August 18, 2025

In the News

The Oregonian (LTE): Readers respond: Keep political donor addresses private

By Bradley Smith

.....Currently, Oregon mandates public reporting for annual contributions exceeding an aggregate of just $100 – far too low a threshold. No legitimate purpose exists for publicly reporting addresses of small-dollar contributors, which stay online indefinitely. Disclosure should target only substantial donors – $2,500 or more in statewide races. For other races, the current $100 threshold should be adjusted for the inflation that has occurred since it was adopted several decades ago.

Now that Oregon has shielded campaign participants, it should protect donors. The time for comprehensive donor privacy reform is now.

The Center Square: Op-Ed: Extend privacy protections to those supporting elected officials

By David Keating

.....The shocking assassination of Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband at their home has prompted a wave of proposals to protect lawmakers’ home addresses.

But lawmakers aren't the only ones at risk. Current campaign finance disclosure laws expose millions of Americans to danger, too. These laws reveal people’s political views in public online databases, often for contributions as small as a single dollar.

Protecting elected officials from political violence is rightly a priority. But we must also extend some privacy protections to the citizens who support them.

And we’ve seen an appropriately swift response to shield lawmakers following the Hortman tragedy. Colorado, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Minnesota itself have all taken steps to remove legislators’ personal information from official websites.

The Courts

New York Times: Judge Blocks F.T.C. Investigation of Media Matters

By Kate Conger

.....A federal judge granted an injunction on Friday blocking the Federal Trade Commission’s investigation of Media Matters, saying the inquiry violated the free speech rights of the liberal watchdog group, which had published research critical of Elon Musk and his social media platform, X.

In May, the F.T.C. began examining whether Media Matters illegally colluded with other advertising advocacy groups to pinch off revenue from X. Media Matters reported in 2023 that ads on X appeared alongside antisemitic content.

Media Matters sued the F.T.C., calling the inquiry a “campaign of retribution” waged on behalf of Mr. Musk and the Trump administration. On Friday, Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed, calling the inquiry “a retaliatory act” and essentially blocking it from progressing, though the F.T.C. can appeal.

“This case presents a straightforward First Amendment violation,” Judge Sooknanan wrote in her ruling. She added, “It should alarm all Americans when the government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate.”

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Parent Submits Photo of School Postings to LibsOfTikTok, Gets Restricted from Accessing School Property or Events

By Eugene Volokh

.....Some excerpts from today's long decision by Judge Eric Melgren (D. Kan.) in Schmidt v. Huff (see also this post for the analysis of a separate First Amendment claim that Schmidt also brought):

NTUF: Fourth Circuit Win Against Maryland’s Tax Speech Gag Order

By Tyler Martinez

.....Maryland may not prevent businesses from listing the state’s digital advertising tax on receipts, according to an important decision today by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The ruling is another legal blow to Maryland’s controversial tax, which faces additional pending legal challenges.

NTUF submitted the only amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in the case, where we explained that the law is effectively a gag order in violation of the First Amendment. Basically, the law tries to lay customers’ blame on higher prices on companies rather than letting customers know that Maryland created a new tax.

Circuit Judge Richardson, writing for the unanimous court, agreed. From the Founding to today, he wrote, “complaining about taxes remains a grand American political tradition . . . Maryland has no reason, other than insulating themselves from criticism and political accountability, to forbid them to explain the tax to their customers.”

AP News: Federal judge refuses to block Alabama law banning DEI initiatives in public schools

By Kimberly Chandler

.....A federal judge on Wednesday declined a request to block an Alabama law that bans diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in public schools and the teaching of what Republican lawmakers dubbed “divisive concepts” related to race and gender.

U.S. District Judge David Proctor wrote that University of Alabama students and professors who filed a lawsuit challenging the law as unconstitutional did not meet the legal burden required for a preliminary injunction, which he called “an extraordinary and drastic remedy.” The civil lawsuit challenging the statute will go forward, but the law will remain in place while it does.

Online Speech Platforms

Townhall: Gmail Caught Burying GOP Fundraising Emails

By Dmitri Bolt 

.....A political consulting firm, Targeted Victory, claims Gmail has been flagging Republican fundraising emails containing WinRed links as “dangerous” and sending many straight to spam folders.

Targeted Victory says the pattern persisted through June and July: Republican fundraising emails containing WinRed links were routinely flagged by Gmail as “suspicious” and “potentially unsafe,” then sent to spam. When the firm raised the issue with Google support, the response acknowledged the designation but offered no evidence to justify it. Even after Targeted Victory demonstrated that WinRed links were secure, the warning remained in place.

Nonprofits

Jonesing for Nonprofits: Zelinsky, in Defense of the Johnson Amendment Proposed Consent Order

By Darryll K. Jones

.....Ed Zelinsky is out this morning with some interesting and thought-provoking commentary about the proposed consent order in National Religious Broadcasters v. Commissioner this morning. He generally defends the proposed order as the best that can be achieved in a world of imperfect solutions. I tend to agree but take issue with the premises underlying the debate. Here is Zelinksy’s executive summary:

The States

Courthouse News: Eric Adams’ ‘tainted’ corruption case invoked at sentencing for NYC straw donor

By Erik Uebelacker 

.....A Brooklyn businessman was sentenced to one year of probation on Friday after he admitted to sending illegal straw donations to New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ successful 2021 campaign.

Erden Arkan, the Turkish-born co-owner of KSK Construction Group in Williamsburg, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy in Manhattan federal court earlier this year. As part of his plea agreement with federal prosecutors, the 76-year-old acknowledged he facilitated 10 separate straw donations to Adams’ campaign. 

“I feel profound sadness … . I am sincerely sorry to the New York City taxpayers who support the matching funds program,” Arkan said Friday, referencing the citywide program he swindled that encourages small-dollar donations to political candidates. “This will never happen again.”

New York Post: NY state Senate candidate allegedly paid homeless people to lie about donations to net matching funds: report

By Vaughn Golden

.....An upstate GOP state senate candidate’s campaign allegedly paid homeless people to claim they made donations to him, allowing him to net matching taxpayer funds, a report says.

Several homeless men in Auburn told the Albany Times Union in a story published Friday that Caleb Slater’s campaign offered them $30 a pop to sign paperwork saying they donated $250 to his run in November.

This way, Slater, who ultimately lost his bid for office, could allegedly receive public funds from the state that match contributions up to $250, the paper noted.

At least seven people who spoke to the outlet say they never contributed to Slater‘s campaign but were paid to submit contribution forms. One man said he was asked to recruit other straw donors as well.

The Hill: Proposed bill in New York would limit political activity for tax-exempt nonprofits

By Johan Sheridan

.....A new bill floated by Democrats in the New York State Legislature targets tax-exempt nonprofits like churches and charities that participate in political campaigns.

The proposal, introduced by Sen. James Skoufis and Assembly member Tony Simone, would create a new state process to enforce a federal rule currently being challenged.

The Nonpartisan Pulpit Act, S8745, would codify into state law a 1954 provision called the Johnson Amendment. This rule is supposed to prevent 501(c)(3) organizations — a tax category including charities, foundations, and religious institutions — from endorsing or opposing political candidates, or else lose tax-exempt status.

The bill’s text defines “political campaign activity” as any participation or intervention in a political campaign for or against a candidate for office, including actions, communications, or spending. It would block organizations from making or asking for contributions to candidates or parties and from publishing statements advocating for the election or defeat of a candidate.

Albuquerque Journal: Featured nonprofit group discloses hefty trial lawyer contributions after settlement agreement

By Dan Boyd

.....A nonprofit group that has advocated against changes to New Mexico’s medical malpractice laws disclosed nearly $1.3 million in contributions Monday after reaching a settlement agreement with the State Ethics Commission.

The list of donors to the group, called New Mexico Safety Over Profit, is made up almost entirely of trial lawyers, according to a Journal review. Most of the more than 50 contributors are from New Mexico, though a smaller number are from out of state.