June 24, 2024

The Courts

Washington Post: TikTok slams U.S. in challenge to possible ban: Punishment ‘was the point’

By Drew Harwell

.....The Biden administration’s new law forcing the sale or ban of TikTok is the unconstitutional result of “political demagoguery” and should be overturned, TikTok attorneys said in a court brief Thursday marking the start of one of the most consequential legal battles in American internet history.

Free Expression

Boston Globe: Will a government warning label really make social media safer?

By Jeff Jacoby

.....Legal scholar Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA Law School who specializes in the First Amendment, emphasized in an email that the Supreme Court frowns on mandatory disclosures or warnings that may impede fully protected speech. He pointed to a 1988 case in which the justices struck down a requirement that charitable fundraisers disclose to potential donors “the percentage of charitable contributions collected during the previous 12 months that were actually turned over to charity.” Donors might well benefit from knowing that information. But since fundraising appeals are incontestably free speech, the government cannot compel charities to announce that information before every appeal. Otherwise, it would be interfering with the charity’s right to freely express itself in its own way — something the First Amendment does not allow.

In Volokh’s view, social media platforms are similarly protected. The very purpose of those applications is to facilitate speech and expression. He predicts that a law forcing them to warn users about the potential dangers of such speech — perhaps by requiring a pop-up that materializes every time an app is opened, or a permanent banner at the top of a web page — would be struck down as unconstitutional.

Archive.today link

Chicago Tribune: Eli J. Finkel: The failings of the Chicago Principles when it comes to free speech

By Eli J. Finkel

.....The Chicago Principles have been enthusiastically endorsed by FIRE and adopted by more than 100 academic institutions. They dominate the prevailing orthodoxy among campus free-speech advocates, drawing criticism primarily from those who believe that the principles permit too much speech and more must be done to curtail offensive speech.

But what if the core problem with the Chicago Principles is not that they permit too much speech, but that they foster too little? In their laser focus on protecting the rights of the person holding the microphone, the principles fail to protect the public sphere as a communal resource. They insufficiently appreciate that, independent of the substance of public speech, the style of that speech affects others’ willingness to enter the fray. 

Independent Groups

Washington Post: Pro-Ted Cruz group draws scrutiny for receiving money from his podcast’s company

By Patrick Svitek

.....A super PAC supporting Sen. Ted Cruz’s reelection campaign has received nearly $800,000 in receipts from the company that distributes the Texas Republican’s podcast, an arrangement that is attracting scrutiny from campaign finance experts and Democrats.

Candidates and Campaigns

Election Law Blog: How Much Does the Hunt for Small Donors Contribute to the Extremism of Our Political Culture?

By Richard Pildes

.....This Washington Post story is full of examples of how extreme rhetoric turns on the spigot of small donations. This isn’t surprising; as I’ve noted, in the days of direct mail, consultants also understood that extreme rhetoric was a key to unlocking donations (Richard Vigurie, the architect of direct mail fundraising, told Jimmy Carter it would never work for him because he was too moderate).

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: AI experimentation is high risk, high reward for low-profile political campaigns

By Ali Swenson, Dan Merica, and Garance Burke

.....“One hundred percent the deepfake ad affected our campaign because we were a down-ballot, less resourced place,” said Mr. Perkins, a Democrat. “You had to pick and choose where you put your efforts.”

While such attacks are staples of the rough-and-tumble of political campaigning, the ad targeting Mr. Perkins was notable: It's believed to be one of the first examples of an AI deepfake deployed in a political race in the U.S. It also foreshadowed a dilemma facing candidates in scores of state and local races this year as generative AI has become more widespread and easier to use.

Donor Privacy

People United for Privacy: Bombshell Report: Father Supports Son

.....In 2022, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed then-Rep. Peter Meijer in the Republican primary for Michigan’s 3rd Congressional District. A week later, Rep. Meijer’s billionaire father, Hank Meijer – a member of the U.S. Chamber through his company – donated $800,000 to the group now supporting his son’s candidacy. A few days after that, the Chamber spent $381,000 on an ad praising Rep. Meijer’s record on a range of public policy issues.

These facts form the basis of a recent article in The Hill lamenting that Meijer was able to make his donation privately. The Chamber, a 501(c)(6) trade association, is not required to publicly disclose the identities of its individual members and donors. Nor was the group required to disclose the donors who funded that particular ad, which did not ask voters to support Rep. Meijer in the upcoming election. Instead, the donation came to light only through emails “obtained” by The Hill.

The June 11 article, stretching nearly 2,500 words and written by a former staffer for a pro-disclosure organization, carefully arranges information from those emails to suggest the makings of a scandal.

The States

Courthouse News: North Carolina governor vetoes bill limiting face masks, loosening campaign finance rules

By Sydney Haulenbeek

.....North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper vetoed a controversial bill Friday that would have both imposed restrictions on mask-wearing and loosened campaign financing restrictions on the Republican party.

"This legislation creates a gaping loophole for secret, unlimited campaign money in the middle of an election year,” Cooper, a Democrat, said in a statement.

“While voters are kept in the dark, this scheme allows anonymous out-of-state billionaires to flood North Carolina with campaign contributions to rescue extreme right-wing candidates that Republicans now fear will lose. The legislation also removes protections and threatens criminal charges for people who want to protect their health by wearing a mask."

However, Republicans hold a supermajority in the General Assembly and have the numbers to override Cooper’s veto and pass the bill into law.

New York Times: Fake Signatures and ‘Good-Faith Letters’ Fuel a Lucrative Campaign Haul

By Jay Root and Bianca Pallaro

.....When an unheralded candidate for the State Assembly submitted a six-figure request for matching funds under New York’s new public campaign finance system, it came with glaring red flags.

Of nearly 300 contribution cards turned in by the candidate, Dao Yin, only nine had donors’ phone numbers or email addresses as required under the system’s guidelines.

The lack of compliance caused the state Public Campaign Finance Board to initially reject Mr. Yin’s request for most of the matching funds tied to cash contributions, records obtained by The New York Times show. But in April, the board threw Mr. Yin a lifeline, allowing him to submit copies of “good-faith letters,” documenting his supposed attempt to obtain the missing information from the donors.

The board soon sent him $162,800 in matching campaign funds, the eighth-highest amount awarded to a State Assembly candidate running this year. The board said no other state candidate has used the good-faith letters; neither Mr. Yin nor regulators provided any evidence that he had sent them to any of the donors in question.

Anchorage Daily News: Judge upholds fines levied against ranked choice opponents for campaign finance violations

By Iris Samuels

.....An Alaska judge on Friday largely upheld fines levied against groups seeking to repeal Alaska’s open primaries and ranked choice voting system.

The Alaska Public Offices Commission, a campaign finance watchdog, fined several groups seeking to repeal the voting system by ballot measure a total of more than $94,000 earlier this year for failing to adhere to the state’s disclosure requirements…

Mathias, the Ranked Choice Education Association and Alaskans for Honest Elections argued in their appeal that the reporting requirements violate free speech rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They also argued that a state prohibition on funneling contributions through an intermediary to conceal the identity of the contribution did not apply to a ballot initiative campaign. Mathias argued that his penalties should have been reduced.

In a ruling issued Friday, Anchorage Superior Court Judge Laura Hartz disagreed on all accounts, finding that the commission was largely correct in applying the fines.

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): No First Amendment Protection for "Shouting into a Bullhorn and Blaring the Bullhorn's Siren as Close as Three Feet from Government Employees …

By Eugene Volokh

.....From People v. Rolfe, decided Tuesday by the Appellate Court of Illinois, in an opinion by Justice James Knecht, joined by Justices Amy Lannerd and John Turner: