July 31, 2024

In the News

The Hill: Legal or not, Harris is seizing Biden’s campaign cash

By Bradley A. Smith

.....President Biden’s sudden and unprecedented withdrawal with just a few months remaining in the 2024 presidential race raises a host of issues. One key question is how this unique scenario impacts Kamala Harris and the Democrats from a campaign finance perspective.

First, Democrats have already renamed the “Biden for President Committee” to the “Harris for President Committee.” Presumably, this “new” entity has already spent some money — meaning that Democrats are now committed to the proposition that Harris for President is entitled to the cash raised by Biden for President.

That course matters because of the legal background and related campaign finance rules. 

The College Fix: Court rules in favor of conservative professor blocked for ‘all men are created equal’ post

By Guzi He

.....A federal court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the University of Oregon’s Division of Equity and Inclusion from blocking a professor’s interactions with posts on its official X account.

The ruling states the public university cannot block conservative scholar Bruce Gilley’s interactions with its official X account — even his posts deemed “hateful,” “racist” or “otherwise offensive.”

“It will be interesting to see how much longer UO wants to use tax payer’s money to fight for the right to discriminate based on viewpoint,” Gilley’s attorney Del Kolde, a senior attorney at the nonprofit Institute for Free Speech, wrote on LinkedIn in response to the July 23 ruling. “They have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

The Courts

Jurist News: US appeals court finds Missouri law banning lobbying 2 years after office unconstitutional

By Matthew Farrell

.....On Monday, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found in Miller v. Ziegler that a Missouri law banning lobbying for two years after an official leaves elected office was unconstitutional.

The law in question, Article III, Section 2(a) of the Missouri Constitution, was enacted through a ballot initiative in 2018. It states that “no person serving as a member of or employed by the general assembly shall act or serve as a paid lobbyist … until the expiration of two calendar years” after the conclusion of their time in office.

The court struck the law down using the First Amendment. It first established that the ability to lobby qualifies as political speech since it involves the desire “‘to influence’ government policy”.  

FEC

Missouri Independent: Citizens United, GOP state parties file FEC complaint over Biden-Harris campaign funds

By Ariana Figueroa 

.....A conservative group and a group of Republican state parties Thursday filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission accusing Vice President Kamala Harris of improperly assuming control of Biden campaign funds after he withdrew from the race.

The complaint is asking the FEC’s six-person commission — split evenly between Democrats and Republicans — to “immediately initiate enforcement proceedings to prevent Harris from using her ill-gotten gains for her campaign in the little time remaining between now and the November general election.”

Free Expression

Wall Street Journal: Free Speech Includes the Right to Boycott Israel

By Daniel Shuchman

.....Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor affirmed an essential principle: “Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.” In National Rifle Association v. Vullo (2024), a New York state regulator had made extortion-like threats against banks and insurance companies to discourage them from doing business with the NRA. The court held “viewpoint discrimination is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.”

Yet laws in numerous states penalize viewpoints on another controversial issue. To do business with the state of Arkansas, you must certify that you don’t “engage in boycotts of Israel.” 

The States

People United for Privacy: New Hampshire Lawmakers Increasingly Focused on Stifling Nonprofit Advocacy

By Alex Baiocco

.....For two consecutive years, the New Hampshire General Court has been on a quixotic mission to impose additional burdens on nonprofits that wish to advocate on issues central to their missions.

In 2023, lawmakers passed H.B. 195, a bill to “reduce the threshold for Political Advocacy Organizations to disclose expenditures, from $5,000 to $2,500,” as Senator Rebecca Perkins Kwoka (D) wrote for the Committee on Election Law and Municipal Affairs, which unanimously approved the legislation. Governor Chris Sununu (R) signed the measure into law late last June.

Despite the name, political advocacy organizations are a state creation applicable to nonprofit organizations that communicate to lawmakers and the public about policy issues. H.B. 195 also changed the definition of “political advocacy organization” to permit more regulation of issue speech by nonprofits. According to the Senate Committee hearing report, the New Hampshire Center for Nonprofits was concerned that the expanded universe of speech that would trigger reporting requirements would “draw in organizations that provide report cards or other very appropriate, educational information about advocacy.” However, the Center’s testimony indicated that the law’s “current expenditure language” may alleviate some concerns.

Pensacola News Journal: Santa Rosa judge will let county commissioner's lawsuit against gun store owner continue

By Tom McLaughlin

.....Gulf Coast Gun and Outdoors owner Chris Smith will have to hold off on making his argument that using a cardboard likeness of Santa Rosa County Commission Chairman Sam Parker qualifies as protected political speech.

Circuit Court Judge J. Scott Duncan has rejected Smith's motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Parker that claims Smith illegally used his name, image and/or likeness to promote his business and sell merchandise.

In handing down his ruling, Duncan wrote that Florida law clearly states that "no person shall ... display or otherwise publicly use for any commercial or advertising purpose ... a photograph or other likeness of any natural person without the express written or oral consent for such use."