January 8, 2024

Supreme Court

SCOTUSblog: Court schedules February argument session

By Amy Howe

.....A pair of challenges to controversial social media laws in Texas and Florida and a dispute over whether to freeze the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to reduce ozone levels across the United States headline the Supreme Court’s February 2024 argument calendar, which was released on Friday morning.

The justices will hear 10 hours of oral argument over five days, from Feb. 20 to Feb. 28.

By the time the justices hear arguments in the social media cases, NetChoice LLC v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice LLC, on Feb. 26, they will have been grappling with the issues presented in the dispute for nearly two years. At issue in both cases are laws – in Texas and in Florida – that would regulate how large social media companies like Facebook and X (formerly known as Twitter) control content posted on their sites. The two states enacted the laws in 2021 in response to beliefs that the companies were censoring their users, particularly those with conservative views, but the companies counter that the laws violate their First Amendment rights to control what speech appears on their platforms.

Kansas City Star: MO Attorney General: U.S. Supreme Court must protect First Amendment from the government

By Andrew Bailey

.....The vast censorship enterprise uncovered in Missouri v. Biden is highly disturbing. What’s worse is it’s not the only example. The Supreme Court has agreed to review yet another case involving government censorship against political opponents: NRA v. Vullo…

If the Supreme Court lets the Second Circuit’s decision stand, it will set a devastating anti-free speech precedent at a time when the First Amendment is under widespread attack. The Supreme Court should correct the Second Circuit’s egregious misstep and uphold our constitution.

Archive.today link

The Courts

Courthouse News: No Labels party asks federal judge to block candidates from using its name to run for office

By Joe Duhownik

.....The No Labels party of Arizona asked a federal judge Friday to bar political candidates from using the newly established party to run for state-level offices…

“The question is whether the secretary can force No Labels to run candidates it wants nothing to do with,” attorney Andrew Pappas told U.S. District Judge John Tuchi during the Friday morning hearing. “The answer is ‘no.’” …

“Forcing a minor party to compete in races it wants nothing to do with imposes a severe burden on associational rights,” Pappas said. 

Fontes argues that associational rights, protected by the First Amendment, are “not absolute.”

“Its First Amendment rights cannot be used as a sword to cut off the First Amendment rights of others,” Fontes said in his response to the party’s lawsuit. 

Cleveland Scene: Cleveland City Council Agrees to Court Order Prohibiting It From Enforcing Most Public Comment Rules

By Vince Grzegorek

.....Cleveland City Council will be prohibited from enforcing most of its original public comment policies under a temporary restraining order agreed upon today by the body and Chris Martin, who filed a federal lawsuit against council last month contending it violated his First Amendment rights by cutting of his microphone during a September meeting.

Free Expression

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Canadian Immigration Officials Block Citizenship Grant for Russian Immigrant Because She Was Convicted of the "Crime" of Speaking Out Against Russia's War of Aggression Against Ukraine

By Ilya Somin

.....Maria Kartasheva, a Russian migrant in Canada may be denied citizenship and potentially be deported because she was convicted of a "crime" back in Russia. What was her heinous offense? She wrote blog posts condemning Putin's invasion of Ukraine and war crimes committed by Russian troops there:

Congress

Times Leader: Cartwright re-introduces bill to make political activity more transparent

By Bill O'Boyle

.....U.S. Rep. Matt Cartwright, D-Moosic, this week reintroduced the Openness in Political Expenditures Now (OPEN) Act — legislation that would protect the integrity of U.S. elections by requiring corporations to be more transparent with their shareholders about political activities and prohibit organizations from abusing their tax-exempt status.

The OPEN Act would require corporations to disclose political spending in their regular reports to shareholders. This bill would also cap political spending by tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organizations — which currently do not have to disclose their donors — in order to prevent groups from using their tax-exempt status to funnel millions of dollars into U.S. elections at the taxpayer’s expense.

PACs

New York Times: After the Capitol Attack, Companies Pledged to Rethink Political Giving. Did They?

By Ephrat Livni and Sarah Kessler

.....Corporate political action committees still give millions to election objectors. Hundreds of business and trade association PACs contributed over $108 million to campaigns and committees linked to members of Congress who insisted that the election had been stolen from Trump, according an analysis of Federal Election Commission data from Jan. 6, 2021, through September by Open Secrets, a campaign finance research nonprofit. “Companies pledged to pull back, but we have not seen that play out,” Open Secrets’ investigations manager, Anna Massoglia, told DealBook.

The political watchdog Accountable.US found that overall donations from Fortune 500 companies and about 700 trade associations to election objectors in Congress decreased only about 10 percent — or around $3.7 million — in the 2022 election cycle compared with 2020. And more than 250 companies and industry groups increased donations to those lawmakers after they tried to undermine the election.

The corporate PAC numbers show what the companies are openly disclosing — so although they do not reveal the whole donation picture, they are meaningful, Massoglia said. “Companies also route funds through trade associations, super PACs and even dark money groups that can ultimately be used to benefit election deniers,” she said. Many companies also donate to state-level efforts.

Politico (Influence): Lobbyists set out to write an influence AI code of ethics

By Caitlin Oprysko

.....AI’s potential to disrupt virtually every industry means that the scramble to regulate it has turned into a gold rush for K Street. But in the latest signal that the political community itself hasn’t managed to escape the uncertainty over the technology, the National Institute for Lobbying & Ethics, a trade group for the government affairs industry, rolled out a new task force today focused on developing a code of ethics for the use of artificial intelligence in advocacy and PAC operations.

Candidates and Campaigns

Politico: Nikki Haley is testing the limits of big money in GOP presidential politics

By Natalie Allison

.....Major political financiers who have gotten behind Haley in recent weeks include billionaire investor Stanley Druckenmiller, Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone, metals mogul Andy Sabin and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, a Democratic megadonor. Citadel hedge fund founder Ken Griffin and Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, have also expressed interest in backing her campaign.

It’s a group of people who can buy anything. Except, perhaps, the Republican nomination for president.

“It’s like having the best bows and arrows in the age of gunpowder,” said Mike Madrid, a Republican strategist who was a co-founder of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project. “That doesn’t mean (big money) is not relevant. You can still do some damage with it. You’d rather have it than not, but it’s not going to win the battle anymore.”

Nonprofits

Washington Examiner: Media Matters ‘watchdog’ quietly reveals its Democratic megadonor funders

By Gabe Kaminsky

.....A liberal activist group that frames itself as a media “watchdog” appears to have unwittingly published the names of its top donors, documents show.

Independent Groups

New Jersey Globe: Independent expenditure group that backed phantom candidate tied to Roginsky partner (Updated)

By David Wildstein

.....The bank account for a shadowy political group that backed a conservative phantom candidate in a South Jersey Senate race, Jersey Freedom, was opened last year with a $50 check written by Christopher Bastardi, a New York public relations consultant whose business partner is veteran Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky, the New Jersey Globe has confirmed.

The New Jersey Attorney General’s office has already launched a criminal investigation into Jersey Freedom after allegations that the independent expenditure committee violated state campaign finance laws. The New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission has also opened a probe of the committee.

But Bastardi’s involvement with Jersey Freedom now points to possibly illegal coordination between an independent political committee he helped form and a campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives.