June 5, 2025

New from the Institute for Free Speech

The FEC at 50: Protecting Free Speech from Campaign Finance Lawfare

By Peter Russo

.....Some of the strongest proponents of political speech restrictions used the occasion of the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) 50th Anniversary as a platform to advance their agenda.  

At a Washington, DC panel discussion hosted by Common Cause in May, most panelists openly advocated for empowering unelected bureaucrats to launch investigations. Frustrated with congressional refusal to enact even more regulations on speech and dissatisfied with how the FEC interprets the law, the speakers also suggested changes to effectively give the president more control over the agency. 

Supreme Court

Courthouse News: Supreme Court snubs Seattle cops seeking anonymity for Jan. 6 rally attendance

By Kelsey Reichmann 

.....The Supreme Court rejected on Wednesday an anonymity request from current and former Seattle police officers fighting a public records request that would reveal information about their presence at a rally for President Donald Trump right before the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. 

In an apparent unanimous decision, the justices denied the officers’ appeal to avoid disclosing their names in court records. Although they have been cleared of any wrongdoing in the Capitol attack, the officers argued that the disclosure would violate their First Amendment rights. 

The court did not explain its ruling, but Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring statement saying that the officers’ application didn’t meet the high bar for emergency relief…

Alito, however, seemed sympathetic to the law enforcement officers’ First Amendment arguments. 

“Our denial of review in this case should not be taken as manifesting any degree of support for the proposition that the disclosure at issue in this case is consistent with the First Amendment,” Alito wrote. 

The Courts

Ballot Access News: Ninth Circuit Will Rehear Case on Whether Oxnard, California Limits on Campaign Contributions are Unconstitutional

By Richard Winger

.....On June 4, the Ninth Circuit said it will rehear Moving Oxnard Forward v Ascension, 21-56295. The original panel had ruled that the Oxnard, California limits on how much a donor may contribute to a candidate for city office are too low, and also that the limits had been passed with the improper motive of injuring Aaron Starr, a member of the Libertarian Party who is now on the city council.

The rehearing will be in September, before eleven judges of the Ninth Circuit chosen randomly.

Center Square (North Carolina): Free speech case of student v. school board nears settlement finish line

By Alan Wooten

.....A North Carolina school board accused of inventing "a racial incident out of thin air," violating "a student's rights to free speech" and punishing him for that invention is awaiting a judge's approval of settlement that includes at least $20,000.

Christian McGhee, then 16 and a student at Central Davidson High School in Lexington, and his parents Leah and Chad sued the Davidson County School District Board of Education last spring. On April 9, 2024, a classroom discussion in which the teacher used the word "aliens" prompted Christian McGhee to raise a hand and ask if she was referring to "space aliens, or illegal aliens who need green cards?"

Bloomberg Law: Florida Ballot ‘Racketeering’ Felony Halted by Federal Court

By Alex Ebert

.....A new criminal penalty targeting Florida ballot measure groups has been blocked by a federal judge over concerns the law violates the US Constitution’s free speech protections.

The recently-enacted Florida HB 1205, which restricts ballot measure circulator eligibility and increases fines on ballot measure groups, includes a “vague” expansion of state felony racketeering crime sweeping in unknown aspects of ballot measure work, violating the First Amendment, US District Court for the Northern District of Florida Judge Mark E. Walker said in his opinion Wednesday.

“Given that the challenged provision regulates in the heartland of First Amendment freedoms—namely, core political speech involved in circulating issue petitions—'rigorous adherence’ to the dual due process concerns of fair notice to the public and clear standards for law enforcement ‘is necessary to ensure that ambiguity does not chill protected speech.’” Walker said.

ADF: The Babylon Bee challenges Hawaii law criminalizing political memes, satire

.....Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing The Babylon Bee and a Hawaii resident filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday challenging a state law that censors online content, including political satire and parody. The law violates fundamental free speech and due process rights by using vague and overbroad standards to punish people for posting certain political content online, including political memes and parodies of politicians.

DOJ

The Intercept: How the FBI Sought a Warrant to Search Instagram of Columbia Student Protesters

By Shawn Musgrave

.....Newly unsealed records provide new details about the Trump administration’s failed effort this spring to obtain a search warrant for an Instagram account run by student protesters at Columbia University.

The FBI and federal prosecutors sought a sweeping warrant, the records show, that would have identified the people who ran the account along with every user who had interacted with it since January 2024.

Between March 15 and April 14, the FBI and the Department of Justice filed multiple search warrant applications and appeared numerous times before two different judges in Manhattan federal court as part of an investigation into Columbia University Apartheid Divest, or CUAD, a student group. A magistrate judge denied the application three times in March, a decision which a district court judge later affirmed in April.

Non-paywalled version

Trump Administration

Wall Street Journal: Some of Trump’s Biggest Inaugural Donors Benefit From Early Government Actions

By Josh Dawsey and Patrick Thomas

.....Trump’s record inaugural fundraising of nearly $250 million totaled almost as much money as the last four combined. That was built in part on big political spending by companies that had little track record of giving outsize sums, recently released campaign finance records show. 

Some of those companies are benefiting from favorable government actions early in Trump’s second term.   

Free Expression

Reason: Anti-Israel Violence Does Not Justify Censorship of Pro-Palestinian Speech

By Robby Soave

.....American supporters of Israel, many of them affiliated with the political right, are using recent episodes of appalling violence against Jews as an excuse to push an agenda of censorship. In fact, they are deploying several familiar rhetorical arguments against pro-Palestinian speech, including that it is hateful, indistinguishable from violence, or constitutes misinformation.

These arguments ought to be especially familiar to conservatives since they were—and still are—routinely cited by the mainstream media, liberal advocacy groups, and Democratic politicians who want to quelch conservative speech. In the name of protecting Jewish people, Republicans are now endorsing arguments against free speech that have become the hallmark of the woke left.

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Should Universities Treat Discrimination against Zionists as Discrimination against Jews?

By David Bernstein 

.....One response David L. Bernstein and I have received to our article on campus antisemitism and free speech is that we conflate antizionism with antisemitism. I think that is a misreading of our article; we discuss where University should do with regard to complaints about antisemitism without adjudicating whether the complaints are valid. We think that speech should be protected regardless of whether it is antisemitic, and disruptive, violent, harassing, and other illicit forms of protest should be punished regardless of whether it is antisemitic. So in most of the controversies that have arisen, the question of whether the speech or conduct is "really" antisemitic is not terribly relevant to our thesis.

However, the issue does arise when a student or professor is accused of illegal discrimination against Zionists. "Zionist" is an ideological position, and while university rules may prohibit ideological discrimination, and in some cases ideological discrimination at state universities may violate the First Amendment, Title VI does not prohibit discrimination against Zionists, as such.

The States

Politico: Watchdog group calls for probe of Andrew Cuomo’s campaign

By Nick Reisman and Sally Goldenberg

.....A government reform group is urging campaign finance regulators to investigate Andrew Cuomo’s relationship with a lobbying firm providing him free campaign services and to consider stripping the mayoral frontrunner of millions of dollars in public matching funds.

Common Cause New York filed a complaint Tuesday with the city Campaign Finance Board, alleging consulting services provided by Tusk Strategies — a prominent New York City-based lobbying company — amount to thousands of dollars of in-kind contributions well above the city’s stringent limits.

Carolina Journal: Why donor privacy laws are good policy—and no, they don’t protect “dark money”

By Donna King

.....North Carolina lawmakers are now working to codify these protections in state law through Senate Bill 416 and the House budget. The House has incorporated the language of SB 416 directly into its version of the budget. As budget negotiations begin, the language is expected to remain intact, especially since the Senate passed SB 416 on May 8 and it is currently awaiting consideration in the House Rules Committee.

The proposed language doesn’t change existing law — which already protects donor privacy — but it adds teeth: civil penalties for government employees who attempt to pressure nonprofits into handing over their donor lists. Think of it as a necessary deterrent.

Critics on the left have called this a “dark money shield,” arguing that it hides big-money political donors from public scrutiny. But that’s a misunderstanding. This bill doesn’t affect campaign finance law or political action committees — it applies only to charitable nonprofits and their private donors, whose gifts are often tax-deductible, just like your medical expenses. And just as you wouldn’t want your medical history made publicly available, you shouldn’t be forced to disclose which causes you support.

Louisiana Illuminator: Louisiana political campaigns might get to withhold more donation, spending info

By Julie O'Donoghue 

.....Louisiana lawmakers might diminish information available to the public about political donations and election spending through a sprawling rewrite of the state’s campaign finance law. 

Gov. Jeff Landry is pushing House Bill 693, sponsored by House Republican Caucus Chairman Mark Wright, R-Covington. It carves out more circumstances under which political contributions and expenditures don’t have to be disclosed on a public campaign finance report.

The 101-page proposal is difficult to understand for people who don’t deal with campaign finance regulations frequently. Even staff attorneys for the Louisiana Board of Ethics, which enforces the campaign finance laws, admit the changes are confusing…

Private attorneys Stephen Gelé and Charles Spies helped write the bill. They have represented Landry in multiple disputes he has had with the ethics board, including over campaign finance laws and enforcement. 

Gelé has said the proposal respects constitutional rights, including freedom of speech, while still providing transparency and “preventing the appearance of corruption.”