October 11, 2023

In the News

People United for Privacy: PUFPF Joins Amicus Brief in IRS Donor Roll Case

By Brian Hawkins

.....Last December, the Institute for Free Speech (IFS) sued the IRS on behalf of The Buckeye Institute, a state think tank based in Ohio. In the lawsuit, Buckeye v. IRS, IFS alleges the IRS is violating Buckeye’s First Amendment associational rights by mandating annual disclosure of its supporters and other contributors to nonprofit charities on the agency’s Schedule B form. Schedule B to Form 990 is an IRS document that Section 501(c)(3) charities must file that lists an organization’s significant donors. In an amicus brief organized by Advancing American Freedom Foundation (AAF), People United for Privacy Foundation (PUFPF) joined 70 nonprofit organizations in urging a U.S. district court to hear the case.

Supreme Court

Reason: Holding Protest Leaders Liable for Others' Violence Threatens First Amendment Rights

By Jacob Sullum

.....During a 2016 Black Lives Matter (BLM) protest in Baton Rouge, someone picked up a rock or a piece of concrete and hurled it at police, striking an officer in the head. Although the assailant was never identified, we know it was not BLM leader DeRay Mckesson, who nevertheless faces a lawsuit that blames him for creating the circumstances that led to the officer's injuries.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit allowed that lawsuit to proceed, rejecting Mckesson's claim that it was inconsistent with the First Amendment. Mckesson, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, is now asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, and he makes a compelling case that such litigation threatens the protest rights of Americans across the political spectrum.

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Justice Thomas Again Speaks Out—But Alone—Against New York Times v. Sullivan Libel Standard

By Eugene Volokh

.....From this morning's opinion concurring in the Court's refusal to hear the case Blankenship v. NBCUniversal, LLC (for more on the underlying dispute, which involved then-Senate-candidate Don Blankenship suing outlets for calling him a felon when he had been convicted only of a serious misdemeanor, see here):

The Courts

KTBS: Bossier City officials sued for First Amendment violations, more

.....Shouting down a commenter in a public meeting, holding secret meetings to suppress public comment, and threatening employees with FBI investigations are some of the reasons a retired law enforcement officer and U.S. Army combat veteran sued Bossier City officials in federal court today.

Weston “Wes” Merriott, who lives in Bossier Parish and writes about local issues online at sobo.live, filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, to prevent any" further assaults on the public’s constitutional right to free speech," Merriott said in a news release.

New York Times: Santos Faces New Charges Accusing Him of Lies and Credit Card Fraud

By Michael Gold and Grace Ashford

.....Federal prosecutors on Tuesday filed a significant array of additional charges against Representative George Santos of New York, accusing him of new criminal schemes, including stealing the identities and credit card details of donors to his campaign.

The new accusations were made in a 23-count superseding indictment that laid out how Mr. Santos had charged his donors’ credit cards “repeatedly, without their authorization,” distributing the money to his and other candidates’ campaigns and to his own bank account.

Free Expression

Fox News: Conservatives disturbed by Clinton's call for 'deprogramming' Trump supporters: 'Pure authoritarianism'

By Gabriel Hays 

.....Conservatives recoiled Friday at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent suggestion that there should be a "formal deprogramming" of supporters of former President Donald Trump.

After Clinton uttered the claim in a Thursday interview with CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour, prominent conservatives and multiple GOP lawmakers ripped the high-profile Democrat.

Online Speech Platforms

Washington Post (Technology 202): A fake Biden video shows the limits of Meta's deepfake policies

By Cristiano Lima

.....Meta’s oversight board announced Tuesday that it will review whether the social media giant erred by leaving up an altered video baselessly suggesting President Biden is a “pedophile,” marking the first time the panel will directly take up doctored media.

The case is poised to explore a controversial gap in Meta’s policies: While the platform bans videos that have been altered by artificial intelligence to show someone saying “words that they did not say,” these rules do not apply to simpler fakes made with basic tech.

The review could have ripple effects on Meta’s policies around fake or distorted clips during the 2024 elections, an issue officials are increasingly raising as a concern.

Candidates and Campaigns

Politico (Influence): Watchdogs want more details about 2024 candidates’ bundlers

By Caitlin Oprysko 

.....More than a dozen campaign finance and government watchdog groups are calling for greater transparency from almost every major presidential candidate about their campaigns’ biggest fundraisers.

In a letter being sent to 15 campaigns this afternoon ahead of third quarter disclosure reports, the watchdog groups, which span the political spectrum, call on the candidates “to regularly and meaningfully release information about” their campaign bundlers during the 2024 election.

Election Law Blog: ELB Book Corner: Michael Kang: “Why Campaign Money Matters”

By Michael Kang

.....Yesterday, I explained the consistent empirical relationship between campaign contributions to elected state supreme court justices and decisions by those justices in favor of their contributors’ interests. 

But why do judges predictably favor their contributors’ interests, controlling for other important things? It might be simply that judges are skewed by gratitude or obligation for the campaign money they’ve received, an intuitive story of campaign finance influence that we might call a biasing story. Alternatively, though, money might just align with judicial decisions as a result of a natural matching of campaign money with judicial candidates already predisposed toward their donors’ preferences. Wealthy donors simply may have picked well in choosing whom to support in the first place, what we can call a selection story.

The States

New Jersey Monitor: New Jersey Supreme Court weighs free-speech claims in witness tampering case

By Dana DiFilippo

.....In April 2019, William Hill mailed off a letter that seemed innocuous enough, assuring its recipient that he places his faith in God and complimenting her with a playful “you go, girl!” beside a smiley face.

But Hill at the time was accused of a violent carjacking, and the woman he wrote to was the victim.

Now the New Jersey Supreme Court must decide if the missive was constitutionally protected free speech, as Hill’s attorneys insist, or witness tampering, as prosecutors charged.