This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].
|
|
Supreme Court
By Eugene Volokh
.....This is the case I wrote about in March, and again last week, when I noted the amicus briefs from state attorneys general, from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and from two financial and business law scholars. I also noted last week that the New York state government defendants didn't file a response to the petition.
Today, the Supreme Court called for a response; this doesn't guarantee that the Court will agree to hear the case, but it does suggest some interest on the part of at least one Justice. It also gives an extra 30 days for any other people or groups to file amicus briefs in support of the petition: "An amicus curiae brief submitted in support of a petitioner … before the Court's consideration of a petition for a writ of certiorari" may be "filed within 30 days after … a response is called for by the Court." It will be interesting to see whether any other amicus briefs come in. And it will of course also be interesting to see what the state argues in opposing the petition, and whether there will be amicus briefs filed in support of the state.
[Ed. note: Read Barnaby Zall's recent post about NRA v. Vullo here.]
|
|
By Amy Howe
.....The Supreme Court on Monday morning agreed to weigh in on a question arising out of the widespread use of social media – specifically, whether public officials are acting as government officials, and therefore can violate the First Amendment, when they block people on their personal social media accounts that they use to communicate with the public. The announcement came as part of a list of orders released from the justices’ private conference last week...
|
|
Free Expression
By Ronald Collins and Ronnie Marmo
.....On Nov. 24, 1964, the Illinois Supreme Court did what no other state high court had ever done — it vindicated Lenny Bruce’s free speech right to perform provocative routines in comedy clubs. But the freewheeling comedian was not so lucky in New York; a state court thereafter convicted him of obscenity for his comedic bits. It was just one of such prosecutions, the others being in San Francisco and Los Angeles. The New York conviction stood since Bruce died before he could appeal.
Twenty years ago, however, New York Gov. George Pataki posthumously pardoned the outspoken comedian. “Freedom of speech is one of the greatest American liberties, and I hope this pardon serves as a reminder of the precious freedoms we are fighting to preserve.”
As First Amendment lawyer Robert Corn-Revere then put it in his petition seeking the New York pardon: “Today, comedy clubs are considered free speech zones, and the monologues that prompted New York to prosecute and convict Lenny Bruce would never be considered obscene.”
While that is true insofar as the law of free speech is concerned, today the culture of free speech is increasingly succumbing to censorship.
|
|
By Josh Blackman
.....A generation ago, nearly half of the lawyers in the United States were members of the American Bar Association. Today, that number is probably closer to 20%, if not lower. This decline is often attributed to an unwillingness of young attorneys to join civic organizations. Or perhaps lawyers no longer see tangible benefits from membership. Or maybe the dues are too high. All of these explanations ignore the elephant in the room—and I mean elephant in the figurative and political sense. The American Bar Association consistently skews to the political left. And this progressive mandate alienates conservative lawyers.
To be sure, claims of political bias against the ABA are not new. Personally, as a member, I have lodged such complaints. In recent years, however, these problems have manifested beyond complaints from the rank and file. There is a growing disconnect between the ABA and the states. There was a time when the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct were the gold standard. But ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) has proved to be a lightning rod of controversy. On its face, this rule was designed to eliminate bias in the legal profession. But many scholars (present company included) contended that it creates a speech code for attorneys.
|
|
Fundraising
By Suzanne Downing
.....Love him or hate him, O’Keefe is onto something: The ActBlue fundraising platform may scrape names from a single or several donations people make and then attribute other, continuous donations to them.
Although it’s painstaking work, you, too, can discover this odd donor pattern if you look through the FEC database. But the FEC apparently never saw anything untoward about obsessive-compulsive political donations by unemployed older Americans.
O’Keefe’s investigation was replicated by private investigator Kyle Corrigan of Brightline Investigations in Wisconsin. He interviewed a gentleman who had no clue he had been credited with 11,000 donations over seven years by ActBlue. He said he may have donated once a month, but that was it.
|
|
Candidates and Campaigns
By Grace Ashford and Nicholas Fandos
.....Now, as federal and local prosecutors examine the web of deceit Mr. Santos spun on his way to winning a closely contested House seat last November, they appear to be focused on a trail of financial dealings that suggests possible campaign finance violations or outright fraud. Campaign filings listed donations that exceeded the legal limit, hundreds of thousands of dollars in unexplained spending and a strange string of expenses for $199.99 — just pennies below the threshold beyond which receipts are required.
No one may be more central to that inquiry than Ms. Marks, who was, until now, an unheralded cog in New York politics, toiling in her converted garage on Long Island’s South Shore as a campaign bookkeeper to dozens of congressmen, judges and political action committees…
It will be up to investigators to determine whether Ms. Marks, 57, participated in any impropriety. But a review by The New York Times — including dozens of interviews and scrutiny of hundreds of pages of legal and campaign records — shows that even as her stature grew over two decades, Ms. Marks waded into ethically and legally murky territory.
|
|
The States
By Jesse Paul
.....An influential, conservative dark-money political group doesn’t have to reveal its donors and pay a $40,000 campaign finance fine levied by state elections officials stemming from the $4 million it spent on 2020 ballot initiatives, a Denver District Court judge ruled Friday.
Judge David H. Goldberg found that Unite for Colorado, which has since disbanded, didn’t violate a state law requiring political nonprofits to register as issue committees and reveal their funders when their spending on a ballot initiative is their “major purpose.” ...
Goldberg’s ruling resolves a lawsuit filed by Unite for Colorado against the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office, which issued the campaign finance sanctions.
|
|
By Grant Stringer
.....New proposals introduced in the state Senate last week would set strict limits to quell the exorbitant spending in Oregon elections — without the same loopholes included in other bills introduced by top Democrats this session.
Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, introduced two amendments to Senate Bill 500 mirroring 2024 ballot initiatives penned by Honest Elections Oregon and the League of Women Voters. Those groups seek stringent limits on political donations and transparency in political advertising. The amendments aren’t yet published on the Legislature website…
Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek pledged to cap political donations while on the campaign trail last year. House Speaker Dan Rayfield, D-Corvallis, has publicly urged action this year. Still, it remains unclear whether a bill to limit contributions will get over the finish line.
Kotek’s plan, House Bill 3455, would allow individuals, corporations, unions and other entities to donate up to $1,000 per primary or general election cycle to candidates for state offices, such as governor or labor commissioner, and up to $500 to candidates for the Legislature. Rayfield has introduced a separate proposal, House Bill 2003, that would limit contributions to $3,000 for a candidate for state office, $2,000 for a state Senate candidate and $1,500 for a state House candidate.
|
|
By Annie Martin
.....A Central Florida blogger and Proud Boys associate will have to produce a bevy of records, including evidence of any payment he received during the 2022 campaign from a number of top GOP operatives, including a consultant tied to the 2020 “ghost” candidate scandal, a judge ruled Friday.
Liz Cornell, a Republican who lost her August primary for a Lake County state House seat, is suing blogger Jacob Engels for libel after he published articles on his website accusing her of carrying on an extramarital affair and preying on an elderly client in her financial advising business.
As part of her suit, Cornell sought a bevy of records from Engels, including any records of payment he received since the start of 2022 from her primary opponent’s campaign and several political operatives, including Stafford Jones. Some of the claims Engels published last July and August on his blog, the Central Florida Post, were repeated in mailers sent by a committee operated by Jones, a Gainesville Republican consultant.
Engels fought the request, arguing that he is a journalist and therefore has a limited right, known as a journalist’s privilege, not to be forced to reveal information or confidential news sources in court. The demand for the records amounted to a “fishing expedition,” said Engels, whose attorney resigned from the case earlier this month.
The purpose of Cornell’s suit, Engels said, seemed to be “to intimidate me from writing about political campaigns or political situations in Central Florida and beyond.”
But Orange County Circuit Court Judge James Craner ruled on Friday that Engels had not presented evidence supporting his claim that he had a journalist’s privilege. He also said Cornell’s request was “fairly tailored to the questions raised” in Cornell’s suit.
|
|
By Chris Bragg
.....Before state budget negotiations conclude, lawmakers must decide whether to fund a program that would dramatically change how their re-election campaigns are financed.
When the new program begins, small donations to candidates for statewide office or the Legislature will be matched with taxpayer dollars...
But advocates for the program are concerned it could be defunded or delayed past 2024, particularly if state legislators fear it will hurt their re-election odds...
Some lawmakers are confused about the new program's rules. Primarily, they worry about whether an entity run out of the State Board of Elections will be able to handle administering them. And because the new law lowers donation limits for lawmakers, go-to sources of contributions, such as lobbyists and unions, will be able to give far less. Instead, veteran lawmakers unaccustomed to broadly soliciting contributions may well have to expand their networks...
Gov. Kathy Hochul has proposed including $14.5 million in the budget for the Public Campaign Finance Board, the new state entity overseeing the program, and a $25 million pool of money that would be an installment into the matching funds program. (The $25 million was far less than the $100 million requested by the new board.)...
Skeptics of the new elections program point to the fact that, because of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, outside groups may spend unlimited amounts supporting or opposing candidates. In 2022, Republican-aligned groups supporting Hochul’s opponent flooded the airwaves with ads.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|