Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech January 8, 2026 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 Wall Street Journal (gift link): The 1976 Supreme Court Decision That Saved Democracy By Bradley A. Smith .....Fifty years ago this month, the Supreme Court saved democracy. On Jan. 30, 1976, the court decided Buckley v. Valeo, striking down on First Amendment grounds key provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Acts of 1971 and 1974, or FECA. Without Buckley, American political speech would be much less free than it is today. Campaign-finance “reformers” tend to focus on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) more than Buckley, but the former set the stage for the latter. Buckley fundamentally shaped how Americans can exercise their First Amendment rights to participate in political discussion. The court upheld limits on direct financial contributions to campaigns but struck down restrictions on total spending and on independent expenditures—money spent outside and not in coordination with a campaign. New from the Institute for Free Speech Institute for Free Speech Seeks its Next President .....The Institute for Free Speech – the nation’s only organization dedicated solely to defending political speech rights – is seeking a visionary leader to serve as its next president. This is an exceptional opportunity to lead a thriving organization at the forefront of First Amendment advocacy. The position opens as current President David Keating, after 14 distinguished years of leadership, transitions to a policy-focused role. David will continue as president until his successor is named, ensuring seamless continuity for the organization. Now, we’re looking for the ideal candidate to lead the Institute for the next decade-plus. The new president will inherit a healthy budget and a talented team committed to protecting our rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government. This deliberate, careful search reflects our commitment to finding the right person to guide the Institute through its next chapter of growth and impact. To learn more about the position, please click here. The Courts Bloomberg Law: South Dakota Sued Over Bid to Stop Group’s Abortion Speech By Mary Anne Pazanowski .....A reproductive rights group is suing South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley (R) over his attempts to stop it from issuing information about abortion and related-care, including the safety of medication such as mifepristone. Mayday Health’s complaint, filed Tuesday in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, said Jackley’s attacks on the group were prompted by his animus against the nonprofit’s pro-abortion message. The state’s top lawyer has publicly threatened to prosecute Mayday for violating the South Dakota Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, it said. This action violates Mayday’s free-speech rights under the First ... Oregon Capital Chronicle (via OPB): Conservative think tank asks court to block Oregon union fraud law By Mia Maldonado .....An Olympia-based conservative think tank is suing Oregon over a new law that makes it illegal to impersonate a union representative. The Freedom Foundation, which says it advocates for public sector employees to understand their rights to opt out of union membership, filed the lawsuit Dec. 31, the day before the law took effect, in the U.S. District Court in Portland. The lawsuit names Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, the Oregon Employment Relations Boards and three of its leadership members and five major unions, including the Service Employees International Union Local 503, Oregon Education Association and Oregon American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 75. The Freedom Foundation alleges House Bill 3789, which passed along party lines in both legislative chambers and Gov Tina Kotek signed into law in June, violates the First Amendment by discriminating based on content and viewpoint and targeting political speech. The law allows union representatives to sue anyone for $6,250 if they can prove an individual falsely impersonated a union representative. Bloomberg Law: Utah Book Ban Law Spurs Free Speech Suit From Authors, Students By Mallory Culhane .....A group of award-winning authors and Utah high school students mounted a First Amendment challenge to portions of a state law banning books in public schools containing sexual material, which they say function as a “modern-day book burning.” The law requires local education agencies to remove books from school libraries that contain “even a single description or depiction of sex, no matter how fleeting, no matter its context, and no matter its literary, artistic, political, or scientific value,” according to a complaint filed Tuesday in the US District Court for the District of Utah. Free Expression Wall Street Journal: EU Sanctions Target Free Speech By Roger Koppl .....Article 52 of the EU Charter allows speech restrictions only when they pursue legitimate aims and are necessary and proportionate. The sanctions regime, in all its ambiguity, inverts that: Speech must be presumed punishable unless it clearly fits official views. What qualifies as “pro-Russian propaganda”? Could it include merely criticizing NATO expansion or questioning EU aid to Ukraine? Without clear boundaries, self-censorship spreads among analysts, journalists and academics who fear becoming the next target. Viktor Winkler, an expert in international sanctions law, speculates that Swiss journalist Roger Köppel, editor of Die Weltwoche, could be next. ACLU: How a COVID-era Law Banning ‘Fake News’ in Puerto Rico Targets the Press By Sam LaFrance .....In the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when Puerto Rico passed a law attempting to ban “fake news,” two journalists feared the ban would open them to prosecutions against their reporting that was critical of the government, its officials, or their emergency response measures. Under the law, anyone accused could face up to three years in prison and thousands of dollars in fines. The law targeted anyone accused of raising “a false alarm” or spreading false information that resulted in a risk to life, health, or property during a declared public emergency on the island. The ACLU and the ACLU of Puerto Rico filed suit to challenge the law in May 2020, representing Sandra Rodríguez Cotto and Rafelli González Cotto, both longtime journalists who have reported on public emergencies. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which will decide the law’s constitutionality, heard oral arguments in the case in October. The States CT Insider: Connecticut election regulators face first test of new foreign contribution ban By Paul Hughes .....A 2024 state law that prohibits foreign nationals from making political contributions or expenditures under the state’s campaign finance laws is posing a novel legal question for in-house lobbyists working for foreign-owned businesses. A lobbyist for the government relations firm Gaffney Bennett and Associates petitioned the State Elections Enforcement Commission on Oct. 29 for a declaratory ruling clarifying whether state residents who are U.S. citizens and in-house lobbyists on the payroll of corporations owned by foreign parent companies can make personal contributions to Connecticut political campaigns. Staff attorneys have advised the SEEC that the request poses a legal question of first impression for the commission, and involves a new and largely untested statute in an area of law that is actively developing nationwide. Staff attorneys reported a growing number of states have adopted similar laws and several of them are being litigated now, while federal courts also are continuing to shape the constitutional boundaries in this area. As a result, any declaratory ruling issued by the SEEC likely will receive national attention and be relied upon beyond Connecticut. Montana Free Press: Montana Supreme Court upholds AG finding that ballot issue is legally insufficient By Nora Mabie .....The Montana Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s previous finding that a proposed ballot initiative aiming to end corporate spending in political campaigns is unconstitutional. A group of former public officeholders last summer proposed a constitutional initiative to prevent corporations from donating to political campaigns. Specifically, the initiative would have altered the law that applies to businesses, nonprofits and other incorporated entities that operate in Montana, prohibiting them from contributing to campaigns and political committees that work to influence election outcomes. It would also have prevented individuals from making anonymous political donations by giving money to corporations that then donate to political committees. The ballot issue was seen as a way to undo the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that allowed for unlimited corporate money in politics. Mountain Times: New Vermont laws take effect Jan. 1 .....This law actually took effect in June 2025, but it will first impact Vermont’s political contests in 2026 because of the statewide election cycle. Previously, candidates only needed to file a finance report if they spent at least $500 on their campaign, but the new law eliminates that threshold and requires all candidates to file a report regardless of how much they have raised or spent. It applies to all statewide, legislative and county candidates. The law also lowers the reporting threshold from $1,000 to $500 for campaigns created to influence local ballot items, including municipal and school budgets. New York Times (gift link): Texas A&M, Under New Curriculum Limits, Warns Professor Not to Teach Plato By Alan Blinder .....Martin Peterson, a philosophy professor at Texas A&M University, was thunderstruck when he was told on Tuesday that he needed to excise some teachings of Plato from his syllabus. It was one way, his department head wrote in an email, that Dr. Peterson’s philosophy class could comply with new policies limiting discussion of race and gender. IndyStar: Indiana lawmakers faced threats over redistricting. Now they're trying to criminalize doxing By Cate Charron .....As the Indiana General Assembly grapples with the fallout of the Trump administration's failed redistricting effort, Indiana lawmakers are pushing to criminalize the act of doxing just weeks after at least a dozen of their colleagues faced a barrage of threats and intimidation over the issue. Under Senate Bill 140, doxing is defined as the act of posting a threat and another person's personal information online in retaliation for a person's beliefs or behavior. The legislation would criminalize doxing as a misdemeanor, but it could be escalated to a felony if a person is seriously injured or dies as a result. 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