Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech January 29, 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 Common Sense with Paul Jacob: Fifty Years After Buckley .....This month, at a symposium marking the 50th anniversary of the ruling, John Samples — a former Vice President at the Cato Institute and currently a Member of Meta’s Oversight Board — compared what happened after the 1976 ruling to what might have happened had the ruling been better or worse. The alleged point of campaign finance regulation was to “level the playing field.” The actual point, Samples observed, has been to “protect the political status quo” by making it harder “to spend enough money to effectively challenge congressional incumbents.” In Buckley, the court ruled that contribution limits were indeed valid (they aren’t) for the sake of combatting corruption or the “appearance of corruption.” But it also ruled that limits on campaign spending are limits on speech, hence invalid — thereby saving democracy, argued former Federal Election Commission chair Bradley Smith, in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago: “The Buckley court understood that effective political speech requires resources.” New from the Institute for Free Speech Free Speech Lawsuit Challenges Maine School Board’s Censorship during Public Comment Time .....When Nicholas Blanchard stands to speak at Augusta Board of Education meetings, he never knows which words will get him censored. Will criticizing a board member by first name cross the line? What about pushing back against progressive gender ideology and referencing the “alphabet cult?” Will petitioning to fire a school administrator whose public advocacy he opposes cause the board to silence him? Over the past year, school board Chair Martha Witham has repeatedly interrupted Blanchard’s public comments, threatened him with police removal, and cut short his speaking time—all for expressing views the board finds objectionable. Now, with the help of the Institute for Free Speech, Blanchard is fighting back. Attorneys from the Institute, along with local counsel David Gordon and Stephen C. Smith, filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine on behalf of Blanchard. The suit challenges the Augusta Board of Education’s unconstitutional censorship of public comments through vague policies that ban speech deemed “abusive,” “vulgar,” “defamatory,” “disparaging,” “offensive,” “rude,” “gossipy,” or even just “negative.” James L. Buckley: The Man and His Principles By Roger Pilon .....Turning now to the principles that animated Jim [Buckley], particularly in the campaign finance context, I would note first how rare it is that an elected incumbent would take the position that Jim consistently took: namely, that in the main, except for narrowly focused regulation against quid pro quo corruption, campaign funding and spending should be free from regulation, and for two main reasons. First, as he wrote in that Brooklyn Law symposium, flawed as the Buckley Court’s opinion was in upholding a $1,000 ceiling for individual campaign contributions in order to limit corruption or its appearance, we should nevertheless celebrate the case because the Court held, critically, “that campaign spending is constitutionally protected speech.” And second, not only was most of the campaign finance legislation that came to the Senate floor unconstitutional, but it was also bad public policy. Supreme Court People United for Privacy: When the Supreme Court Stopped a Blueprint for Muzzling America By Zac Morgan .....This Friday, January 30th, ring in the 50th anniversary of American life under Buckley v. Valeo, the cornerstone campaign finance case – and an underappreciated donor privacy precedent. It’s easy, at a remove of half a century, to forget how apocalyptic the Watergate scandal landed in 1970s America. Today, most of us focus on the third-rate burglary and bugging of the Democratic National Committee headquarters, or the farcical cast of characters that surrounded Richard Nixon as he authorized covering up that break-in. But Watergate was so much more than dirty tricks or dark hilarity. The scandal revealed that President Nixon presided over a wide-ranging criminal enterprise from the White House, which included shaking down large corporations for illegal campaign donations and directly selling government posts for contributions – ambassador to Spain or Portugal cost $100,000, Luxembourg $300,000. Garrett M. Graff, Watergate: A New History 147–48 (Kindle Ed.). But for his pardon, Nixon would have been imprisoned, serving time with his own attorney general, John Mitchell. And this didn’t seem to be just a Nixon problem, either. The 1970s were chockablock with ethics and corruption scandals – including, amazingly, that “one Republican member of the Senate Watergate committee gave up re-election to fight an indictment for bribery.” David Frum, How We Got Here 29 (Basic Books 2000). Hardly an atmosphere conducive to calm reckoning. So Congress did what it almost always does in a crisis: it blindly lashed out in a colossal overreaction. Just as we’ve forgotten the deranged criminality of the Nixon White House, we’ve also forgotten how alien the as-passed Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 was to the American constitutional order. The Legislative Branch may have aimed at dirty tricks and corruption, but it struck hard against freedom of speech and association. FEC Early Returns - Law and Politics with Jan Baran: Inside the Federal Election Commission: Keeping the Mission Alive with Just Two Commissioners .....In this Early Returns episode, host Jan Baran speaks with the entire current Federal Election Commission, Chair Shana Broussard and Commissioner Dara Lindenbaum, the only two commissioners remaining after four departures left the agency without a quorum. Despite being unable to vote on new cases or issue advisory opinions, the commissioners reveal how their 249-person staff continue the FEC's critical work: processing and making public billions of dollars in campaign finance transactions, maintaining the nation's most reliable political filing system, and preparing enforcement cases for when a quorum is restored. They discuss the agency's shoestring budget, their bipartisan legislative recommendations on foreign national contributions and donor privacy, and why they believe the FEC's 3-3 partisan structure, though challenging, prevents the weaponization of campaign finance enforcement. The commissioners also candidly address the uncertainty of their positions in the current political environment while emphasizing their commitment to transparency and restoring a full commission. With only 190 enforcement matters awaiting commissioner votes (down from 450 during the last quorum crisis) and strong staff efficiency, the FEC is positioned to hit the ground running once new commissioners are nominated and confirmed. Candidates and Campaigns Politico: How a Democratic heavyweight is using AI in the midterms By Jessica Piper .....A Democratic opposition research powerhouse is putting massive troves of its work product online ahead of the midterms. And it’s using artificial intelligence to help everyone from campaigns to podcasters figure out how to navigate it. The project from American Bridge 21st Century, shared first with POLITICO, reflects an expansion of its efforts ahead of the 2026 midterms — as well as the evolving nature of political campaigning, including oppo research, in an increasingly fragmented media environment. “Swing voters are generally speaking getting their information very ambiently,” American Bridge President Pat Dennis said in an interview. A challenge in recent election cycles, he said, has not been a lack of opposition research, but rather how to best convey it when more voters are getting political news from podcasts, social media influencers or group chats. “If people can’t find it or read it, it’s no good,” Dennis said. New York Times (gift link): Google Co-Founder Seeds Billionaire Political Effort Amid Wealth Tax Debate By Laurel Rosenhall and Theodore Schleifer .....Sergey Brin, a Google co-founder and one of the wealthiest people in the world, is donating $20 million to a new California political drive weeks after he took steps to leave the state to avoid a possible billionaire tax. It is Mr. Brin’s largest and most visible political move ever, and it is the primary contribution to seed a $35 million effort by billionaires to fund ballot measure campaigns in California, according to a disclosure obtained by The New York Times on Wednesday. The States Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Conviction for Posting Mayor's Office Phone Number, Which Led to Hundreds of Threatening Calls from Poster's Followers By Eugene Volokh .....From a decision in November in Hendry v. State, written by Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Leanna Weissmann, joined by Judges Mark Bailey and Elaine Brown: The Oklahoman: Oklahoma lawmakers file fllurry of bills aimed at regulating AI By Dylan Goforth, The Frontier .....Oklahoma lawmakers have introduced several bills in advance of the 2026 legislative session aimed at regulating the use of artificial intelligence in political advertising, public policy and placing limits on AI usage for children. Senate Bill 746 by Sen. Ally Seifried, R-Claremore, would require candidates, political parties, and committees to disclose any political advertisement that uses generative AI to portray real people in fabricated situations. The disclosure would be required to be clear and visible in images and video or audible in audio-only content. Candidates would gain new legal tools to combat misuse, including the ability to sue to stop distribution or seek damages if their likeness, voice, or actions are misrepresented. New York Times (gift link): She Fought a Book Ban. She May Never Teach Again. By Dana Goldstein .....When Oklahoma passed laws that pressured teachers to remove books on race, gender and sexuality from their classrooms, she refused. Other teachers resisted, too — but Ms. Boismier did so loudly. She plastered her 10th-grade English classroom with signs of protest, posted to social media and advised her students on how they could find books online. Eventually she resigned. She knew that in her conservative state she would be criticized, but the reaction was much more severe than she expected. And in 2024, the state took away Ms. Boismier’s teaching license. Dakota Scout: Paid petition circulators safe in South Dakota after ban bid stalls By Todd Epp and Joe Sneve .....The South Dakota House on Tuesday rejected a bill that would have banned paid petition circulators, after opponents warned the proposal directly conflicted with long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent and could cost the state millions in legal fees. House Bill 1087 failed on a 28–38 vote, with four excused, following extended floor debate over ballot access, outside influence, and the cost of defending a likely lawsuit. Wisconsin Rapids City Times: Wisconsin newspapers urge passage of legislation to protect free speech By The Wisconsin Newspaper Association .....State Senator Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) and Representative Jim Piwowarczyk (R-Hubertus) have introduced Wisconsin Senate Bill 666/Assembly Bill 701, which would adopt the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), brining long-overdue free speech protections for citizens and journalists in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Newspaper Association and this newspaper applaud Wimberger and Piwowarczyk for introducing SB 666/AB 701 and enthusiastically urge its passage. Designed to protect free speech and the right to petition the government, SB 666/AB701, will allow the courts to quickly dismiss lawsuits that are filed not to win on the merits, but to intimidate, silence, or financially exhaust critics. 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