The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech May 21, 2024 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]. In the News Washington Examiner: Brad Smith: What I would have told the Trump jury By Byron York .....Smith has been an outspoken opponent of what he views is the overapplication of campaign finance law. Specifically, as this newsletter noted a couple of weeks ago, Smith “has argued that there are all sorts of things a candidate can spend money on that are not legally classifiable as ‘for the purpose of influencing any election.'” Among those things would be the nondisclosure agreement Trump reached with Daniels. The problem for Trump is that Judge Juan Merchan does not want to hear from Smith. Early on, Merchan barred Smith from testifying about virtually anything that had anything to do with the Trump case. He barred Smith from testifying about the campaign finance laws at the heart of Bragg’s charges against Trump. He barred Smith from testifying about anything except general facts about the job of the FEC or the definition of some common campaign terms. In the end, the Trump team decided it was not worth calling Smith to testify under what amounted to a judicial gag order. So Smith left the courthouse without testifying on Monday. As he headed home, we had a phone conversation about what he would have told the jury had Merchan allowed it. Ed. note: See Smith's X threads about the trial here and here. Connecticut Inside Investigator: Supreme Court sides with Markley, Sampson in free speech case By Marc E. Fitch .....The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in favor of former state Senator Joe Markley, and Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, in a free speech case going back to the 2014 election when Markley and Sampson were cited and eventually fined for mentioning then Gov. Dannel Malloy in campaign mailers while receiving money through Connecticut’s Citizens Election Program (CEP). Under the rules of CEP, candidates receiving the funds voluntarily can only use the money to campaign against their direct opponent. The State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) eventually issued fines of $2,000 and $5,000 in 2018 against Markley and Sampson, who took the matter to Connecticut’s court system, which initially upheld the SEEC’s ruling. Sampson and Markley then took the case to the Appellate Court and finally the Connecticut Supreme Court, backed by the Institute of Free Speech, a public interest law firm with a mission “to end widespread abuses of government power.” New from the Institute for Free Speech Free Speech Rights of Publicly Funded Candidates Upheld by Connecticut Supreme Court .....A six-year court battle has produced a major victory for free speech in Connecticut. Today, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in favor of Joe Markley and Sen. Rob Sampson, two 2014 state legislative candidates represented by the Institute for Free Speech in their case against the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC). The court’s decision upholds the right of publicly funded candidates to freely discuss issues and policies without fear of reprisal if they mention or criticize a candidate in a race other than their own. DHS Washington Times: Former DHS disinfo chief says department can’t even agree on definition of disinformation By Stephen Dinan .....Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ pick for his disinformation chief said the department couldn’t even settle on a good definition of “disinformation.” Nina Jankowicz, who was director of the disinformation governance board for roughly three months before quitting in 2022 amid a firestorm of criticism, said in a newly released deposition to Congress that the department bungled the rollout of her job and then abandoned her when the going got tough. FCC Inside Radio: FCC Appears To Have Votes Needed For Foreign Disclosure Rules. .....It appears there are the three votes needed to approve a proposal at the Federal Communications Commission that will require stations to secure documentation when leasing airtime that a programmer does not have foreign government connections. The National Association of Broadcasters believes the proposed FCC expansion of the requirements would be particularly burdensome to political advertisers. NAB has been urging advertising be left out of the mix altogether, and it says the step in the other direction would violate the First Amendment as content-based restrictions. “The current proposed rule, especially if it covers political advertising, is a statutory and constitutional overreach,” says NAB Chief Legal Officer Rick Kaplan. In a letter to the Commission, he says the record in the proceeding has not justified any special rule for soliciting disclosures or certifications regarding whether foreign governmental entities are paying or furnishing leased programming. And Kaplan says that is even more true for campaign ads. “The Commission has certainly not justified extending the rule to any form of political advertisers,” Kaplan said. OSC Politico: Time to Close the Hatch Act’s Escape Hatch By Hampton Dellinger .....Since the Hatch Act was passed in 1939, government workers have faced strict limits on their political activity. And rightly so. Federal employees should be on the job for the public good, not partisan ends. Violators can be reprimanded, fined and even barred from federal service. While the Hatch Act is broad on paper, a loophole has emerged in practice: senior White House personnel (including assistants to the president and others deemed commissioned officers) aren’t being subjected to the law’s full enforcement. Today, that changes. I was recently nominated and confirmed to lead the Office of Special Counsel, the independent agency responsible for enforcing the Hatch Act for millions of federal workers. And after a careful review of past and present policies, I’m updating my agency’s enforcement approach to put an end to such differential treatment. The States AP News: Montana’s attorney general said he recruited token primary opponent to increase campaign fundraising By Amy Beth Hanson .....Montana’s attorney general told supporters he skirted the state’s campaign finance laws by inviting another Republican to run against him as a token candidate in next month’s primary so he could raise more money for the November general election, according to a recording from a fundraising event. “I do technically have a primary,” Attorney General Austin Knudsen said last week when asked at the event who was running against him. “However, he is a young man who I asked to run against me because our campaign laws are ridiculous.” … In the recording, Knudsen is heard saying that Logan Olson “filed to run against me simply because under our current campaign finance laws in Montana, it allows me to raise more money. So, he supports me and he’s going to vote for me.” Center Square California: California Senate passes bill that could threaten anonymity, free speech online By Kenneth Schrupp .....The California Senate passed a bill requiring social media age verification that experts warn threatens anonymity and free speech online for all Americans. SB 976 would ban social media notifications to minors during school hours and between 12:00 AM and 6:00 AM without parental consent, require chronological, not algorithmic social media feed presented to minors without parental consent, and only allow these features if a social media company has "reasonably determined" the user is not a minor. The bill empowers the California Attorney General to define what is considered “reasonable” by January 1, 2027, which has many concerned this would mean tying highly private information such as government identification to social media use. NJ Assembly GOP: McGuckin’s elections transparency bill upends controversial changes as recommended by commission By Margo Riser .....Following recommendations by the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, Assemblyman Greg McGuckin introduced a bill seeking to undo several provisions in a controversial law that many argued weakened the independent elections watchdog and permitted political corruption. The Elections Transparency Act, overhauling New Jersey’s campaign finance rules, was passed last year along party lines. The law gutted protections that combated corruption, exposed loopholes in pay-to-play regulations, constrained ELEC’s ability to investigate violations, and increased donation limits to candidates and committees run by party bosses… McGuckin’s bill (A4431) enacts three recommendations made by ELEC in its annual report to enhance reporting requirements, assist in violation investigations and increase transparency. 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 political rights to free speech, press, assembly, and petition guaranteed by the First Amendment. Please support the Institute's mission by clicking here. For further information, visit www.ifs.org. Follow the Institute for Free Speech The Institute for Free Speech | 1150 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 801 | Washington, DC 20036 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice