March 18, 2025

In the News

OpenSecrets: Campaign finance proposals face long odds this year – with a few exceptions

By Dave Levinthal

.....The Supreme Court and other federal courts have issued many major rulings that have limited debate over campaign finance policy in recent years, said Brad Smith, a former FEC chairman who now leads the nonprofit Institute for Free Speech, which generally supports campaign finance deregulation.

And even if Democrats still decry “dark money” and trash court decisions that gave rise to super PACs, Smith argued, “the political left has learned that they can live with the Citizens United decision pretty well, and funding has not been a problem for Democrats.”

There’s a notable exception, Smith added: “Disclosure has become kind of the last battleground.”

People United for Privacy: Kansas Legislature Poised to Bolster Nonprofit Privacy Protections

By Alex Baiocco

.....On March 12, the Kansas Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs held a hearing on H.B. 2206, a bill that addresses significant impediments to donor privacy and nonprofit advocacy rights in the state’s current campaign finance statutes.

The legislation, which passed the House last month, includes noteworthy changes to key provisions in Kansas law that align with past recommendations from People United for Privacy (PUFP) and will positively impact every nonprofit that engages on issues of public importance in The Sunflower State. The reforms in H.B. 2206 also build upon the Legislature’s previous bipartisan achievement to cement nonprofit donor privacy protections into law in 2022…

Indeed, a local nonprofit successfully challenged state enforcement officials’ application of Kansas’ vague and overbroad PAC definition after facing demands to publicly expose its donors. After filing suit with the help of attorneys at the Institute for Free Speech in 2024, Fresh Vision OP won a permanent injunction against the state’s attempt to regulate the issue advocacy organization as a political committee. As the presiding U.S. District Court judge, an appointee of President Obama, explained in his ruling early this year, precedents established by U.S. Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit caselaw “require that a group have the major purpose—not simply a major purpose—of express advocacy before a state may designate the group as a political committee.” Kansas law fails that test, and lawmakers are wisely seizing on PUFP’s recommendations to remedy the issue.

The Courts

Law & Crime: ‘Violate one of the most fundamental principles of our democracy’: Former Trump lawyer, ex-GOP lawmakers urge judge to side with AP over White House press pool ban

By Jerry Lambe

.....A coalition of former Republican government officials and legal experts urged a federal judge in Washington, D.C., to order the Trump administration to restore The Associated Press to the White House press pool after the wire service was barred from the select group of journalists over its refusal to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.”

In a 17-page amicus brief, the group implored U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden to uphold the principles of the First Amendment and reverse the administration’s decision to exclude the AP from the press pool and restrict its access to presidential events.

“There is no more important directive in the Constitution than to preserve the freedom of speech and of the press. Our country was founded on the principles of free speech and a free press,” the filing states. “Retaliation against the AP, and the Administration’s efforts to intimidate the press generally, could not be more at odds with the principles animating our founders when they wrote the Constitution. Permitting this kind of government interference would inhibit robust critical reporting, and encourage the press to tailor its work to please the President and avoid sanctions of the sort experienced by the AP.”

Among the amici are former Republican governors Arne Carlson, William Weld, and Christine Todd Whitman, ex-Trump administration attorney Ty Cobb, 12 former GOP members of the House of Representatives, and a retired federal appellate judge.

FEC Weekly Digest: Week of March 10 – 14, 2025

.....DCCC v. FEC (Case No. 24-2935) On March 7, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Combined Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.



Democratic National Committee, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al. (Case No. 25-587) On March 11, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and a Memorandum in Support of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On March 14, Defendants President Donald J. Trump and Attorney General Pamela Bondi filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and a Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in the District Court.

JD Supra: DOJ Moves to Challenge Illinois Nonprofit Board Disclosure Law

By T. Scott Kelly, Christina Pantazis, Jeffrey Rudd (Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.)

.....On March 11, 2025, the U.S. District for the Northern District of Illinois granted the DOJ’s motion to intervene in American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Bennett. The plaintiff, American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER), is a nonprofit group that has opposed a number of diversity programs nationwide.

Here, the AAER is challenging an Illinois law that requires qualifying nonprofits to disclose the demographic makeup of their directors and officers on their websites. The demographic categories include race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, veteran status, sexual orientation, and gender identity. AAER alleges that the statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by encouraging organizations to discriminate based on race and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by compelling organizations to speak about demographic issues that they otherwise would not discuss.

The Media

Public: The Media Is Lying About The Weaponization Of Government Because It Participated In It

By Michael Shellenberger and Alex Gutentag

.....President Donald Trump is weaponizing the Justice Department to persecute his political enemies, say the media. “Trump calls for jailing his perceived opponents in Justice Department speech,” reports NBC. “The president intends to bend the vast powers of federal law enforcement to his will,” wrote the New York Times, “in the pursuit of an anti-crime agenda and, perhaps, vengeance.” The Washington Post said Trump’s speech “violates all norms.” And, according to CNN, Trump “vowed to use [the Justice Department] to target his own enemies.”

However, Trump’s concerns about the weaponization of the Justice Department, or DOJ, to persecute him are valid. The FBI lacked sufficient evidence to spy on Trump’s team, according to an DOJ special prosecutor, and its FISA warrant applications had major errors, according to the DOJ’s independent Inspector General. The DOJ pursued an unprecedented investigation into Trump’s possession of classified documents, including by executing a search warrant at his Mar-a-Lago residence in 2022, while Biden’s mishandling of classified documents was treated entirely differently, without such aggressive tactics. And the evidence suggests that the National Archives, DOJ prosecutors, and Biden officials inappropriately coordinated to bring charges against Trump..

Heritage Foundation: Free to Defame?: Revisiting NYT v. Sullivan’s Actual Malice Standard in Libel Law

.....Wednesday, March 19, 2025 at 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm

In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in NYT v. Sullivan. There the Court constitutionalized certain aspects of libel law and created out of whole cloth, and later extended, the actual malice standard that now requires public officials and public individuals to prove that someone who made a false statement about them knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard as to its falsity before prevailing in a defamation lawsuit.

Recently, scholars and some Justices have criticized this standard as being unmoored from the text and history of the Constitution. And as a practical matter, critics have argued that it allows high profile individuals to be defamed with little to no recourse. Supporters of this standard often argue that it is essential to allowing the free flow of ideas and the publication of important news stories where breaking information may later turn out to be inaccurate in some key respects.

Join us for a discussion of this important issue with leading libel litigators and First Amendment scholars.

Click here to register virtually.

Wall Street Journal: Trump Revolutionizes Political Communication

By Charles Lipson

.....Not only are top officials on TV and social media constantly; they are bypassing all the usual media filters to do it. They do live interviews, podcasts and social-media posts and videos. Every day, many senior officials appear on camera, controlling their message by doing live spots that can’t be edited…

The administration’s strategy takes full advantage of new communications channels while playing down older outlets that routinely oppose Mr. Trump. The biggest advantages of this approach are greater control over the message and increased effectiveness. The word comes directly from policymakers, not their spokesmen or anonymous sources.

Trump Administration

New York Times: Legal Experts Question Trump’s Authority to Cancel Columbia’s Funding

By Katherine Rosman

.....When President Trump issued an ultimatum to Columbia University — canceling $400 million in funding and demanding an overhaul of its admissions and disciplinary rules — it launched the institution into an extraordinary crisis...

Some free expression experts said that the administration’s tactics violate the protections of the First Amendment. “The Supreme Court has imposed a very high burden on the government if it seeks to intrude into the core decisions of academic freedom,” Professor Bollinger said.

Wired: Under Trump, AI Scientists Are Told to Remove ‘Ideological Bias’ From Powerful Models

By Will Knight

.....The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has issued new instructions to scientists that partner with the US Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute (AISI) that eliminate mention of “AI safety,” “responsible AI,” and “AI fairness” in the skills it expects of members and introduces a request to prioritize “reducing ideological bias, to enable human flourishing and economic competitiveness.”

The information comes as part of an updated cooperative research and development agreement for AI Safety Institute consortium members, sent in early March…

The new agreement removes mention of developing tools “for authenticating content and tracking its provenance” as well as “labeling synthetic content,” signaling less interest in tracking misinformation and deep fakes. It also adds emphasis on putting America first, asking one working group to develop testing tools “to expand America’s global AI position.”

The States

MissouriNet: Sen. Mike Henderson proposes Missouri protections against frivolous lawsuits to silence free speech

By Anthony Morabith 

.....When the state legislature returns from spring break, a Missouri Senate committee could vote on protections against frivolous lawsuits that aim to silence people’s free speech rights.

Sen. Mike Henderson, R-Desloge, is sponsoring a bill to take on what are known as SLAPPS, or strategic lawsuits against public participation. His legislation covers communications made in legislative, executive, judicial, administrative, or other governmental proceedings, as well as communications on issues under review in such proceedings.

Two key supporters of Henderson’s bill include the Missouri Press Association and the Missouri Broadcasters Association.

Kansas Reflector: Kansas GOP activist, Democrat legislator find common ground in opposition to campaign finance bills

By Tim Carpenter

.....Democratic Rep. Alexis Simmons and former Kansas Republican Party executive director Kris Van Meteren stand uncommonly side-by-side against elimination of contribution limits applicable to political party committees.

The duo said on the Kansas Reflector podcast it would be a mistake to allow Republican or Democratic party committees to become spinning turnstiles for wealthy donors with the capacity to buy commanding influence over elections. They agreed a bill, approved by the Kansas House 77-46 and now undergoing scrutiny in the Kansas Senate, would distort campaigns by allowing donors with cash to burn to easily pick winners and losers.

“It’s going to fundamentally alter the amount of money that can be spent directly on electing a candidate,” Van Meteren said. “Under this law, they’re going to be able to give unlimited contributions to party committees, which can expressly advocate for their candidates.”

Both said they could see logic to House Bill 2054‘s doubling of contribution limits for candidates seeking election as governor and other statewide offices, the Kansas Legislature and State Board of Education. A $1,000 primary or general election donation to a gubernatorial candidate just didn’t buy what it did when that cap was set more than 30 years ago.

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Utah Court Strikes Down Injunction Banning Speech "Annoy[ing] or Caus[ing] Distress" to Neighbor Running a Mental Health Residential Treatment Center,

By Eugene Volokh

.....A short excerpt from the long opinion in Ragsdale v. Fisher, decided yesterday by Utah Court of Appeals Judge Gregory K. Orme, joined by Judges Ryan M. Harris and John D. Luthy: