Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech January 22, 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 Politico Pro ("Morning Score"): Morning Score By Andrew Howard .....David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, which broadly opposes campaign finance restrictions, called the Citizens United decision “misunderstood” and that “if many people actually read it they would come away saying ‘you know that makes a lot of sense.’” “I think it's been demagogued a lot, but I think its reputation is improving over the years,” he said. Now, Keating’s group is pushing for more, as the court is expected to rule on another case this term that could shake up how political parties and candidates can coordinate during this year’s midterms. That case, NRSC v. FEC, could change how tens of millions of dollars are spent, particularly on television advertising. Keating said a ruling in favor of Republicans “would be a big win,” calling current rules in place “nonsensical.” The Institute for Free Speech is rolling out a series reflecting on Buckley v. Valeo, a ruling that is now 50 years old that eventually paved the way for deregulatory decisions like Citizens United. Keating also thinks it's time for FEC disclosure rules to change, arguing that the current marker that requires campaigns to disclose their donors — currently set to $200 but essentially ineffective because of how platforms like WinRed and ActBlue operate — established in Buckley v. Valeo no longer makes sense given inflation over the last 50 years. “The disclosure rules I think need an overhaul and modernization,” Keating told Score. “The question is how you get [the Supreme Court] to reconsider that.” New from the Institute for Free Speech Expert Panel: A Discussion of the Historic Buckley v. Valeo Decision .....January 30, 2026 marks the 50th anniversary of the historic Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo. To commemorate the anniversary, the Institute for Free Speech held a virtual panel with Bradley A. Smith, Joel Gora, and Eugene Volokh to reflect on the history of the case and its enduring legacy today. Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal moderated the discussion. About the panel: Brad Smith is the Founder & Chairman of the Institute for Free Speech and the Former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. He is one of the nation’s foremost experts on campaign finance law and political speech. Joel Gora is a Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School and a former attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. While at the ACLU, Joel argued Buckley v. Valeo before the Supreme Court. Eugene Volokh is a legal scholar who is the Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the co-founder of the popular legal blog the Volokh Conspiracy. Kim Strassel is a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board. She writes the All Things with Kim Strassel newsletter and hosts the associated podcast by the same name. Watch the discussion here. The Enduring Legacy of Buckley v. Valeo By Floyd Abrams .....As we approach the fiftieth anniversary of Buckley v. Valeo, I’m reminded of a comment made by Joel Gora, who argued the case for Senator Buckley and Senator McCarthy. He correctly observed that many academics have treated Buckley as a “stain.” This characterization is as unfortunate as it is wrong. For those of us who believe that political speech deserves the highest level of First Amendment protection, Buckley remains not a stain but a shield—one that has protected the fundamental right of Americans to influence their government through both speech and spending. The decision has wobbled, certainly. It has been criticized from both the left and the right, with some believing it went too far in protecting speech and others convinced it didn’t go far enough. But through five decades of assault, Buckley endures, and with good reason: at its heart lies a principle so fundamental to our democracy that even its critics struggle to refute it entirely. When the Supreme Court decided Buckley in 1976, it crafted what I’ve called a “tolerable compromise.” The Court distinguished between contributions to candidates—which could be limited—and independent expenditures advocating for or against those candidates, which could not. This distinction has led to what I readily acknowledge is a “crazy quilt” system far from any congressional intent, particularly in areas such as party and candidate campaign spending relative to Super PACs. Yet the alternative would have been far worse. DOJ New York Times: Prosecutors Subpoena Minnesota Democrats as Part of Federal Inquiry By Alan Feuer, Glenn Thrush, and Devlin Barrett .....Federal prosecutors issued subpoenas on Tuesday to at least five Democratic officials in Minnesota, ramping up the Justice Department’s investigation into their response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown in the state, according to two people familiar with the matter… While the subpoenas did not cite a specific criminal statute, the inquiry as a whole was said to center on whether elected officials in Minnesota had conspired to impede the thousands of federal agents who have been in the state since last month looking for undocumented immigrants. But the investigation is likely to run up against stiff pushback for examining political speech and conduct that is traditionally protected by the First Amendment. The Courts City Journal: Inciting Terrorism Is Not Free Speech By Tal Fortgang .....In the annals of true-but-irrelevant statements, a snippet from a recent Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision deserves an honored place. “The First Amendment’s protection does not depend on the popularity or palatability of the message conveyed,” wrote the three-judge panel in United States v. Al-Timimi. “On the contrary, it is most vital when speech offends, disturbs, or challenges prevailing sensibilities.” For good measure, the defense attorney whose client was vindicated by the unanimous decision summarized the case as proof that “the government cannot criminalize speech simply because the ideas expressed are unpopular, offensive, or challenge those in power.” What message prompted this soaring defense of the First Amendment? What expression challenged “prevailing sensibilities” or “those in power,” yet faced the heavy hand of the law? Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): $300K Settlement Against Michigan State Over Elected Officials Allegedly Orchestrating Public Criticism of (and Racism Allegations Against) Professor By Eugene Volokh .....Besides the monetary settlement, MSU Trustee Dennis Denno signed a document stating, "I withdraw my comments that Dr. Jack Lipton is a racist. I apologize for any harm the comments or action caused Dr. Lipton." Trustee Rema Vassar signed another stating, While I maintain my rights to advocate for students and engage in robust debate on matters of institutional governance, I understand that the manner in which advocacy occurs matters, and I reaffirm my commitment to conducting board-related activities in ways that respect all members of the university community. I remain committed to supporting students who seek to exercise their voices on campus while also acknowledging the complexities that arise when student advocacy intersects with faculty governance and board dynamics. I did not intend to cause Dr. Lipton personal or professional harm and appreciate and respect Dr. Lipton's advocacy on behalf of MSU's faculty. Moving forward, I hope all parties can focus on the important work of serving Michigan State University and its diverse community. Here's my post on the legal issue from June: Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Local Official Sues for Libel over Allegations That He Has "Severe Mental Health Issues"; Court Says … "truth is an absolute defense." By Eugene Volokh .....From Kelleher v. Town of Brookfield, decided earlier this month by Judge Brian Murphy (D. Mass.): Free Expression City Journal: College Students Are Self-Censoring to Fit In By Kevin Wallsten .....America’s colleges and universities have become some of the most ideologically lopsided institutions in public life. The ratio of liberal professors to conservatives rose from two-to-one in 1995 to more than six-to-one in 2019. Today, faculty are more likely to describe themselves as “far left” or “very liberal” than as being on the right. Defenders of this status quo are either unbothered or see it as desirable. But political homogeneity threatens higher education’s primary responsibility: expanding and transmitting knowledge. If universities don’t take these imbalances seriously, they will fail the students they’re supposed to serve. Fox News: Mob violence in Minnesota isn’t free speech — it’s grounds for the Insurrection Act By Dr. Sandeep Gopalan .....President Donald Trump has been unequivocal that it is an insurrection, and has threatened to deploy armed forces using the Insurrection Act to crush the protests. It turns out that he may well be within his powers to do just that. Here’s why. The States Louisiana Weekly: Ethics board says judge can spend campaign money on his role as Mardi Gras krewe king By Julie O’Donoghue .....A Jefferson Parish judge who has been chosen king of a Carnival krewe can spend his campaign money to purchase merchandise for his role, according to the Louisiana Board of Ethics. The board issued its decision Friday for 24th Judicial District Judge Adrian Adams, who reigns over the Mystic Krewe of Music this year. Adams, who is up for reelection this year, had sought an advisory opinion from the board confirming that his Mardi Gras expenses could be covered with campaign money. Daily Tar Heel: Editorial: Public syllabuses are yet another attempt to chill faculty speech By Editorial Board .....Starting next fall, UNC System professors will be required to make their class syllabuses publicly available. Come August, anyone with a laptop and internet access will be able to view a course’s required textbooks, learning outcomes, grading scales — and the professor’s name. Though this policy change may appear innocuous, it is politically motivated to systematically suppress professors’ free speech. The nominal goal of “increasing transparency” only serves to obscure the UNC System’s true goal of forcing professors to acquiesce to a partisan agenda through public pressure. New York Times: A Tennessee Dean Had ‘Zero Sympathy’ for Charlie Kirk. She Was Fired. By Emily Cochrane .....After the conservative political activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated in September, Laura Sosh-Lightsy fired off a late-night post on Facebook: “Looks like ol’ Charlie spoke his fate into existence. Hate begets hate. ZERO sympathy.” The comment was harsh, and so was the pushback. Within hours, she was fired from her job as a dean at Middle Tennessee State University, about an hour southeast of Nashville. It was a stunning turnabout for Ms. Sosh-Lightsy, whose work responsibilities included overseeing conduct and often navigating free-speech questions within the university community. Should a student be punished for using a slur? Can someone be removed from class over derogatory language? Charlotte Observer: Cabarrus County ends ‘draconian’ comment rules about cursing, personal attacks By Nora O'Neill .....Cabarrus County commissioners voted 4-1 on Tuesday night to approve a new public-participation policy that rolls back restrictions on what residents can say at board meetings, a move commissioners said was necessary to comply with a recent North Carolina Court of Appeals decision on free speech. The change came after months of scrutiny surrounding the county’s public-comment rules, which drew a federal lawsuit last year after a resident was removed from a meeting and banned from attending meetings for 90 days after he allegedly violated the county’s policy. Lewiston Tribune: House group condemns political violence By Royce McCandless .....The Idaho House State Affairs Committee voted to introduce a resolution Tuesday condemning political violence against state and public servants. Rep. Monica Church, D-Boise, cited last year’s killing of conservative political commentator Charlie Kirk, the killings of Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark Hortman, and the ambush of Coeur d’Alene firefighters in July as being among the recent acts of violence that inspired the resolution. Resolutions can generally be understood as expressing the legislature’s sentiment on a matter as opposed to bills, which propose changes to state law. The resolution includes a formal condemnation of these crimes, commends the first responders who acted to find those responsible and urges “swift legal justice for all involved.” The resolution further urges Idahoans of all backgrounds to stand against political violence and recommit themselves to supporting “political discourse without fear of violence or retribution.” 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