Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech January 9, 2025 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 Maine Policy Institute: New lawsuit challenges Question 1’s limits on PAC contributions .....As Maine Policy predicted months ago, a lawsuit has been filed against multiple government officials in Maine to enjoin Question 1 on the 2024 ballot, a proposal to restrict how much money individuals can contribute to political action committees (PACs). The Institute for Free Speech, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to defense and education surrounding constitutional rights, issued the lawsuit. Not only has a lawsuit been filed, but Maine has declined to enforce the policy until the lawsuit is completed, showing that even our government is uncertain about the legality of Question 1 as passed by voters. Topeka Capital-Journal: Federal court rules in favor of Kansas nonprofit, allowing anonymous donors By Jack Harvel .....A federal court sided with an Overland Park advocacy group that advocated for political candidates, allowing it to remain a local advocacy group rather than become a political action committee. Fresh Vision OP, a nonprofit that "educates voters and advocates for quality of life and tax issues" in Overland Park, promoted Faris Farassati for mayor of Overland Park. The Kansas Government Ethics Commission ordered the group to register as a PAC, which would require Fresh Vision to disclose its donors. New from the Institute for Free Speech Ohio Joins the Anti-SLAPP Movement: A Victory for Free Speech .....Today marks a historic moment for free speech in Ohio as Governor Mike DeWine signed Senate Bill 237, which enacts the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) into law. This landmark legislation makes Ohio the 35th state to have a law in place providing crucial protections against strategic lawsuits against public participation, commonly known as SLAPPs. Prior to the new law’s passage, the absence of anti-SLAPP protections in Ohio left its citizens vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits designed to silence public expression and criticism. These SLAPP suits, typically filed by wealthy individuals or organizations, have been weaponized to intimidate critics, forcing them into silence through the sheer burden of legal costs. The Institute for Free Speech’s 2023 Anti-SLAPP Report Card awarded the state an “F” grade for not having any statutory protections against this pernicious form of lawfare. Supreme Court New York Times: TikTok Case Before Supreme Court Pits National Security Against Free Speech By Adam Liptak .....When the Supreme Court hears arguments on Friday over whether protecting national security requires TikTok to be sold or closed, the justices will be working in the shadow of three First Amendment precedents, all influenced by the climate of their times and by how much the justices trusted the government. National Law Journal: J.D. Vance Campaign Finance Challenge Leads December Supreme Court Petition Roundup By Jimmy Hoover .....Ahead of his inauguration, Vance was listed last month—alongside the National Republican Senatorial Committee—as one of the petitioners challenging a federal law restricting so-called “coordinated party expenditures” at the Supreme Court. In the Federal Election Campaign Act, Congress set limits on the amount of money political parties could spend on campaign advertising while coordinating with a candidate. For presidential candidates in 2024, the limit was $32 million, according to the Federal Election Commission; for Senate candidates, up to $3.7 million; for the House, up to $123,600. Vance, who joined the challenge as a congressional candidate, and the other petitioners say the restrictions are nonsensical and unconstitutional. “Congress has built a wall of separation between party and candidate, forcing party committees to figure out how to get their candidates elected without hearing from them,” they told the Supreme Court in a petition filed by Jones Day’s Noel Francisco, a former U.S. solicitor general. The Supreme Court rejected an earlier challenge to those restrictions by a 5-4 vote in the 2001 case FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, with the court’s four most conservative justices in dissent. Below, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said the challengers’ arguments here were “fair,” but said they still lack authority to “override the Supreme Court’s decision.” Free Expression Wall Street Journal: America Gets a Taste of Glasnost By Vladimir Kontorovich and Eugene Kontorovich .....The exhilaration of seeing the forbidden truth about rulers’ abuses publicly revealed makes the present moment in the U.S. feel like 1988. Americans are reading that their president has been mentally impaired throughout his term. Only months ago his aides, as well as many in the media, proclaimed he was sharp as a tack. It turns out that Hunter Biden’s laptop was his, despite the claims by dozens of former intelligence functionaries. We can now openly discuss the campaign by the secret police to frame Donald Trump as a Russian agent. Candidates and Campaigns IndyStar: 'Honest Gabe' Whitley pleads guilty to fabricating campaign donations in congressional bid By Noe Padilla .....Former Indiana congressional candidate Gabriel Whitley, 27, pleaded guilty to lying to the Federal Election Commission by falsifying dozens of campaign contributions to inflate the amount of support his run enjoyed, according to a United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of Indiana press release... He fabricated the contributions while serving as the treasurer of his campaign, “Honest Gabe for Congress,” committee.  Online Speech Platforms Racket News: The New York Times Comments Section is Hilarious and Depraved By Matt Taibbi .....What kind of person is opposed in principle to less censorship? Readers of the New York Times, apparently! One of this site’s readers chuckled about the predictably mortified Times article (“Meta Says Fact-Checkers Were the Problem. Fact-Checkers Rule That False”) being filled with commenters “rending their garments over a prospect of an Internet full of propagandized idiots.” I looked and found a perfect cross-section of upper-class genitorture enthusiasts begging for harder, firmer content domination. The Washington Post headline was nearly as Onion-ish as the Times (“Meta ends fact-checking, drawing praise from Trump,” putting “free expression” in scare quotes in the sub-head), and its nearly 5000 comments were equally revealing. “User generated notes? The prisoners are now guarding the prison!” wrote one Post reader, who apparently sees the marketplace of ideas as a prison with insufficiently empowered jailers. The States Nola.com: St. Tammany Parish Council members plan to withdraw defamation ordinance By Willie Swett .....Noting concerns about First Amendment rights and potential enforcement problems, two St. Tammany Parish Council members say they plan to withdraw their proposed ordinance that would prohibit members of the public from making "defamatory comments" about other members of the public during council meetings. On Wednesday, council members Cheryl Tanner and Kathy Seiden said they plan to withdraw the proposed ordinance from the council's Thursday night meeting agenda. "I did not want to infringe on anyone's First Amendment rights and it's a slippery slope," Seiden said. IndyStar: Proposed Indiana bill would require parental consent to use social media By Hayleigh Colombo .....Indiana lawmakers are weighing a bill that would require parental consent before Hoosiers under age 16 can access social media. Senate Bill 11 would ban young people from social media websites unless their parents explicitly give them permission − and could open up social media companies to legal action if they don't enforce the rules. 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