Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech January 28, 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]. New from the Institute for Free Speech Express Advocacy at 50 By Allison Hayward .....Pity (for a second) the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. Presented with a multifaceted challenge to the ambitious and bloated 1974 amendments to the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA 1974), the Justices heard oral arguments on November 10, then met and corresponded over the 1975 holiday season to produce a decision that would land well before the 1976 election. This statute raised constitutional issues beyond its First Amendment implications, but I’ll focus on its speech-restrictive aspects. Buckley and the Appearance of Corruption Standard By David Primo .....In ruling campaign spending limits to be unconstitutional, the Buckley decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976 reshaped election law, affirming that First Amendment protections extended to the speech of political candidates. It also made clear that campaign contributions were protected by the First Amendment and that such restrictions could only be justified to prevent corruption or the “appearance of corruption.” I am grateful to the Court for its defense of the First Amendment. Still, I have felt compelled throughout my career to ask: do contribution limits actually achieve these goals? If you ask Americans, as I have, whether the campaign finance system is corrupt, around 80% say yes. Meanwhile, courts since Buckley have largely agreed that most contribution limits—except really tiny ones—are self-evidently helpful for reducing corruption and the appearance of corruption, thereby ensuring “that confidence in the system of representative Government is not to be eroded to a disastrous extent.” Reformers have beaten the “restore trust in government” drum to justify campaign finance laws ever since. As a social scientist, I think evidence matters. Just because the public or the courts say something is true doesn’t make it so. Fortunately, 50 years on from Buckley, we have reams of data on attitudes toward government, and we can use that data to better understand the relationship between the appearance of corruption and contribution limits. The Courts Bloomberg Law: The Supreme Court’s Free Speech Warning in NRA Case Matters Now By William Brewer III .....The US Supreme Court is considering whether to take up a case with wide-ranging implications for free speech, the treatment of so-called “disfavored speakers,” and the American way of life. National Rifle Association v. Vullo arises from allegations that New York financial regulator Maria Vullo used the power of her office to pressure the companies she regulated into cutting ties with the NRA through implicit threats delivered in private meetings and reinforced by official, public guidance. In a unanimous 2024 decision, the Supreme Court held that the conduct, if proven, violates the First Amendment’s most basic protection: Government officials may not do indirectly what the Constitution forbids them to do directly. The question now is whether that clear ruling retains real force—or can be weakened on remand. The court sent the case back to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to reconsider whether the regulator was entitled to protection (qualified immunity) in light of that ruling. Unfortunately, the lower court’s response now puts the case back before the justices. New York Times: Why The New York Times Sued the Pentagon By Mike Abrams .....The media world and many readers took notice when The New York Times sued the Pentagon over First Amendment rights. In the suit, filed in early December in the U.S. District Court in Washington, The Times accused the Pentagon of infringing on the constitutional rights of journalists by imposing new restrictions on reporting about the military. The rules require reporters to sign a 21-page form agreeing to publish only information approved by military leadership in exchange for access to the Pentagon building and the press pool that accompanies the secretary of defense and other officials. The Times and every major news organization surrendered their Pentagon passes rather than sign the agreement when it took effect in October. Free Expression The Atlantic: Colleges Are Stuck Between Bad Options for Fighting Hateful Ideas By Conor Friedersdorf .....Pity Chris Summerlin, the dean of students at the University of Florida. He’s being sued by an anti-Semite, and that’s not the worst of his predicament. So far, judges who have ruled on the case have given mixed verdicts on whether he is likely to win or lose at trial. Summerlin deserves to lose on the merits: He expelled a law-school student for speech that, while morally degenerate, is properly protected by the First Amendment. And––this is the pitiable part––it’s easy to see how he might have concluded that giving a bigot grounds to win a civil-rights lawsuit was his best option. College deans and administrators keep confronting the same dilemma: They face intense pressure to punish speech that elicits fear or moral disgust on campus. They also have legal obligations—and face countervailing pressure—to refrain from violating the free-speech rights of students. They cannot always do both. The result is cases such as Damsky v. Summerlin—cases that might be avoided under a better approach to fighting anti-Semitism and other hateful ideas. RealClear Policy: Free Speech Isn’t Free and It Cost Charlie Kirk Everything By Kristan Hawkins .....In the wake of [Charlie Kirk’s] murder, I continue to reflect on the high cost of free speech for those of us who refuse to abandon college and university campuses. Manipulative schools have worked hard to develop financial and logistical obstacles to student speech – from special, additional, and often last-minute insurance to requirements for bomb-sniffing dogs. And everything comes with a price tag. To practice “free” speech, we start with time-consuming permits with the endless, additional, and sometimes arbitrary requirements that come with a cost. Special event insurance can run from $800 to $5,000, though in Washington, D.C., it can easily run close to $15,000 or higher. We were actually quoted a $20,000 fee in required event insurance to chalk pro-life messages in Miami. And if you need to rent a bomb-sniffing dog – because why not – it usually runs $650. My Kevlar vest set me back $1,000. And police, on campus or off, with or without weapons, county, city, or state (which has a range), commonly add $1,200 per event. Private security, if needed, has a price of about $600 per professional. Equipment rental for security wands or metal detectors may be needed. And we can’t forget that a commitment to free speech is a decision to keep lawyers on retainer, especially for the last-minute “requirements” from school administrators... But not everyone can afford free speech. The States Politico: Newsom to probe claims of Trump-critical censorship at TikTok By Tyler Katzenberger .....Gov. Gavin Newsom is reviewing whether social media platform TikTok is violating state law by censoring content critical of President Donald Trump, he announced Monday evening in an X post. “It’s time to investigate,” Newsom said. Newsom’s review, first reported by POLITICO, comes amid wider accusations that TikTok is flagging for review or throttling criticism of the Trump administration and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, just days after the platform closed a deal to avoid a U.S. ban. The agreement, backed by the White House, created a majority-American board that gives Trump allies significant sway in the short-form video app’s U.S. operations. The Free Press: I Was Fired by New York’s Attorney General for Opposing ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ By Glenna Goldis .....On January 15, New York attorney general Letitia James—who was, at the time, my boss—accused me of engaging in “disruptive public speech.” What had I done to deserve this charge? I had repeatedly spoken and written about my concerns regarding pediatric gender medicine—that is, the practice of blocking children’s puberty, administering cross-sex hormones to teens, and subjecting them to breast and genital surgery. As a lesbian, I care passionately about the safety of gender nonconforming youth. I am also experienced in identifying consumer fraud, and I am troubled by how vulnerable patients in psychological distress are being misled. Fox News: I survived Antifa violence — now Minnesota is repeating dangerous left-wing mistakes By Steve Marshall .....In February 2024, an Antifa radical, consumed with hatred for my conservative policies and Christian faith, detonated an improvised explosive device (IED) outside my attorney general’s office in Montgomery, Ala. The IED was packed with nails and metal shrapnel, projectiles designed to tear through flesh, shatter bone and kill anyone within the blast radius. Had the device been placed just a few feet closer, or had staff been arriving for work at that moment, we would have been planning funerals instead of counting blessings. Thankfully, no one was injured that day and the perpetrator was caught, but the attack represented something larger and more dangerous that is rapidly becoming normalized: a culture where political violence masquerades as legitimate political speech. Sadly, civic leaders who are called to emulate a higher societal standard have implicitly condoned this new brand of impassioned activism. In many cases, they're quite pleased to see it, convinced that the sincerity of their feelings justifies whatever actions their allies take, regardless of lawfulness. Dakota Free Press: HB 1124: Schaefbauer Bans Political Protest Within 1000 Feet of Any Church By Cory Allen Heidelberger .....Representative Schaefbauer (R-3/Aberdeen) proposes House Bill 1124 to “establish the crime of trespass upon a place of worship”. Here’s the text Rep. Schaefbauer would add to statute: No person may enter or remain on the premises of any place of worship, or within one thousand feet of any place of worship, with the intent to disrupt worship services at the place of worship, menace or harass congregants or employees of the place of worship, or for the purpose of political intimidation of or the incitement of fear of violence in those attending the place of worship. A violation of this section is a Class 5 felony. For purposes of this section, “place of worship” means a structure where people regularly assemble for worship, ceremonies, rituals, and education relating to a particular form or religious belief, and which a reasonable person would conclude is a place of worship by reason of design, signs, or architectural or other features [2026 HB 1124, Section 1, filed 2026.01.23]. Schaefbauer proposes a more radical bill under the guise of protecting churches than the Governor’s Senate Bill 113. SD War College: Sen. Hulse introduces anti-SLAPP legislation to protect freedom of speech .....Hulse’s Senate Bill 137 proposes protective measures for those who are exercising their freedom of speech or the press on matters of public concern, which puts a heavier burden on someone who is attempting to use threats of a lawsuit and it’s expense in defending it as a way to silence their opponents: WPN: Kansas Bill Targets Crypto’s Shadowy Path into Campaign Coffers By Andrew Cain .....In the heart of America’s heartland, Kansas lawmakers are moving to close a persistent gap in campaign finance rules, targeting cryptocurrency donations that have long evaded state oversight. A new bill introduced in the 2026 legislative session seeks to impose clear regulations on digital asset contributions, echoing warnings from the Kansas Public Disclosure Commission dating back years. 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