Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech December 10, 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 Philanthropy Roundtable: Philanthropy Roundtable Files Amicus Brief in Buckeye v. IRS in Support of Protecting Donor Privacy By Denis Dunn and Francis Xavier Mizner .....Philanthropy Roundtable—joined by People United for Privacy Foundation, Manhattan Institute and Kansas Justice Institute—recently filed an amicus brief supporting the Buckeye Institute’s challenge of an IRS rule requiring donor disclosure in Buckeye v. IRS. This case is now on interlocutory appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit… “This case matters because it speaks to both principle and practice. America’s vibrant civil society is a direct result of our national commitment to First Amendment liberties, including donor privacy. Reaffirming that right to private association is essential to a culture where donors can give freely without fear of retaliation,” said Allen Dickerson, one of the nation’s leading First Amendment litigators, former Federal Election Commission chairman, and partner at BakerHostetler. He authored this amicus brief with Caleb Acker, associate at BakerHostetler and Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at Manhattan Institute. New from the Institute for Free Speech Free Speech Arguments – Can Congress Limit Coordination Between a Party and Its Candidates? (National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, et al.) .....National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, et al. argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 9, 2025. Argued by Noel Francisco (on behalf of National Republican Senatorial Committee), Sarah M. Harris (on behalf of the federal respondents in support of petitioners), Roman Martinez (Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae defending the law), and Marc Elias (Counsel for Intervenor-Respondents DNC, DSCC, and DCCC). Question Presented, from the Supreme Court docket: Institute for Free Speech Encouraged by Supreme Court’s Skeptical Reception of Restrictions on Free Political Speech .....The just-argued Supreme Court case National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC addresses the issue of whether federal limits on coordinated expenditures between political parties and their candidates violate the First Amendment. But the case also has unmistakable, larger implications for campaign finance law and free speech. Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Brett Nolan reacted to today’s argument with optimism, noting that “the Supreme Court looks poised to throw out yet another unnecessary restriction on political speech.” “Whether political parties can spend money supporting their own candidates should be a no-brainer, but our campaign-finance laws are filled with unnecessary and burdensome restrictions that prevent people from pooling their resources to share their message with the public,” Nolan explained. “This law is no exception. It erects barriers between candidates for office and some of their closest supporters—the members of the political party they represent. That kind of intrusion on free speech and association is justified only if the government has significant evidence that the law solves a compelling problem.” Nolan, who co-authored the Institute’s first Supreme Court amicus brief in the case with Institute Founder and Chairman Bradley Smith, added that the Court “appeared skeptical” toward the notion that there is any such evidence at all. Supreme Court SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court difficult to read in case on campaign finance limitations By Amy Howe .....The Supreme Court on Tuesday considered a challenge to a federal law limiting the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with a candidate for office. During over two hours of oral argument in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, some of the justices were sympathetic to the challengers’ position that the coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment. But with Justice Neil Gorsuch remaining silent throughout the debate, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett asking only one question, it remained difficult to make definitive predictions about the outcome of the case. Ed. note: Transcript of oral argument is available here. The Courts Fox News: Oregon teens who protested trans athlete at medal podium settle free speech lawsuit vs sports league By Jackson Thompson .....Former Oregon high school athletes Alexa Anderson and Reese Eckard came to an agreement with the state's high school sports league, the Oregon School Activities Association (OSAA), in a lawsuit over free speech violations. Anderson and Eckard stepped down from a state championship medal podium on the last day of May to protest a transgender competitor, and alleged they were forced out of the podium photo and not given their medals in response… AFPI Chief Legal Affairs Officer Leigh Ann O'Neill called the outcome a "victory." "We are thrilled with this major victory. This lawsuit accomplished exactly what we intended: ensuring Alexa and Reese’s voices were heard and restoring what they were owed—the medals they earned and their First Amendment right to peacefully express their views. But this is only the beginning. Our remaining Oregon lawsuit against Oregon officials now becomes our central focus, and we will not relent until the sex-based rights of women and girls are fully protected and officials who presume they can redefine basic terms like "sex" are held to account," O'Neill told Fox News Digital. Trump Administration Arnold & Porter: DOJ Issues Sweeping New Domestic Terrorism Directive: What the Attorney General’s December 4 Memorandum Means for You By Nicholas Casmier Anway Sam Callahan Eun Young Choi Rachel F. Cotton Deborah A. Curtis, and Burden H. Walker .....On December 4, 2025, U.S. Attorney General (AG) Pam Bondi issued one of the most consequential internal directives in recent years — an aggressive operational blueprint directing federal law enforcement agencies to implement National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), which we have previously covered on Enforcement Edge. The AG’s memorandum (Memorandum) reshapes how domestic terrorism will be defined, investigated, charged, and resourced across the federal government. The key message is unmistakable: federal law enforcement will target individuals, organizations, and funders whom the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) contends are “domestic terrorists,” under a definition that links political violence to “anti-fascist” ideologies. These domestic terrorism investigations are now a centrally coordinated national priority with mandatory procedures and timelines. Below is a focused breakdown of what the Memorandum requires, why it matters, and how organizations should immediately respond. New York Times: Trump Promises Executive Order to Block State A.I. Regulations By Cecilia Kang .....President Trump said in a social media post Monday that he would issue an executive order this week to curb state laws on artificial intelligence, the latest win for a tech industry lobbying for deregulation. Mr. Trump said he would create a federal order for rules and approvals for A.I. to eliminate a patchwork of state laws that have emerged in recent years. “We are beating ALL COUNTRIES at this point in the race, but that won’t last long if we are going to have 50 States, many of them bad actors, involved in RULES and the APPROVAL PROCESS,” he said on Truth Social. Online Speech Platforms New York Times: A.I. Videos Have Flooded Social Media. No One Was Ready. By Steven Lee Myers and Stuart A. Thompson .....Videos like the fake interview above, created with OpenAI’s new app, Sora, show how easily public perceptions can be manipulated by tools that can produce an alternate reality with a series of simple prompts. In the two months since Sora arrived, deceptive videos have surged on TikTok, X, YouTube, Facebook and Instagram, according to experts who track them. The deluge has raised alarm over a new generation of disinformation and fakes. Most of the major social media companies have policies that require disclosure of artificial intelligence use and broadly prohibit content intended to deceive. But those guardrails have proved woefully inadequate for the kind of technological leaps OpenAI’s tools represent. While many videos are silly memes or cute but fake images of babies and pets, others are meant to stoke the kind of vitriol that often characterizes political debate online. They have already figured in foreign influence operations, like Russia’s ongoing campaign to denigrate Ukraine. Political Violence Washington Post (gift link): Shapiro, Cox cross aisle to denounce the rise in political violence By Colby Itkowitz and Yasmeen Abutaleb .....Josh Shapiro and Spencer Cox know firsthand what happens when political violence comes home. Shapiro, Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor who is widely expected to run for president in 2028, was asleep with his family when an arsonist set fire to their home. Cox, Utah’s Republican governor, was one of few voices who called for calm and “moral clarity” after the right-wing activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot onstage at Utah Valley University in September. The two spoke together about rising political violence Tuesday at Washington National Cathedral, a rare bipartisan event in a deeply polarized country. Both criticized their parties for not doing enough to cool partisan tensions and condemn political violence when it impacts their opponents. “Seventy percent of Americans hate what’s happening in politics right now. They’re desperate for something different,” Cox said, growing impassioned. “And yes, you can point to the president, but I’m just here to tell you that neither party is interested in addressing that market failure right now.” Independent Groups Covington: Corporate and Industry “Mega PACs”: The Next Frontier for Super PACs .....When super PACs first arrived on the scene, the media focused on how corporations could start contributing unlimited amounts in federal elections to support these PACs. But the reality so far has been that relatively few large, for-profit corporations do so. Super PACs have remained the domain of wealthy individuals, nonprofits, and closely-held corporations. Now, however, we are seeing the emergence of super PACs that are focused on, and often funded by, single industries. Public disclosures and reporting to date indicate these “mega PACs” are funded by a combination of industry companies themselves and executives and employees from those companies. The amounts of money involved in these industry-focused “mega PACs”—some of them raising well in excess of $100 million—is fundamentally transforming the federal campaign finance landscape, rivaling even those super PACs associated with House and Senate leadership or Presidential candidates. The States JD Supra: Bill Expanding Political Disclaimer Requirements in NYS Signed into Law By Joseph Burns, Holtzman Vogel .....On December 5, 2025, New York State Governor Kathy Hohul signed into law a bill that expands the requirement that most political and campaign materials identify the political committee paying for the materials. Specifically, the new law requires that the public-facing web sites of political committees contain a “Paid for by” disclaimer. Most print, video, and audio advertisements paid for by political committees are required to identify the political committee paying for the advertisement. This includes television ads, radio ads, palm cards and direct mail pieces. Other items such as lawn signs, bumper stickers, and other promotional items are exempt from this requirement. The new law applies this disclaimer requirement to the public-facing web sites of political committees. To comply with this new requirement, political committees will need to clearly display on all web pages of their public-facing web site a disclaimer identifying the entity paying for the web site. The new law applies to all political committees with public-facing web sites. This includes the web sites of county and state party committees, candidates for state office, candidates for local office, party committees, and PACs. In addition, the bill amends the definition of “independent expenditure” to include expenditures made by independent expenditure committees that take the form of a public-facing website. Holtzman Vogel: Bill to Ban Political Spending by Corporations Introduced in the New York State Legislature By Joseph T. Burns .....Ahead of the start of the 2026 session of the New York State Legislature, a proposal has been introduced by two Democratic state legislators to prohibit political spending by corporate entities. The bill, which is sponsored by State Assemblyman Micah Lasher and State Senator Kristen Gonzalez, seeks to prohibit political spending by corporations and other business entities by redefining the business organizations’ powers under the Business Corporation Law. Currently, the New York State Election Law permits, within certain limits, political contributions by corporations and other business entities. Corporations are permitted to contribute up to an aggregate of $5,000 annually to most political committees. This includes contributions to candidates, PACs, constituted committees and party committees. Corporations are also permitted to contribute an unlimited amount to party housekeeping accounts, ballot proposition committees, and independent expenditure committees. Concord Bridge: Free speech, or viable threat: Views vary in ‘scarecrow’ case By Dakota Antelman .....Whether and how words cross the line from politicking to threatening is being tested in Concord. Schools Superintendent Laurie Hunter told police that makeshift “scarecrows” targeting her this fall made her fear for her safety. Prosecutors say Concord resident John Grace, 56, violated a harassment prevention order by placing the signs. His lawyer, George King, contends that is free speech and said during Grace’s arraignment, “This whole case is improper.” Asked about King’s claims, a Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office spokesperson said she couldn’t comment because the case remains open. Legal experts contacted by The Concord Bridge offered varied opinions on a possible First Amendment defense. Daily Californian: UC Berkeley suspends lecturer Peyrin Kao for pro-Palestinian speech in the classroom By Litong Deng & Aarya Mukherjee .....UC Berkeley administration has suspended lecturer Peyrin Kao for the spring 2026 semester without pay for pro-Palestinian political remarks made in the classroom. The six-month suspension was enacted following a recommendation letter issued by Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Benjamin Hermalin, in which he claimed Kao misused the classroom “for the purpose of political advocacy” during the spring 2024 and fall 2025 semesters. Following the suspension, STEM4Palestine, a campus group Kao helped found, announced plans to initiate a “mass hunger strike” this Wednesday. The group insists campus administration reinstate Kao while demanding “the divestment of UC funds from the genocide in Gaza,” a cause the lecturer has championed. 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