November 4, 2024

In the News

Tennessee Conservative: First Amendment Rights Lawsuit Regarding School Board Meetings Goes Before Tennessee Appeals Panel

By Paula Gomes

.....A First Amendment Rights case went before a Tennessee appeals court panel earlier this week. The lawsuit was filed by nonprofit Moms for Liberty, a parental empowerment group, against the Wilson County School Board (WCSB) in 2023.

Institute for Free Speech (IFS) Attorney Brett Nolan argued on Tuesday that WCSB violates the constitutional rights of residents with rules for their meetings that effectively silence criticism. Moms for Liberty also say that the procedural rules require disclosures from residents before speaking to the board that are invasive.

“When a school board opens its meetings for public comment, the First Amendment guarantees parents the right to stand at the podium and criticize their local officials without fear of intimidation or censorship,” said Nolan. 

Ed. note: Listen to the full oral argument here.

Capital Research Center: InfluenceWatch Podcast #339: Election Innovations: Legal or Loopholes?

By Sarah Lee and Michael Watson

.....As political parties, candidates, and the increasingly relevant party-aligned but technically independent activist groups that have come to dominate the post-McCain-Feingold world work to draw Americans out to the polls, new innovations have raised the hackles of observers and left citizens asking, “Can they actually do that?” Joining us to make sense of some of the more prominent innovations is Brad Smith, former Chair of the Federal Election Commission, professor of law at Ohio’s Capital University, and chairman of the Institute for Free Speech.

The Courts

New York Times: Judge Allows Unusual G.O.P. Strategy to Pump Money Into Senate Races

By Luke Broadwater

.....A federal judge ruled on Friday that Senate Republicans may continue to pump tens of millions of dollars into key swing state races in the final days of the 2024 campaign by employing an unusual advertising strategy that Democrats had claimed was potentially illegal.

By reclassifying campaign ads as fund-raising appeals, Republicans have been able to avoid strict limits Congress has placed on spending by national party committees to aid individual candidates, helping to offset a significant fund-raising deficit they face in states with critical Senate races, such as Arizona and Pennsylvania.

House Democrats’ campaign arm sued the Federal Election Commission for failing to stop the Republicans and sought to either ban the practice or clear the way to use it themselves.

But Judge Randolph D. Moss, of the U.S. District Court in Washington, wrote Friday that he was “unpersuaded” to outlaw a practice that the commission had not. He said Democratic and Republican campaign committees — those that support Senate and House candidates — are “all on an even playing field” and the lack of action taken by the Federal Election Commission had not tilted it.

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Sixth Circuit Will Rehear En Banc Case Involving High School's Pronoun Policy

By Eugene Volokh

.....The order granting rehearing was just filed today, so the court will reconsider the case in the coming months. Here's an excerpt from the now-vacated panel majority opinion (Judge Jane Stranch, joined by Judge Stephanie Davis), which deals with school policies that "prohibit students from repeatedly and intentionally using non-preferred pronouns to refer to their classmates":

Bloomberg Law: Maryland Ad Tax Law Limits Speech, Chamber Tells Federal Court

By Perry Cooper

.....The “pass-through provision” of Maryland’s digital advertising tax violates companies’ free speech rights by regulating how they communicate with their customers on invoices, the US Chamber of Commerce and other groups told the Fourth Circuit.

The Chamber, along with tech trade groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, want the appeals court to throw out a trial court ruling that the provision has a “plainly legitimate sweep” that beats out any unconstitutional applications.

The provision is facially unconstitutional because it muzzles political speech by keeping consumers in the dark about the impact of the tax on their wallets, ...

Nonprofit Law Prof Blog: Does Memorial Hermann Threaten (c)(4) Campaign Intervention Limits

By Darryll K. Jones

.....The Fifth Circuit’s opinion this week in Memorial Hermann is giving me math brain cramps. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that Memorial Hermann "threatens" social welfare organizations that rely on dark money to engage in campaign intervention. I don't see how that can be true and its bothering me enough to blog about it. Here is a sample from the article:

FEC

The Federalist: FEC Complaint: Washington Post’s Paid Ads Boosting Harris And Criticizing Trump Violate Campaign Finance Rules

By Tristan Justice

.....The Trump campaign filed a complaint against The Washington Post with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in response to advertising efforts Republicans argue amount to illegal electioneering.

On Thursday, the Dhillon Law Group filed a complaint on behalf of former President Donald Trump and Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, that claims the Post is engaged in “a dark money corporate campaign” to boost Vice President Kamala Harris.

“The Washington Post recently announced it would not endorse a presidential candidate, a decision the Post’s owner defended on the basis that ‘Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election,’” the complaint reads. “Yet, on October 30, 2024, the news website Semafor published a report titled ‘Washington Post pays to boost stories critical of Trump as subscribers flee.’”

The Semafor article published Wednesday chronicled the paper’s desperate efforts to save readership after losing hundreds of thousands of subscribers in the aftermath of an announcement that the editorial board would not endorse Harris.

“Washington Post pays to boost stories critical of Trump as subscribers flee,” the headline read.

The Media

Racket News: Save Democracy From Informed Voters: Vote Censorship!

By Matt Taibbi and Paul D. Thacker

.....Nico Grant of the New York Times rode shotgun with Media Matters of America to shoot down 30 conservative broadcasters as unfit to appear on YouTube: …

Grant’s story garnered huge pre-buzz thanks to conservative targets pre-empting his “scoop” with colorful early responses. “I do hope… you’ll note that I told you to fuck off,” was the acid reply of Tucker Carlson, accused of participating in one of “286 videos containing election misinformation” reaching “more than 47 million views.” Ben Shapiro ripped Grant’s exposé as an “October surprise,” saying the purpose was to “pressure YouTube to demonetize and penalize any and all conservatives” a week from Election Day.

USA Today: NBC files FCC 'equal time' notice after Kamala Harris appears on 'SNL'

By Emily DeLetter

.....NBC has filed a notice with the Federal Communications Commission and will provide former President Donald Trump with "equal time" following a brief appearance by Vice President Kamala Harris on "Saturday Night Live."

Harris appeared on the sketch comedy show Saturday hosted by John Mulaney, in a skit offering advice in the mirror to comedian Maya Rudolph, who has played Harris in the leadup to the election.

Following her brief stint on the show, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr posted on X, formerly Twitter that it was a "clear and blatant effort to evade the FCC's Equal Time rule." Carr, a senior Republican on the commission who was appointed by Trump, went on in the post to suggest NBC should offer equal time to "other qualifying campaigns."

In the notice filed Sunday, NBC said Harris appeared "without charge" on "SNL" for 1 minute and 30 seconds. The broadcaster provided Trump airtime Sunday, CNN's Brian Stelter reported, giving the former president an opportunity to directly address viewers during the NASCAR 2024 Cup playoff race.

Candidates and Campaigns

National Review: Expect Further Erosion of the First Amendment if Kamala Wins

By George Leef

.....“Progressives” like Harris don’t think speech should be free. They believe it needs to be controlled by the state so that people don’t get any wrong ideas in their heads, such as that government does more harm than good.

Writing on Liberty Unyielding, Hans Bader surveys the prospects for free speech under a Harris administration. The picture is ugly.

The States

Maryland Matters: State orders halt to mailings that left voters ‘intimidated, shocked and ill-at-ease’

By Danielle J. Brown

.....The Maryland Attorney General’s Office sent a cease-and-desist letter Thursday to a national voter engagement organization that the state says is sending out mailers that “threaten to publicly expose” voting records of Marylanders just days out from the 2024 election.

The attorney general’s letter is in response to an unsolicited “Voting Report Card” being sent to people across the state by the Voter Participation Center, a nonprofit that claims it’s trying to drive more voters to the polls, specifically unmarried women, people of color and young voters. A sister organization, the Center for Voter Information, has also been sending out mailers.

The mailer that Marylanders have been receiving lists the voter’s name, address and voting records beginning with the 2016 general election. It also allegedly shows what it claims are voting records of neighbors, though names and addresses are censored.

The letter also states that the Voter Participation Center “will be reviewing these records after the election to determine whether or not you joined your neighbors in voting.”

The letter has led some voters to feel “intimidated, threatened, shocked, and ill-at-ease,” said the letter from Attorney General Anthony G. Brown. But more than that, he said, the letters could violate Maryland law.

New York Post: NJ woman rips off top, votes in bra after being told to ditch MAGA gear

By Deirdre Bardolf

.....A New Jersey woman tore off her top, swung it like a lasso in defiance and voted in her bra after being told she couldn’t wear a MAGA hat and Trump shirt at the polls…

Jersey’s electioneering law bans any political gear that can be “read or viewed to identify support or opposition of a candidate.”