January 23, 2025

In the News

Washington Examiner: Citizens United’s gift to free speech

By Bradley A. Smith

.....Tuesday marked 15 years since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The decision affirmed that people in the United States don’t lose their First Amendment right to speak about candidates merely by organizing into corporations or unions.

The ruling sparked intense controversy, with critics predicting it would corrupt U.S. democracy and allow corporate money to dominate our elections. These dire warnings have been proven wrong.

Far from enabling a corporate takeover of U.S. politics, the ruling enabled free speech. Since the ruling, publicly traded corporations have accounted for approximately 2% of political spending. The predicted flood of corporate dollars simply never materialized. Instead, we’ve seen a surge in small-dollar donations and grassroots engagement.

Just the News: Judge smacks down Florida school district for censoring parents after higher court told it to stop

By Greg Piper

.....A federal court ordered Florida's Brevard Public Schools on Tuesday to comply with an 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling last fall that found some restrictions on public comment at board meetings unconstitutional, rejecting its view that ongoing restrictions were based on policies the Atlanta-based appeals court did not fault.

U.S. District Judge Roy Dalton, nominated by President Obama, approved the temporary restraining order sought by Moms for Liberty's Brevard County chapter. He said a "school board’s hardship in needing to redraft part of its policy is greatly outweighed by the deprivation of free speech rights" to the chapter's members if the policy remains enforced.

"The school board's continued enforcement of policies that a federal court already ruled unconstitutional shows an alarming disregard for parents’ First Amendment rights," Institute for Free Speech senior attorney Brett Nolan, representing M4L Brevard and its members, said in a press release. "It’s unfortunate that today’s order was even necessary."

Reason: TikTok or Not, Americans Still Have a Right To Receive Communist Propaganda

By Daniel Schuchman

.....In our age, as in the 1960s, closed dictatorships such as China seal their citizens off from contact and information originating in the free world, and there is an understandable temptation to treat them reciprocally. The Chinese government and Chinese companies do not enjoy the benefits of free speech guaranteed by our Constitution. But American citizens still do, including the often forgotten right to hear and receive information, even from the most suspicious sources. In his seemingly reluctant and "admittedly tentative" concurring opinion in TikTok v. Garland, Justice Neil Gorsuch alluded to the principle and its history while acknowledging the unique technical and security challenges presented by TikTok: "Speaking with and in favor of a foreign adversary is one thing. Allowing a foreign adversary to spy on Americans is another."

Sunflower State Journal: Breaking: Ethics commission executive director departing

By Brad Cooper

.....Mark Skoglund is stepping down as the executive director of the Kansas ethics commission, following a turbulent three years in which he came under scrutiny as he carried out a wide-ranging investigation that focused on the Republican Party apparatus in Kansas…

Skoglund is leaving following three court cases that went against the ethics commission…

And a federal judge recently agreed to permanently stop Kansas ethics officials from applying the state’s definition of a political action committee to an Overland Park neighborhood group called Fresh Vision OP.

Ed. note: Read more about our recent victory in Fresh Vision OP, Inc. v. Skoglund here.

New from the Institute for Free Speech

Journalist Bryan Schott Sues over Denial of Legislative Press Credentials

.....A journalist with 25 years of experience covering Utah politics is fighting back after being denied press credentials under a newly revised policy that appears designed to silence independent reporting.

Today, Institute for Free Speech attorneys and local counsel Bobby Harrington of Kunzler Bean & Adamson, PC, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Bryan Schott and Utah Political Watch (UPW) against Utah legislative officials who denied Schott’s application for press credentials. The denial came after the Utah Legislature changed its credentialing rules in November 2024 to exclude “blogs, independent media outlets or freelance media,” a change made just weeks after Schott inquired about obtaining credentials for the 2025 session.

FEC

Early Returns - Law and Politics with Jan Baran: FEC Commissioner Trey Trainor – Understanding and Respecting the Federal Election Commission

.....In this episode, Jan Baran speaks with the Vice Chair of the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), Trey Trainor. Born and raised in Texas, Commissioner Trainor discusses his career, his route to the FEC, the tracking of campaign donors through technology, the future of the Commission, and its role with the Department of Justice in campaign finance investigations. Given that the FEC is responsible for administering and enforcing our federal campaign finance laws, they discuss the New York case against President Trump which alleged illegal hush money payments. Who decides whether there were any campaign finance violations? The Commissioner talks about his observations and the unusual role of the DOJ in the case against the president.

FCC

Inside Radio: FCC Revives Investigations Into Stations That Aired Programs Trump Has Criticized.

By Chip Somodevilla

.....In a test of how the new leadership at the Federal Communications Commission is going to approach broadcasters, the Media Bureau is reviving a trio of politically-charged reviews of a complaints filed alleging stations favored former Vice President Kamala Harris over President Donald Trump during the campaign. The complaints were dismissed last week before the new administration took office.

Media Bureau Acting Chief Erin Boone says the decisions were “issued prematurely” and were “based on an insufficient investigatory record” for each of the stations involved. “We therefore conclude that this complaint requires further consideration,” she wrote in a series of brief orders released Wednesday.

The three complaints were brought by conservative activists who critics say were attempting to punish television outlets for broadcasts that allegedly disadvantaged Trump’s 2024 campaign. They included a license challenge to WCBS-TV New York for airing a “60 Minutes” segment, WNBC-TV New York related to a “Saturday Night Live” appearance by Vice President Kamala Harris, and WPVI-TV Philadelphia following ABC’s Presidential debate.

Former FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel said she had ordered the Bureau to dismiss the cases “on behalf of the First Amendment” and as a way to “draw a bright line at a moment when clarity about government interference.” Trump has railed against the television broadcasters, and Rosenworcel said the FCC shouldn’t be used as the “the President’s speech police” or “censor-in-chief.”

Commissioner Anna Gomez, now in the Democrat minority, says the FCC cannot be allowed to have its licensing authority “weaponized” to limit freedom of the press.

Supreme Court

Reuters: Crisis pregnancy centers ask Supreme Court to revive suit against New Jersey

By Brendan Pierson

.....A New Jersey crisis pregnancy center operator has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to revive its federal lawsuit seeking to block the state's attorney general from investigating whether it deceived women into believing it offered abortions.

The petition filed on Tuesday, came after the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that First Choice Women's Resource Center must first fight Attorney General Matthew Platkin's subpoena in state court before bringing a federal lawsuit.

But First Choice, which has five locations in the state, argued that it had a right to bring its case in federal court because it was alleging a violation of its federal rights to free speech and free association under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

First Choice said the case could serve to rein in politically motivated state prosecutors' abuse of their "authority to investigate based on a mere suspicion of wrongdoing."

"State attorneys general on both sides of the political aisle have been accused of misusing this authority to issue demands against their ideological and political opponents," it said. "Even if these accusations turn out to be false, it is important that a federal forum exists for suits challenging those investigative demands."

Congress

AdExchanger: Brands Have A Right To Control The Ad Placements Around Political Content

By Vanessa Otero, Ad Fontes Media

.....House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan recently initiated investigations into the World Federation of Advertisers, the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, advertisers and agency holding companies based on concerns that brands are not advertising on conservative social media platforms like X.

Jordan has also opened an inquiry into the merger of Omnicom and IPG based on these concerns, even though such holding companies let their clients decide where to advertise.

Meanwhile, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr has accused large tech companies, including Meta, Google and Apple, of “censoring” conservatives because the companies sometimes moderate false and misleading information. Jordan and Carr’s investigations are based on a misapplication of antitrust claims devoid of supporting evidence.

As part of these inquiries, Jordan and Carr are accusing NewsGuard, a news rating service (and our direct competitor), of assessing the reliability of outlets on the right unfairly compared to those on the left. These accusations are marred by the bias of the accusers and contradicted by evidence.

Regardless of the results of their ratings, NewsGuard rightly defends itself by claiming its activities are fully protected under the First Amendment as free speech and free press. Plus, there is another First Amendment issue at stake: the free speech rights of the advertising companies themselves.

Trump Administration

AP News: Trump administration directs all federal diversity, equity and inclusion staff be put on leave

By Alexandra Olson and Zeke Miller

.....President Donald Trump’s administration has moved to end affirmative action in federal contracting and directed that all federal diversity, equity and inclusion staff be put on paid leave and eventually be laid off.

The moves Tuesday follow an executive order Trump signed on his first day ordering a sweeping dismantling of the federal government’s diversity and inclusion programs that could touch on everything from anti-bias training to funding for minority farmers and homeowners. Trump has called the programs “discrimination” and insisted on restoring strictly “merit-based” hiring.

Free Expression

Harvard Crimson: Win Against Hate or Loss for Academic Freedom? Harvard Faculty Split Over Antisemitism Settlements

By  William C. Mao and Veronica H. Paulus

.....Harvard’s Tuesday settlement of two Title VI lawsuits left faculty divided over whether new protections for Zionist beliefs were a boon for Jewish and Israeli students or a blow to free speech.

The University’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Association definition of antisemitism — which designates certain criticisms of Israel as antisemitic — drew ire from some faculty, who said it could curtail academic freedom.

“It is going to chill all speech and inquiry that has anything to do with Israel, Palestine, the Middle East, Judaism,” said History professor Kirsten A. Weld, a co-president of Harvard’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors.

“Adopting this definition will have a stifling effect on campus debate, and we are kidding ourselves if we think it will not,” Harvard Kennedy School professor Matthias Risse wrote in an emailed statement to The Crimson.

The States

Independent Voter News: Utah Senate Majority Leader Introduces Resolution to Protect State Sovereignty, Combat Foreign Influence in Elections

By Shawn Griffiths

.....Utah Senate Majority Leader Kirk Cullimore last week introduced a resolution in support of a constitutional amendment designed to restore states' authority to regulate campaign finance laws. 

“With the increasing threat of foreign money and centralized control over election rules, it is time for Utah to assert its commitment to federalism and the integrity of our republic,” he said. 

“This resolution affirms Utah’s support for an amendment that empowers states like Utah to claim their rightful role in ensuring campaign finance laws reflect Utah values and not D.C.”

Cullimore's proposal is in line with an amendment to the US Constitution known as the For Our Freedom Amendment. It is supported by American Promise, which released a report called "The Problem of Foreign Money in Politics."

In it, the nonprofit explains how foreign actors have increasingly found ways to exploit gaps in the campaign finance system, including funneling money into elections through dark money networks and foreign-funded organizations.

The proposed amendment serves two main functions. The first is to restore state sovereignty. Specifically, it allows states to determine how best to regulate campaign contributions and spending.

Free Beacon: Inside State-Run 'Bias-Response Hotlines,' Where Fellow Citizens Can Report Your 'Offensive Joke'

By Aaron Sibarium

.....In January 2020, the top law enforcement agency in the state of Oregon launched a "Bias Response Hotline" for residents to report "offensive ‘jokes.’"

Staffed by "trauma-informed operators" and overseen by the Oregon Department of Justice, the hotline, which receives thousands of calls a year, doesn’t just solicit reports of hate crimes and hiring discrimination. It also asks for reports of "bias incidents"—cases of "non-criminal" expression that are motivated, "in part," by prejudice or hate.

Oregonians are encouraged to report their fellow citizens for things like "creating racist images," "mocking someone with a disability," and "sharing offensive ‘jokes’ about someone’s identity." One webpage affiliated with the hotline, which is available in 240 languages, even lists "imitating someone’s cultural norm" as something "we want to hear" about.