February 6, 2025

In the News

Salt Lake Tribune: Voices: Freelance journalists are journalists, even when they criticize government

By Caitlin Vogus

.....Utah lawmakers need a refresher on the U.S. Constitution’s protections for freedom of press.

Lesson number one: Freelance journalists are journalists.

It’s a principle that dates back to our country’s earliest days. The founders recognized that freedom of the press included not just newspapers and books, but also the pamphlets published by individuals that fueled the American independence movement…

So why did the Utah Legislature recently change its press credential rules to exclude “blogs, independent, or other freelance journalists?”

According to a new lawsuit filed by the Institute for Free Speech on behalf of longtime Utah journalist Bryan Schott and news outlet Utah Political Watch, it may be about revenge. The state denies retaliatory motives in a recent court filing, but cites no credible alternative reasons for disfavoring and delegitimizing independent journalism.

The Courts

Courthouse News: Disgraced former Ohio Speaker Householder appeals racketeering conviction

By Kevin Koeninger 

.....Federal prosecutors relied on "undisclosed campaign contributions" to convict Larry Householder of racketeering and provided no evidence of an agreement that would constitute bribery, the former Republican lawmaker argued Wednesday at the Sixth Circuit.

The former speaker of the Ohio House was convicted of a single count of racketeering in March 2023 for his role in the Ohio House Bill 6 scheme, a $1.1 billion bailout of two failing nuclear power plants.

Householder and his affiliates received over $61 million in dark money contributions from executives of the FirstEnergy Corporation used to ensure the legislation would pass, though portions of the law were ultimately repealed after the corruption came to light...

Householder found a receptive audience in U.S. Circuit Judge Amul Thapar, a Donald Trump appointee, who grilled the government's attorney about the type of ordinary political conduct that could be considered bribery.

"This happens all the time on the campaign trail," he said. "If a candidate runs on building a dam, and someone takes him to lunch and donates money for the dam, is that included?"

"Absolutely not," Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexis Zouhary answered. "The official has to be given something in exchange for official action."

Ed. note: Listen to oral argument here.

San Francisco Chronicle: Kindergarten teacher sues Oakland Unified after she’s fired for refusing to use child’s preferred pronouns

By Jill Tucker

.....The battle over an Oakland kindergartner’s pronouns started when the 5-year-old told teacher Mirella Ramirez she was misgendering him because, the student said, he was no longer a girl, but rather a boy. 

The student, according to Ramirez, wanted her to use male pronouns, a demand backed by the child’s parents as well as district policy. But the Melrose Leadership Academy teacher, citing her Catholic faith, refused. 

That fall of 2022 impasse would last more than two years, setting off a district investigation, a series of disciplinary actions, and ultimately the firing of the teacher, who filed a lawsuit against the district in December claiming a violation of her First Amendment Rights and religious freedom.

FCC

Fox News: FCC releases CBS News' raw '60 Minutes' transcript from Kamala Harris interview

By Joseph A. Wulfsohn , Brooke Singman 

.....The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) released the unedited transcript and video handed over by CBS News of its controversial "60 Minutes" interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

The raw transcript showed CBS News had aired only the first half of her response to "60 Minutes" correspondent Bill Whitaker's question about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not "listening" to the Biden administration in a preview clip that aired on "Face the Nation," but aired only the second half of her response during the primetime special. 

Congress

Banking Dive: Senate panel grapples with who’s to blame for de-banking

By Caitlin Mullen

.....While the Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday seemed to coalesce around de-banking being a problem, lines were drawn as to whether blame lies with bank regulators or lenders themselves.  

De-banking has garnered more attention in recent weeks, since President Donald Trump called out Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase last month, alleging they shut out conservative customers. 

Former Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Rohit Chopra recently noted “increasing agreement” about the issue across the political spectrum, and called for “bright line” prohibitions and greater transparency to combat allegations of politicized de-banking…

Just before Wednesday’s hearing, the FDIC released 175 documents related to its supervision of banks engaging in crypto-related activities, which Acting Chair Travis Hill said “reflects a commitment to enhance transparency.”

Also prior to Wednesday’s hearing, the committee’s ranking member, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, issued a letter urging Trump to support the work of the CFPB, “the main federal agency working to stop unfair debanking,” and direct other agencies to address de-banking. 

She pointed to an analysis revealing nearly 12,000 de-banking related complaints have been filed by consumers in the past three years, with more than half of those complaints made against the four biggest U.S. banks – JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citi and Wells Fargo.

New York Post: Congress must defend freedom of dissent after Biden’s outrageous ‘debank’ scandal

By John Kennedy

.....For the past four years, the federal government has placed major banks under immense pressure to close accounts owned by conservative individuals and businesses with little notice or transparency.

This practice — known as debanking — used to be reserved for crime organizations and money launderers.

Under President Joe Biden, though, debanking became one of the federal government’s most effective censorship tools…

Fair-minded Americans know the federal government should not be enticing major banks to treat law-abiding citizens like terrorists.

That’s why I’ve introduced the No Red and Blue Banks Act, which would prohibit the federal government from contracting with banks that refuse to do business with companies solely because of political differences.

Another bill, the Fair Access to Banking Act, would prevent banks and payment card networks from discriminating against people based on their politics.

Trump Administration

Bloomberg Law: Bondi Diminishes Justice Department White Collar Enforcement

By Ben Penn

.....The Justice Department is scaling back enforcement of laws governing foreign lobbying transparency and bribes of foreign officials, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced.

The Criminal Division’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act unit will prioritize investigations related to foreign bribery that facilitates the criminal operations of cartels and transnational criminal organizations, such as cases that involve bribery of foreign officials to “facilitate human smuggling and the trafficking of narcotics and firearms,” Bondi said in a Wednesday memo obtained by Bloomberg Law…

Separately, Foreign Agents Registration Act enforcement “shall be limited to instances of alleged conduct similar to more traditional espionage by foreign government actors.” The Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, which houses the FARA unit, will “focus on civil enforcement, regulatory initiatives, and public guidance,” the memo said.

Fox News: White House announces DOGE is canceling payments to Politico

By Brian Flood and Joshua Q. Nelson 

.....White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed on Wednesday that Politico has been receiving funds from the U.S. government that will dry up as President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cracks down on spending. 

New York Times: Justice Dept. Says It Will Not Bring Charges in Investigation of Project Veritas

By Michael S. Schmidt and Adam Goldman

.....The Justice Department said on Wednesday that it would not bring charges against anyone affiliated with the group Project Veritas over their role in trying to publish the contents of a diary that had been stolen from Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s daughter in the final weeks of the 2020 election campaign.

The prosecutors, who made their announcement in a one-paragraph letter to a judge overseeing the matter, did not say why they were declining to bring additional charges in the long running investigation. In court filings in related cases, the Justice Department had laid out evidence of the group’s involvement in the effort to acquire and publish the diary, and had fought in court for access to evidence that investigators had obtained from the group’s operatives.

Nonprofits and Independent Groups

People United for Privacy: Fears of Foreign Funding in the Ideas Space

By Luke Wachob

.....A recent report from the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft illustrates how easily concerns about foreign influence in elections can be stretched to fit other purposes. The report analyzes donations by foreign governments and foreign government-owned entities (as well as grants from Pentagon contractors) to American think tanks and argues for new, privacy-invading disclosure laws. Here, the focus is not on elections at all, but simply “organizations that seek to influence public policy.”

The numbers Quincy reports are not impressive. The report found roughly $110 million in donations to the 50 biggest think tanks from foreign governments over a 5-year period. That works out to $22 million per year divided amongst 50 think tanks from all foreign governments. That is roughly the cost of 90 seconds of advertising during the upcoming Super Bowl. Think about that: the net sum of all foreign government donations to major American think tanks each year could buy you a grand total of three 30-second Super Bowl ads. If these donations truly offered a reliable path to undue political influence, we should see a lot more of them.

Nevertheless, Quincy presents these findings as cause for concern and describes think tanks that do not publicly expose their donors as “dark money think tanks.” The report urges Congress to force these groups to disclose all “corporate, U.S. government, and foreign government donors who give above $10,000.” That approach sounds more like the DISCLOSE Act’s assault on free speech and citizen privacy than a measured response to foreign meddling in elections.

Online Speech Platforms

BBC: Reddit community banned as user spat with Musk intensifies

By Tom Gerken

.....Reddit has temporarily banned one of its communities - and removed another - after X owner Elon Musk claimed comments made by the site's users about his employees were breaking the law.

The r/WhitePeopleTwitter subreddit, which typically invites people to share funny posts from X, has been banned for 72 hours after some users posted comments calling for violence against members of the Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (Doge).

They were responding to reports which suggested some Doge staff have been granted access to sensitive personal information of millions of Americans.

Musk - who frequently champions his commitment to free speech - shared a post on X containing the comments, and stated: "they have broken the law".

The subreddit was banned soon afterwards.

The States

Irish Rover: Appellate Court Unanimously Affirms Dismissal of Kay Lawsuit

.....An Indiana court of appeals affirmed St. Joseph Superior Court’s original dismissal of the defamation case brought by Professor Tamara Kay against the Irish Rover, on January 30, 2025.

The appellate court decision states: “The designated evidence established as a matter of law that The Irish Rover acted in good faith and in reasonable basis in law and fact. Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed Dr. Kay’s complaint under Indiana’s anti-SLAPP statute. Here, we agree with the trial court that the undisputed facts established that The Irish Rover’s two articles were written in good faith and that the alleged defamatory statements were not false.” 

New Mexico in Depth: Bill aims at dark money loopholes

By Marjorie Childress

.....New Mexico has seen creative groups find loopholes in the state’s Campaign Reporting Act (CRA) to evade disclosing who is giving them money. 

There are gaps in the law that some worry open the door to money flowing into lawmaker’s pocketbooks in exchange for votes, or allow them to profit from campaign funds. Or that let political advertising get through to the public without disclosure about who’s behind the ads. 

And the required schedule for filing public reports allows long periods of time — up to a month or more — before the public finds out who paid for expensive advertising on the cusp of an election, or gave to lawmakers during a legislative session. 

Legislation proposed this year by Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth, a Democrat from Santa Fe, makes tweaks across the statute, some big, some small, to solve these problems. Similar legislation narrowly failed to pass the legislature in 2023. Wirth’s bill got an early start during this year’s session, passing its first Senate committee last week.

Honolulu Civil Beat: Bill To Close Pay-To-Play Loophole In Hawaiʻi Moves To Full House

By Blaze Lovell 

.....State legislators are seeking to close a 20-year-old loophole that has allowed government contractors to donate to politicians despite a law that purports to ban such contributions.

Last year, an investigation by Civil Beat and The New York Times found that people with ties to contractors contributed $24 million to political campaigns — about $1 in every $5 donated since 2006 — and the donations often coincided with key decisions by lawmakers regarding the contracts.

On Wednesday, lawmakers moved closer to closing the loophole, which banned donations from companies with government contracts, but not from company officers or their families.

The House Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee voted unanimously to send House Bill 371 for a full vote in the House. The legislation would prohibit campaign contributions from officers and immediate family members of contractors as well as recipients of government grants.