Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech August 4, 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 Public: Groups ask federal appeals court to reinstate Maine's limits on super PACs By Kevin Miller .....The groups behind last fall's ballot initiative limiting donations to so-called "super PACs" are asking a federal appeals court to reinstate Maine's law. Two weeks ago, a federal District Court judge ruled that Maine's new $5,000 limit on annual contributions to super PACs was unconstitutional because it restricted free speech. U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf also blocked the new law, which had won the support of roughly 75% of Maine voters last November. Late last week, three Maine residents and the Massachusetts group behind the ballot initiative, Equal Citizens, appealed that decision in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. The authors of Question 1 had placed the issue before Maine voters last fall, however, with the expectation that it would be challenged in court. In fact, their goal is to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court. "We have not had a chance to get this issue up to the court," said Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law School professor who founded Equal Citizens, said on Wednesday. "It's just astonishing that for 15 years, this reality of super PACs has been part of American politics without the Supreme Court ever having the chance to address the question. And so we are (hoping) to give them that chance as quickly as possible." Washington Examiner: When money can’t buy votes: Three times the underfunded candidate beat the odds By Emily Hallas .....“Spending money will always be one piece of the puzzle, of course,” according to the Institute for Free Speech. “Yard signs, mailers, advertisements, and other communication mediums cost money. If a candidate wants to inform and win voters, they will need to buy exposure. But spending more doesn’t make a candidate win. In the end, only one thing wins elections, and that’s earning the most votes.” Goldwater Institute: Friends And Enemies of Free Speech: Looking at the Amicus Briefs in the Prop 211 Case By Timothy Sandefur .....Institute for Free Speech: One of the nation’s leading organizations defending donor privacy, the Arizona Supreme Court not to rely on federal law to decide this case, as state courts often do. As IFS points out, federal courts have adopted various legal theories such as “exacting scrutiny,” which are so vaguely defined that lawyers and judges often have to guess at their meaning. Such theories “let judges decide how much of a burden on speech is too much, or what government interests are important enough to override the constitutional text.” But the Arizona Constitution protects speech more broadly than does the federal Constitution, and there’s no good reason to import vague, confusing, and often contradictory federal theories into state law. Congress Wall Street Journal: Trump Tax Megalaw Upends Charitable Giving By Richard Rubin and Juliet Chung .....Many nonprofit groups say the law’s combination of tax and spending changes will hurt charities. They are bracing for the effects and might need to redesign solicitations to capitalize on the reshaped deductions. Some changes might discourage individuals and corporations from giving as much, said Kevin Dean, chief executive of the Tennessee Nonprofit Network, a statewide nonprofit association… “Almost every nonprofit mission is being politicized at this point,” Dean said, and corporations “are having to be very careful about who they give money to publicly.” He added that nonprofits might end up closing if individuals don’t fill the giving gap. Nonprofits have come under significant pressure in recent months as Trump has issued executive orders to cut, freeze or limit their funding. Some of the orders are the subject of litigation. The administration has complained that some large foundations funnel taxpayer money to extreme liberal agendas. Axios: Dems propose corporate PAC ban By Stephen Neukam .....A group of congressional Democrats wants to ban for-profit corporations from forming and using political action committees, Axios has learned. The debate over the power of money in politics divided Democrats in their last two open presidential primaries. It could split them again in 2028. Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) — two potential presidential hopefuls — will introduce the Ban Corporate PACs Act on Tuesday, we're told. The legislation would ban corporations from establishing and managing a PAC or soliciting contributions from stakeholders, and eliminate existing corporate PACs. Using PACs, corporations can make contributions to candidates up to higher limits than individuals. Candidates and Campaigns On Data and Democracy: The Mothership Vortex: An Investigation Into the Firm at the Heart of the Democratic Spam Machine By Adam Bonica .....So, after documenting the spam tactics in a previous article, I told myself I’d just take a quick look to see who was behind them and where the money was going. That "quick look" immediately pulled me in. The illusion of a sprawling grassroots movement, with its dozens of different PAC names, quickly gave way to a much simpler and more alarming reality. It only required pulling on a single thread—tracing who a few of the most aggressive PACs were paying—to watch their entire manufactured world unravel. What emerged was not a diverse network of activists, but a concentrated ecosystem built to serve the firm at its center: Mothership Strategies. New York Times: Donor List Suggests Scale of Trump’s Pay-for-Access Operation By Kenneth P. Vogel and David Yaffe-Bellany .....Since Mr. Trump’s election last fall, fund-raisers and lobbyists have been steering corporations and donors to a buffet of options for unlimited giving, some of which are less overtly political or allow anonymous donations, that can bring access to the president... A nonprofit group called Securing American Greatness, which is affiliated with MAGA Inc. but is not required to disclose its donors, can accept cash from interests willing to pay for access without the controversy that can come with having that known. Even the White House Historical Association has become a vehicle for lobbyists and favor seekers. After the dinner at Mar-a-Lago, the lobbyist who arranged Mr. Schiermeyer’s attendance brokered a $200,000 donation to the historical association from his company, Blockchain Game Partners. It does business as Gala Games, producing video games and other entertainment as well as a virtual payment system. The States Daily Montanan: Group releases text of proposed Montana Constitutional amendment to curb dark money By Darrell Ehrlick .....Montana’s battle against dark money in politics stretches back more than a century, when the state was humiliated because of a bribery scandal that saw wealthy copper king William Andrews Clark elected to the U.S. Senate. This week, Montana added to that history by beginning the constitutional initiative process aimed at challenging dark money, corporate spending and the Citizens United ruling. Leaders who have signed on the measure admit: They have a steep hill to climb. Citizens United, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, said that the power to spend money in elections is tantamount to free speech and so most attempts to thwart or limit it have run afoul of the U.S. Constitution and the nation’s highest courts. However, the wording of the new initiative seeks to limit the amount of money corporations can spend – not through traditional campaign laws or limitations, but rather by limiting corporate charters. The new and untested method would leverage the state’s inherent power to regulate corporates through the charter process. The language of the proposed state constitutional amendment would prohibit corporations from making political contributions, except in very specific circumstances. Meanwhile, individuals would be free to spend on candidates and causes. Axios Denver: Candidates decry dark money — and reap its benefits By John Frank .....The leading Democrats in the 2026 governor's race are two of the most vocal critics of dark money in politics. Yes, but: Both — U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet and Attorney General Phil Weiser — are poised to benefit from dark money donors in the campaign. Why it matters: The juxtaposition threatens to erode their records on a key issue among Democrats. 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