March 1, 2024

New from the Institute for Free Speech

New “Free Speech Arguments” Podcast

.....The Institute for Free Speech is pleased to announce the debut of its new podcast, “Free Speech Arguments.” The “Free Speech Arguments” podcast curates oral arguments from important First Amendment free political speech cases from across the country. Each episode features audio of the arguments with timestamps that allow for convenient navigation.

The inaugural episode included two related free speech oral arguments from Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on February 26, 2024.

Stay up to date on wide-ranging speech cases by tuning in to “Free Speech Arguments”. Learn more about the podcast and find the latest episodes on our website: www.ifs.org/podcast. You can also find the show on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

The Courts

Portland Press Herald: Judge halts enforcement of new law banning foreign spending on elections

By Kelley Bouchard

.....A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Thursday blocking the March 1 enactment of a law Maine voters passed in November that bans foreign spending on state and local referendum campaigns.

Judge Nancy Torresen issued the injunction in U.S. District Court in Portland, responding to separate lawsuits that were filed in December by Maine’s two largest power companies and groups representing Maine media outlets...

“I find that a substantial number of the act’s applications are likely unconstitutional judged against the act’s plainly legitimate sweep,” Torresen wrote. “It is therefore likely facially invalid.”

NPR: Judge skeptical of lawsuit brought by Elon Musk's X over hate speech research

By Bobby Allyn

.....A federal judge in San Francisco appears poised to toss a lawsuit brought by Elon's Musk's X against a nonprofit that found the platform allowed hate speech to spread on the site once known as Twitter.

Last year, lawyers for X sued the Center for Countering Digital Hate, claiming the group improperly scraped X to prepare damning reports about the proliferation of hate speech on the site.

But in a hearing over Zoom on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer appeared highly skeptical of the case, devoting the majority of the proceeding to grilling Musk's lawyer over why the lawsuit was brought at all.

Jon Hawk, X's lawyer, said at core the suit is about honoring data security agreements to protect the platform's users.

Breyer was unconvinced.

"You put that in terms of safety, and I've got to tell you, I guess you can use that word, but I can't think of anything basically more antithetical to the First Amendment than this process of silencing people from publicly disseminated information once it's been published," Breyer said.

National Review: Watchdog Group Sues FEC for Failing to Charge Biden Campaign over Letter Casting Doubt on Hunter Biden Laptop

By James Lynch

.....America First Legal is suing the Federal Election Commission for declining to charge Joe Biden’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee over their coordination with the former intelligence officials who drafted an open letter casting doubt on the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s laptop archive.

AFL filed a complaint against the FEC Sunday in the U.S. District Court for D.C. for refusing to charge the Biden campaign and DNC for failing to report direct and indirect campaign contributions, and coordinated communications related to the letter written by 51 former intelligence officials in October 2020 likening the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story to Russian disinformation.

AP News: Judge holds veteran journalist Catherine Herridge in civil contempt for refusing to divulge source

By Alanna Durkin Richer and Eric Tucker

.....A federal judge held veteran investigative reporter Catherine Herridge in civil contempt on Thursday for refusing to divulge her source for a series of Fox News stories about a Chinese American scientist who was investigated by the FBI but never charged.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington imposed a fine of $800 per day until Herridge reveals her source, but the fine will not go into effect immediately to give her time to appeal.

Cooper wrote that he “recognizes the paramount importance of a free press in our society” and the critical role of confidential sources in investigative journalism. But the judge said the court “also has its own role to play in upholding the law and safeguarding judicial authority.”

Candidates and Campaigns

The Atlantic: A Wild and Dangerous 2024 Experiment

By John Hendrickson

.....The group insists that it is merely a 501(c)(4) social-welfare organization and not, as one might assume, a nascent political party. But not everyone at No Labels is on message. At the private briefing this month, one team member shared their screen with a chart boasting that 110,000 people were “No Labels Party Members.” When I asked about that specific word—party—which contradicts the organization’s central argument, Clancy, the chief strategist, said, “To the extent that this is convoluted, we can blame our campaign-finance laws.” A day later, a No Labels representative emailed me a lengthy statement explaining the difference between what a political party does and what No Labels is doing. I can’t say I was able to discern a clear distinction.

Archive.today link

Politico: Tammy Murphy does a 180 on dark money now that she’s running for Senate

By Matt Friedman

.....Tammy Murphy has been talking like a campaign finance reformer, calling the amount of money in politics “disgusting.”

But as New Jersey’s first lady, Murphy spent a year and a half leading a dark-money group without disclosing donors. Now she has a super PAC supporting her bid to replace Bob Menendez in the U.S. Senate.

Like many other Democrats, Murphy is taking a familiar position — working within a system that she says she wants to dismantle.

“The amount of money in politics is really disgusting. I will be the first to say that. We need to overturn Citizens United. I can’t say it any more clearly than that,” Murphy said during a debate with her main Democratic primary opponent, Rep. Andy Kim , last week…

But Murphy’s public position overlooks the participation of her and her allies in the campaign finance system she now opposes, drawing accusations of hypocrisy.

Early Returns - Law and Politics with Jan Baran: Deciphering Election 2024 with Charlie Cook

.....Charlie Cook, respected political analyst who has observed and analyzed U.S. politics for over 40 years, joins Jan to discuss this year’s unconventional election. They discuss this year’s presidential campaigns, historic and newer polling tactics, the swing state effect, and how independents think about their vote.  

The States

Kentucky Lantern: Thayer seeks to end Kentucky’s limits on political giving, require more frequent reporting instead

By McKenna Horsley

.....Senate Republican Floor Leader Damon Thayer is seeking to eliminate state limits on donations to political campaigns and committees while increasing the frequency of campaign finance reports to every two weeks. 

Thayer, of Georgetown, told the Kentucky Lantern after filing Senate Bill 100 that he is “making a few statements on my way out the door.” The floor leader announced before the 2024 session that he will not seek reelection to his seat in November. 

Thayer filed the bill Wednesday, just ahead of the deadline for introducing new legislation in the Senate.

“I don’t think there should be any contribution limits,” Thayer said. “The Citizens United case ruled that money is speech, and while we have contribution limits, we’re limiting speech.” 

MLive: New bills would block campaign money from Michigan’s power utilities

By Sheri McWhirter 

.....A first-term state representative wants to put an end to big money influence from Michigan’s utilities on decision makers in Lansing.

Michigan Rep. Dylan Wegela, D-Garden City, last week introduced a pair of bills that together would block state-regulated energy utility companies from making donations to political nonprofits or political action committees. He argued companies like DTE Energy and Consumers Energy should invest in upgrading the power grid, trimming trees, burying power lines and such, rather than “trying to buy influence with politicians.”

People United for Privacy: Another Victory for Privacy and Nonprofit Advocacy in Virginia

By Alex Baiocco

.....In yet another victory for nonprofit advocacy and personal privacy rights in Virginia, convoluted legislation aimed at exposing nonprofit organizations’ members and supporters has once again suffered defeat in the General Assembly.

Bills that would undermine free speech and privacy have become an annual tradition in Richmond. Fortunately, such proposals have been unsuccessful, and this year, bipartisan opposition doomed the threat to nonprofits and their supporters.

Two bills introduced this legislative session, Senate Bill 78 and House Bill 276, would have forced nonprofits to either avoid communicating with the public about policy issues or enable their ideological opponents to target their members and supporters. Nearly identical legislation was introduced and defeated in 2022 and 2023.

Under S.B. 78 and H.B. 276, issue advocacy that merely refers to a candidate in the lead-up to an election would have required a disclaimer identifying the organization’s top three donors. Many sitting lawmakers are also candidates, and nonprofits commonly communicate about elected officials’ positions on policy issues central to their missions. Such top-funder disclaimer requirements for so-called “electioneering communications” are intentionally designed to apply to speech that does not urge voters to vote for or against candidates.

Arizona Capitol Times: Criminalizing deepfakes will censor political speech

By Peter Clark

.....The legislature’s recent bill SB1336 makes it a felony to distribute “deep fake recordings and images without consent.”This could be the end of AI-generated political commentary. Political speech shapes public debate and is a safeguard against tyranny. As written, SB1336 interferes with visual and audio political expression. 

The broad language of SB1336 is ripe for Constitutional scrutiny. The bill defines deepfakes as recordings and images of a person “engaging in speech or conduct the individual did not engage in.” No stipulation exists for augmented media that addresses political commentary. 

 We shouldn’t criminalize AI-generated media because misinformation is protected speech, deepfakes have legitimate uses, and labeling requirements are a better alternative.