that the Court will consider the need for effective protection of stalking victims–and the lack of any originalist foundation for precluding such protection–and rule in Colorado's favor.

The Courts

Wall Street Journal: The Clinton-Trump Parallels

By Julian Epstein

.....There are surely differences between the Clinton case and the recent indictment of President Trump in New York. But there is one important similarity: In both, prosecutors pursued cases that they would have normally declined, but for who the two men are. That the Democrats, the supplicant pundit class, and left-leaning mainstream media aren’t more outraged by the corruption of the blind-justice principle is a bad omen for the nation.

The hopelessly conflicted prosecutor Alvin Bragg—who campaigned for office on a promise to go after Mr. Trump—built his case by bootstrapping relatively trivial bookkeeping misdemeanors to a dubious interpretation of federal campaign-finance laws.

Quite apart from this odd formulation involving a federal statute over which Mr. Bragg has no jurisdiction, there is nothing in underlying federal law defining hush money as a reportable campaign expenditure—and plenty of official guidance that it isn’t. Former chairmen and members of the Federal Election Commission have said publicly that hush money isn’t a campaign expense.

CNN: Closing arguments conclude in conspiracy trial against former Fugees member

By Holmes Lybrand

.....The case against former Fugees rapper Pras Michel, accused of playing a central role in a geopolitical conspiracy spanning two US presidencies, will be in the hands of the jury Monday morning.

In prosecutors’ closing arguments, which concluded late Thursday afternoon, they laid out their case of how Michel allegedly took more than $100 million from Malaysian billionaire Jho Low to gain political influence for Low in the Obama and Trump administrations. Defense attorneys argued Michel was simply helping people make connections and never willfully or deliberately broke the law.

Michel faces multiple counts, including conspiracy to serve as an unregistered agent of China and witness tampering. He has pleaded not guilty.

IRS

New York Times: I.R.S. Official Is Said to Assert Political Meddling in Hunter Biden Inquiry

By Michael S. Schmidt and Luke Broadwater

.....As Justice Department officials weigh whether to indict Hunter Biden, the investigator overseeing the Internal Revenue Service’s portion of the case has come forward with allegations of political favoritism in the inquiry that stand to add to the already fraught circumstances facing the department.

Congressional leaders learned of the investigator’s allegations on Wednesday when a lawyer sent them a letter asking for whistle-blower protections for his client. The letter stated that the unnamed client, identified as an “I.R.S. criminal supervisory special agent who has been overseeing” an ongoing and sensitive case, had knowledge of an array of misconduct including political meddling, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The New York Times...

In response, Hunter Biden’s criminal defense lawyer, Christopher Clark, fired back on Thursday, claiming that the I.R.S. supervisor broke the law by disclosing confidential taxpayer information and called on the Justice Department to investigate the supervisor. Mr. Clark said that the only way it was known that the supervisor’s complaints could be linked to the Hunter Biden investigation would be if the supervisor or his lawyer disclosed it, either of which, he said, would have been improper.

“It is a felony for an I.R.S. agent to improperly disclose information about an ongoing tax investigation,” said Mr. Clark, of the firm Clark Smith Villazor L.L.P.

“The I.R.S. has incredible power, and abusing that power by targeting, embarrassing or disclosing information about a private citizen’s tax matters undermines Americans’ faith in the federal government,” Mr. Clark continued. “Unfortunately, that is what has happened and is happening here in an attempt to harm my client. It appears this I.R.S. agent has committed a crime, and had denied my client protections that are his right.”

Fundraising

Meet the Press Blog: Presidential candidates use joint fundraising committees. So what are they?

By Bridget Bowman

.....[Joint fundraising committees] became an efficient way to capture those large donations, raising some concerns among those focused on campaign finance overhauls.

“If you are going to a fundraising event where you’re able to write a very large check, that is a way for you to attempt to garner access and influence that many ordinary Americans don’t have,” said Michael Beckel, research director at Issue One. “And with larger checks often comes increased possibilities and opportunities for access and influence in the political system.”

Michael Toner, a GOP campaign finance lawyer and former Federal Election Commission chairman, countered that this dynamic already exists with the opportunity to donate large sums to super PACs.

“The only difference is money is being divvied up by a JFC,” Toner said.

"The biggest misperception of these JFCs is somehow they’re allowing people to evade the contribution limits,” Toner later added. “What they’re really doing is enabling people to contribute more within the contribution limits.”

Washington Free Beacon: Dem Dark Money Kingpin Quietly Awards Grant to Liberal Group To Fight Dark Money in Politics

By Chuck Ross

.....A foreign billionaire who has emerged a major source of cash for the American left's biggest dark money groups is now using his network to fund Common Cause, a left-wing organization that says it will use the billionaire's money to reduce "the influence of money in politics," the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

Common Cause leads the progressive movement's push to rid American politics of dark money and foreign funding, aims that seem to put it at odds with its newest patron, Hansjörg Wyss, who has violated federal statutes against foreign donations. Wyss's money to Common Cause, given through his Berger Action Fund, was explicitly given to fund advocacy for the DISCLOSE Act, a proposal aimed at fighting dark money in politics. Common Cause also backs bills to curtail foreign funding of political activity.

Online Speech Platforms

New York Times: Twitter Removes ‘Government-Funded’ Labels From Media Accounts

By Michael Levenson

.....Twitter has removed labels that described prominent news organizations as “government-funded” or “state-affiliated” after NPR and public broadcasters in several countries criticized the labels as misleading and suspended the use of their Twitter accounts.

The States

Politico: He’s rich. He’s pugilistic. And he’s quietly paying to get Gavin Newsom’s attention.

By Christopher Cadelago

.....On the surface, it gives off the appearance of an organic movement of concerned citizens. A draft letter intended for Gov. Gavin Newsom demands that he do more to help lower the exorbitant cost of housing in California.

But the draft letter, which seeks support for a proposed ballot initiative to enact rent control on residential properties, hasn’t made its way through California circles by mere word of mouth. Michael Weinstein, a polarizing nonprofit honcho from Los Angeles, is paying roving pamphleteers $2 for every signature they get for it, according to copies of the nonprofit’s correspondence obtained by POLITICO and interviews with people familiar with the strategy...

It’s also opening a window into yet another way powerful individuals and groups can wield influence in the state, often without public scrutiny and far outside the Capitol.

Critics of Weinstein’s latest approach say it is pure “astroturf activism,” designed to look like he has a groundswell of support for his corresponding ballot initiative in an attempt to pressure Newsom to back it. And ethics experts contend Weinstein and AHF should be transparent about paying people to get signatures for the draft letter, which references by name the proposed new ballot initiative. California law on campaign advertising requires general or public communication that’s authorized and paid for by a committee to support a ballot measure to contain a “paid for by” disclaimer.

Bloomberg Law: Afroman Gets ACLU Assist After Ohio Cops Sue Over Music Videos

By Eric Heisig

.....The American Civil Liberties Union is going to bat for Afroman in a case where the “Because I Got High” musician is being sued for making music videos that poke fun at the sheriff’s deputies that raided his Ohio house.

The ACLU of Ohio Foundation states in an amicus brief filed Wednesday that the lawsuit is seeking to intimidate the singer and rapper because he exercised his First Amendment rights protected by anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP, laws. Joining calls from Afroman and his record label, the free-speech advocacy organization asked a judge to dismiss the suit.

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