October 22, 2025

In the News

Boston Globe via Archive Today: A Maine super PAC case could reshape campaign finance rules nationwide. Or it could backfire.

By James Pindell

.....This latest effort to limit contributions to a super PAC is based on a 40-year-old ruling saying contribution limits could be set for regular candidate committees.

The 1976 Supreme Court decision in Buckley v Valeo said these limits were constitutional because they limit how much influence any single donor could have over a politician…

However, Charles Miller, one of the Institute for Free Speech’s lawyers representing a pair of super PACs in Maine contesting the law, said he felt that making an argument about the original intention of the Constitution based on what the Supreme Court wrote in 1976 is absurd.

“Including SpeechNow and cases after that, there have been about 36 federal court of appeals judges who have ruled on this issue. They have, to a judge, all sided with us on this — that the Constitution does not allow limits to be placed on outside contributions,” said Miller. “When you have 36 judges from all political perspectives say that, no, Citizens United controls this case there’s just not really any room for movement here.”

Original link

People United for Privacy: How Privacy Reforms Can Protect Americans from Political Violence

.....Join People United for Privacy Foundation on October 23rd at 1pm ET for a discussion with policy experts on the role enhanced privacy protections can play in safeguarding civic engagement.

From elected officials and citizen activists to donors and everyday Americans, individuals who participate in public life increasingly face threats to their safety. This Free Speech Week (October 20-26), People United for Privacy Foundation will bring together a range of policy experts to explore the role that enhanced privacy protections can play in safeguarding civic engagement. The event will highlight practical reforms lawmakers can implement right now to ensure Americans do not face intimidation or retaliation for supporting important causes.

Featuring:

Scott Blackburn, Americans for Prosperity

Helen Knowles-Gardner, Institute for Free Speech

Matt Nese, People United for Privacy

The Courts

Virginia Mercury: Judge issues injunction against Miyares in probe of pro-Palestinian nonprofit

By Ben Paviour

.....A U.S. district court judge has blocked enforcement of punitive measures against a pro-Palestinian nonprofit under investigation by Attorney General Jason Miyares.

In an Oct. 7 oral ruling and Oct. 17 written opinion, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia said Miyares’ push to obtain donor lists from American Muslims for Palestine is overly broad and likely violates the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of association. 

The temporary injunction and restraining order blocks Richmond Circuit Court Judge Devika Davis’ Sept. 29 ruling holding the charity in contempt for not handing over its donor lists; Davis had ordered a $1,000 daily fine until AMP turned over the documents to the attorney general’s office.

Miyares vowed to appeal.

JD Supra: Ninth Circuit Says Denials of California Anti-SLAPP Motions Are Not Immediately Appealable, Reversing Precedent on Free Speech Mechanism

By Brian Willett, Saul Ewing LLP

.....In a reversal of precedent, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that parties cannot immediately appeal denials of California Anti-SLAPP ("Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation") motions under the collateral order doctrine. In reaching the decision, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, assumed for the sake of argument that California's Anti-SLAPP law would apply in federal court, although the panel did not reach agreement on that issue. While the ruling is a blow to litigants challenging the legitimacy of claims based on the exercise of First Amendment rights to free speech and petition, they can still seek permission to pursue a discretionary interlocutory appeal through certification by a district court.

IRS

House Ways and Means Committee: Neal, Ways and Means Democrats Demand Investigation into the GOP’s Weaponization of the Internal Revenue Service

.....Today, Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Richard E. Neal (D-MA) led Committee Democrats in demanding investigations into reporting from the Wall Street Journal that the Trump Administration plans to use the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to illegally target taxpayers based on political beliefs. According to the reporting, the Trump Administration is encouraging the IRS to facilitate criminal investigations into Democratic donors and “left leaning” groups, and a senior IRS official has already compiled a list of potential targets, including major Democratic donors.  

In a letter, written to Acting Inspector General for Tax Administration Heather M. Hill, Ways and Means Democrats demanded an investigation into the allegations…

In a separate letter, written to Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO), Democrats requested the Committee meet with Acting IRS Commissioner Scott Bessent to discuss the increasingly alarming lawlessness and turmoil at the agency. 

MSNBC: Trump wants the IRS to investigate his foes. That won't play out the way he thinks.

By Ezra Reese

.....While Shapley briefly served as acting IRS Commissioner, he is best known for overseeing the IRS’s investigation into Hunter Biden. The changes are clearly designed to make investigations of Trump’s political enemies easier; indeed, the article noted that he has already “ordered” the IRS to investigate specific tax-exempt organizations that oppose him. As the political law chair at Elias Law Group, I represent several tax-exempt organizations that could be inappropriately targeted if the president is able to fully weaponize the IRS. However, these changes won’t achieve the administration’s goals. Instead, they will create legal peril for Trump, Shapley and those around them.

Federal criminal law (Internal Revenue Code Section 7217) bars the president, the vice president and other Cabinet officials (except the attorney general) from “directly or indirectly” requesting an audit or investigation by the IRS. While the Supreme Court recently granted the president presumptive immunity from prosecution for official actions, it is doubtful that this immunity would extend to the flagrant violation of a law that specifically applies to the president.

Perhaps more importantly, the president’s immunity does not extend to those aiding him. 

Free Expression

Reuters: London police will no longer investigate 'non-crime hate incidents'

By William James

.....London's Metropolitan Police said on Monday they would no longer investigate what are known as "non-crime hate incidents", allowing officers to focus on criminal cases instead of policing "toxic culture war debates".

The decision was announced shortly after Graham Linehan, the Irish co-creator of TV comedy show "Father Ted", said he would face no further action following his high-profile arrest earlier this year in relation to posts about transgender issues on X.

The States

Reason: Alabama Police Arrest 61-Year-Old Woman in Penis Costume at No Kings Protest

By Joe Lancaster

.....One place that did see police action was the town of Fairhope, Alabama, where multiple officers arrested 61-year-old Jeana Gamble for wearing an inflatable penis costume and holding a sign that said "No Dick-Tator." While the situation sounds funny, the arrest is a violation of the First Amendment by prudish police and public officials.

"An officer observed an individual in a phallic costume near the Baldwin Square Shopping Center," the Fairhope Police Department posted on Facebook. "The officer approached the woman and requested that she remove the costume, which is deemed obscene in a public setting; however, she refused to comply." As a result, Gamble was arrested and "charged with Disorderly Conduct and Resisting Arrest, both of which are misdemeanor charges."

That statement puts it mildly. As video posted to social media demonstrates, officers took Gamble to the ground by a busy road, handcuffed her, and dragged her to her feet. As onlookers protested the arrest, one officer shouted back, "I'm not gonna have somebody out here dressed like this!"

Center Square (Wisconsin): Wisconsin bill aims to protect college campus free speech under penalty

By Jon Styf 

.....A bill looking to assure free speech is upheld at campus in the University of Wisconsin system and Wisconsin Technical Colleges would carry a punishment of two academic years of frozen tuition if a school violates any of the requirements of the bill multiple times in a five-year period.

The UW system said that its largest issue with Senate Bill 498 is the potential financial penalties for not following the rules...

The bill requires that the colleges not restrict free speech if the speaker is lawful or restict the time, place or manner of free speech on campus. The school cannot create a “free speech zone” and limit speech to that area, require a permit to limit expression or require a security fee be paid.

The school also cannot “sanction individuals or groups for discriminatory harassment unless the speech targets its victim on the basis of a protected class under law, and is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars a student from receiving equal access to educational opportunities or benefits,” the bill states.

2KUTV: Professor files state complaint alleging 'dark money' in local political races

By Brian Mullahy

.....An accounting professor has filed a 200-page complaint with the Utah Lt. Governor's Office, alleging "dark money" is seeping into local political races in Utah County.

"Dark money is money you cannot trace," said John Barrick, who cited several groups as sources of "opaque" funds for city candidates in Orem and Lahi.

"There are people who would like to have influence with local officials,” he said, “and they don’t want you to know who they are.”

Barrick brought hard copies of political financial disclosures to 2News on Friday, including one showing $100,000 from a Delaware entity to the Utah-based Governing Group PAC that feeds campaigns of local candidates.

Great Lakes Echo: Ballot proposals advance, aiming to get ‘dark money’ out of politics

By Georgia Hill

.....Now, organizations such as Voters Not Politicians, Michiganders for Money Out of Politics and Show Michigan the Money are attempting to advance ballot initiatives aimed at stopping utility companies from contributing to politicians who run for or hold offices that impact them. 

Michigan law currently allows candidates to accept donations from corporations as long as the money is not coming from ratepayers. 

However, to get around this restriction, some companies, including utilities, form employee political action committees (PACs).

According to the Federal Election Commission, PACs are composed of individuals or shareholders associated with the companies. They can contribute large amounts at the state level, which may have a significant influence on political campaigns

A coalition of grassroots organizations wants to outlaw the practice with statewide ballot initiatives. 

One proposal titled “Mop Up Michigan” would ban political donations from regulated utilities and companies with over $250,000 a year in government contracts. It would also amend the state’s campaign finance law so that political ads would be required to disclose donor information.