Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech October 28, 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 Portland Press Herald: Opinion: Maine voters need to insist on free speech By David Keating .....Voters face a critical decision that will significantly affect Mainers’ First Amendment right to free speech. We all have the right to speak about a political candidate without limit. But should the government restrict the political speech of two, three or hundreds of people when they join together to do the same? Question 1 on this November’s ballot addresses that issue, asking whether the government can set a limit on how much we can spend to speak if we do it together as a group. The proposal would set a $5,000 limit on contributions to political action committees (PACs) that make independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates, also sometimes called “super PACs.” ... A question akin to the one Maine voters will answer in November was at the heart of the landmark SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission case. There, the court wrestled with the issue of whether the government can limit contributions to groups that engage solely in independent political advocacy. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit answered with a resounding and unanimous “no.” In all, at least 30 federal appellate judges have ruled on the same question in many cases, and all have said “no.” As the president of the Institute for Free Speech and a plaintiff in that case, I have a unique perspective on this issue. New from the Institute for Free Speech Letter to New York City’s Campaign Finance Board on Proposed Rules .....On October 25, 2024, the Institute for Free Speech wrote a letter to the New York City Campaign Finance Board expressing concern for the proposed rules. Read a PDF of the letter here. Congress The Federalist: Lawmakers Demand Details Of Feds Snaking Censorship Through Private Companies By Joy Pullmann .....In the last 24, hours members of Congress sent two letters seeking information on different ways government employees commandeer private organizations to censor Americans’ speech online. On Thursday, Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., asked executives at Google, Instagram, Meta, Microsoft, Snapchat, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter) to disclose government demands for removing Americans’ speech from their platforms. On Friday, the House Oversight Committee sought additional records from NewsGuard, a federally funded company that works to eliminate readership and revenue for outlets that report information that contradicts Democrat narratives. The Courts Bloomberg Law: Charlottesville Rally Demonstrator Loses Speech Claim on Appeal By Mike Vilensky .....A “Unite the Right” protester failed to persuade the Fourth Circuit Wednesday that his constitutional rights were violated when police officers didn’t protect him from counter-protesters and ordered his dispersal. “Does the First Amendment obligate police officers to protect the constitutional rights of protesters amid violence? We’ve already suggested that the answer is no,” the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit said. “We say so explicitly today.” The ruling affirms a 2023 district court decision dismissing Warren Balogh’s complaint against then Charlottesville Police Chief Alfred Thomas and Virginia State Police Lieutenant Becky Crannis-Curl. Reuters: US labor board wrongly ordered Tesla's Musk to delete anti-union tweet, court rules By Nate Raymond .....A divided U.S. appeals court on Friday ruled that the National Labor Relations Board went too far by ordering Tesla CEO Elon Musk to delete a 2018 tweet stating employees of the electric vehicle maker would lose stock options if they unionized. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on a 9-8 vote threw out an NLRB order from 2021 that had concluded the tweet amounted to an unlawful threat after the court concluded the tweet amounted to free speech protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. "Deleting the speech of private citizens on topics of public concern is not a remedy traditionally countenanced by American law," the court held in an unsigned opinion joined by eight of the nine judges in the majority. Reason (Volokh Conspircy): Recent Political Candidate Is Public Figure for Libel Law Purposes By Eugene Volokh .....From Tallman v. Miller, decided [last week] by Judge Michael Simon (D. Or.): DOJ Washington Examiner: The DOJ’s continued assault on political participation By Trey Trainor .....In a brazen display of governmental overreach, the Department of Justice is once again attempting to criminalize political participation in America. The recent warning letter sent to Elon Musk’s America PAC is not just a bureaucratic formality; it’s an aggressive attack on the very fabric of our democratic process. The alarming truth is that the details of this letter weren’t leaked by Musk or his legal counsel — no, the DOJ itself made it public. This is a calculated move designed to intimidate and silence dissenting voices. In fact, the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the DOJ regarding the disclosure of the letter to America PAC. By broadcasting this letter, the DOJ not only undermines the rights of individuals and organizations to participate in the political process, but also sends a clear message that any political involvement may come under scrutiny. Online Speech Platforms Washington Post: The new dark money: How influencers get paid big bucks to court your vote By Cat Zakrzewski .....Political campaigns and their surrogates are pouring millions of dollars into social media influencers with scant regulatory oversight or public transparency, as they embrace a marketing tactic that has revolutionized the U.S. economy… Political groups that use other forms of advertising are required to disclose their affiliations — think of the politician who intones “I approve of this message” at the end of a TV spot. But freelance online creators are under no such obligation for political posts, even though federal regulations demand they say so when promoting a commercial product. “If an influencer is paid to endorse a brand of toothpaste, that has to be disclosed,” said Ellen L. Weintraub, one of three Democrats on the six-member Federal Election Commission. “We ought to have the same rules for influencers who want to endorse a candidate.” … Sean Cooksey, the FEC’s Republican chair, says regulating influencer speech is impractical and could result in burdensome agency micromanaging of political campaigns. “Political speech is entitled to a higher level of protection under the First Amendment than commercial speech,” he said in an interview. “I 100 percent reject the characterization that keeping pace with technology means regulating technology more.” Reuters: Missouri to probe Google over allegations of censoring conservative speech By Kanishka Singh ....Missouri's Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey said on Thursday he was launching an investigation into Google over allegations that it was censoring conservative speech… "I am launching an investigation into Google - the biggest search engine in America - for censoring conservative speech during the most consequential election in our nation’s history," Bailey said in a post on social media platform X. His post did not cite any example or evidence for his censorship claim. Candidates and Campaigns Politico: Why Kamala Harris and Donald Trump Don’t Need to Worry About Deepfakes By Sasha Issenberg .....Amid billions of dollars spent trying to move opinions using traditional methods, it’s unlikely a deepfake attack on Trump or Harris would swing the presidential election. But the situation is far different as one moves down the ballot, where voters’ views of candidates are likely to be more susceptible to new information, whether or not it’s true. That is especially perilous to candidates for offices like county treasurer, city council or state legislature where campaigns typically lack the tools to anticipate viral attacks and the experience to effectively react to them. For a candidate otherwise unfamiliar to voters, and with little ability to communicate with them through advertising or press coverage, that could be the difference between an unwelcome distraction and an existential threat. The States Detroit Free Press: Candidate for judge wanted opponent’s campaign ads and signs yanked: What happened By Bill Laytner .....In politics, there’s a big advantage to saying “reelect me.” And also to saying, “I’m an incumbent — so vote for me because I already know the job.” It’s such a big advantage that Michigan forbids saying “reelect me” and saying you’re an incumbent if you’re not. But just where should fair-election umpires draw the line in this strange situation? A veteran judge is running for the same job he already has. And yet, it's not the one in his own courtroom; it’s the open seat just down the hall, where another judge is retiring. Winning that other seat is the oddball quest of Oakland County Probate Judge Daniel A. O’Brien, as he seeks to skirt the state’s age limit for judges and add extra years to his career. Everyone agrees that O’Brien can’t call himself a judge on November's ballots, which incumbent judges do when running for reelection. But can he call himself “judge” on campaign signs? He does. And can he say he's a judge in his online ads? He does that, too. Can he remind voters that, even though he's running for an open seat as a non-incumbent, he’s already a probate judge with 16 years of experience? Boston Globe: He lobbies legislative leaders. His wife is one of their biggest donors. By Matt Stout and Samantha J. Gross .....Once viewed as a Massachusetts House speaker in waiting, Brian Dempsey joined Beacon Hill’s ranks of lobbyists in 2017, ultimately creating one of the state’s busiest firms. In short order, his wife, Julie Dempsey, embraced a new role, too: prolific political donor. After giving sparingly during her husband’s final 15 years as a lawmaker, Julie Dempsey has made more than $200,000 in political donations since Brian Dempsey began lobbying his former colleagues, regularly showering Beacon Hill leaders with maximum contributions, according to state campaign finance data. The largesse spotlights what experts call a gaping but entirely legal loophole in a 30-year-old campaign finance law. While lobbyists are capped at giving just $200 to candidates annually, other members of the public — their spouses included — can give up to five times that. And they often do. In fact, lobbyists’ spouses are among the most generous donors to the most powerful lawmakers on Beacon Hill, a Globe analysis found. Over the 19 months covering the state Legislature’s most recent formal legislative session, three of the top four contributors to the Legislature’s Democratic leaders — and five of the top 15 — are all married to a registered lobbyist. 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