Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech June 15, 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]. Ed. note: The Media Update will publish on a M/W/F schedule for the month of June. In the News Santa Clara Markkula Center for Applied Ethics: Interviewing Bradley Smith: Why Citizens United Was Inevitable By Nicole Davari .....Smith frames Citizens United as a straightforward First Amendment doctrine. Political advocacy is protected whether it comes from an individual or from people acting together, and incorporation is merely a coordination mechanism that allows groups to pool resources and speak collectively, not a reason to strip speech rights. He also argues “corporation” is a shaky regulatory category because so many major political speakers are nonprofit corporations, including the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, and the NAACP. So when laws target “corporations,” they inevitably sweep in legitimate civil society organizations too, which makes the whole line hard to defend. PUFP: PUFPF’s Right to Participate Project Defends Free Speech Against Existential Threat .....A plot to strip Americans of their ability to join together and make their voices heard through the organizations they create and support is multiplying rapidly in red, blue, and purple states. Through legislation and ballot initiatives, activists are pursuing a sweeping effort to revoke the free speech rights of incorporated entities, threatening the ability of citizens to work collectively in support of causes, candidates, ballot measures, and public policy reforms. To counter this threat, People United for Privacy Foundation (PUFPF) is launching the Right to Participate (RTP) Project, a national initiative dedicated to defending the First Amendment rights of Americans to speak, associate, and participate in civic life through the organizations of their choosing… While individual efforts are sometimes referred to informally as the “Montana Plan” (or formally as the “Corporate Power Reset Act”), versions of the proposal have already appeared in more than 15 states. One such measure has already been enacted into law in Hawaii, where it is being challenged in federal court by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, with representation from the Institute for Free Speech, as a violation of the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and association. Some proposals take the form of ballot initiatives, while others are introduced as traditional legislation or legislatively-referred constitutional amendments. The Courts Atlanta Journal-Constitution (gift link): Federal court rules a fundraising advantage for Burt Jones is likely illegal By David Wickert .....A federal appeals court on Friday ruled a Georgia law that lets powerful incumbents raise unlimited campaign cash is likely unconstitutional, dealing a serious blow to what has been a significant fundraising advantage for a select few candidates. The law, passed in 2021 and aimed at boosting Republican Gov. Brian Kemp’s reelection campaign, allows some candidates — including the governor and lieutenant governor — to form leadership committees that are not subject to the campaign contribution limits imposed on their rivals… “The First Amendment does not forgive such favoritism,” U.S. Circuit Judge Britt Grant wrote for the majority. The appeals court’s decision will have little immediate impact, as it comes just four days before the runoff election that will determine whether Jackson or Jones becomes the Republican nominee. The ruling affirmed a preliminary injunction, and the litigation will continue. But the ruling aligns with a string of previous decisions casting doubt on the law, signaling to future candidates they might not be able to rely on it. Washington Post: Judge blocks Trump national parks order, calling it ‘censorship’ By Maegan Vazquez .....A federal judge has barred the Trump administration from continuing to remove information about slavery, civil rights, climate change and other topics from national parks. Angel Kelley, a U.S. District Judge for Massachusetts, on Friday issued a preliminary injunction directing the National Park Service to stop taking further action to implement an executive order issued by President Donald Trump aimed at scrubbing sites of “partisan ideology” and descriptions that “disparage” Americans. Responding to a lawsuit filed by a coalition that includes national park and history advocates, Kelley wrote the policy “sets a dangerous precedent of censorship and sanitization.” She gave the federal government 21 days to restore and reinstall all interpretive materials at park sites managed by the NPS that have been altered, removed or damaged as a result of the executive order. “History cannot be faithfully told while excluding the experiences of communities whose contributions, struggles, and achievements form an important part of our Nation’s story,” Kelley wrote. “Indeed, at a time of facts and alternative facts, the only thing we must be able to rely on as undeniable truth is history. And telling the full truths of our shared story helps our Nation heal from past wrongs, rather than prolonging us.” Carolina Journal: Judge will allow no outside briefs in Comey presidential threat case .....The judge overseeing the federal criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey in North Carolina will not accept any friend-of-the-court briefs. Comey is accused of threatening President Donald Trump with a social media post involving seashells. Comey is scheduled for arraignment on Sept. 30 in New Bern. A trial is scheduled on Oct. 21. US District Judge Louise Flanagan issued a one-page order in the case Friday. It addressed amicus, or friend-of-the-court, briefs. “This matter is before the court of its own initiative to address representations made to the case manager by members of the public, expressing intent to file briefs as amici curiae in this case,” Flanagan wrote. “No Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure or Local Criminal Rule provides for the filing of amicus briefs before this court,” the judge explained. “It is a matter of this court’s discretion whether to allow.” New York Times (gift link): Threats, Free Speech and the Case Against U. of Michigan Activists By Mitch Smith .....The four defendants in that courtroom in downtown Detroit were among eight pro-Palestinian activists with ties to the University of Michigan whose indictments on federal conspiracy charges were unsealed this week. Three others had separate hearings and the eighth was out of the country. The case reflected an escalation of the Trump administration’s efforts to crack down on pro-Palestinian activism at universities in recent years, and raised divergent concerns about antisemitism, free speech and how politics might be shaping the Justice Department’s priorities. Liz Jacob, a lawyer representing two of the defendants in separate civil cases against the university, saw the Justice Department’s approach as part of a broader effort by the Trump administration “to silence dissent and to try to silence any kind of opposition to what the government is doing.” … “They broke windows and threw glass jars filled with noxious chemicals into family homes while children slept,” prosecutors said in a court filing. “They damaged door locks, security cameras and cars. They posted their conquests on social media to threaten the victims and warn those complicit with their targets that they would be next.” Free Expression Bloomberg Law: FIFA Sued Over World Cup Ban on Pre-Revolution Iranian Flag By Mitchell Black .....Members of California’s Iranian-American community are suing FIFA and other entities over a policy to ban the pre-revolutionary Lion and Sun flag at 2026 World Cup matches. The Institute for Voices of Liberty—a Golden State nonprofit advocating for US policies that speed up the dismantling of the Iranian regime—and one of its members, Sam Kermanian, sued the soccer organization June 10 in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. The lawsuit said Kermanian had acquired tickets for Iran’s games against New Zealand and Belgium, which will kick off in Los Angeles on June 15 and June 21 respectively. He and members of the nonprofit intend to display the flag, which the complaint says is “widely recognized among Iranian-Americans as a symbol of political identity and opposition to the current Iranian regime.” FIFA’s policy of banning the flag is causing the plaintiffs to fear being excluded or removed from stadiums, have their property confiscated, and other consequences, according to the complaint. Independent Groups and Nonprofits Politico: Outside groups are increasingly using an old tactic to hide their sources of funding By Jessica Piper and Andrew Howard .....A record number of groups are exploiting a gap in campaign finance law to flood this year’s primary elections with money — without disclosing their donors until long after the race is over… Roughly 1 in 10 dollars in outside spending that has flowed into primaries so far this year has been through these secretive groups. In some cases, the pop-up super PAC spending has the characteristics of one political party meddling in another’s primary to help boost a candidate seen as more beatable in November, which is what happened in competitive races in Texas’ 35th District, Maine’s 2nd District and most recently New York’s 17th District. In other cases, groups sought to hide their connection to controversial sources, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “It’s certainly a very strategic effort to avoid providing transparency for voters,” said Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center. “So even if they’re acting within the letter of the law, they are ultimately undermining in spirit. Because disclosure requirements exist so that voters — when they’re deciding who to cast their ballot for — have the information about who has spent money backing these candidates.” … And there are other ways for super PACs to hide their sources of funding beyond taking advantage of the FEC’s timing. Many get transfers from 501(c)(4) nonprofits, which face far fewer disclosure requirements. As the practice of pop-up super PACs has become more common, it’s also become more sophisticated. Candidates and Campaigns NOTUS: Influencers Embrace Push to Add Disclaimers on Paid Political Content By Jenna Monnin .....Rep. Mark Takano (D-California) is shining a bright light on this issue with the Promoting Authenticity with the Influencer Disclaimer (PAID) Act he introduced last week… Tom Steyer, the billionaire climate activist who did not advance in the state’s gubernatorial primary, paid influencers hundreds of thousands to boost his candidacy. In 2023, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law that required individuals paid by political committees to include disclaimers in their posts. Since the influencers did not disclose their payments from Steyer, California’s Fair Political Practices Commission, the state’s agency for enforcing campaign finance laws, opened an investigation. Steyer has defended the practice by arguing that nobody associated with his political operation reviewed posts in advance and that the influencers deserve to be paid for the work. Steyer’s campaign wasn’t the only entity engaging in controversial interactions with content creators. Kalshi and Polymarket, two of the most prominent prediction markets, told influencers they paid to take down posts sharing conspiracy theories alleging that Democrats rigged the vote-counting process to knock out Republican candidate Spencer Pratt. The States Crain's Detroit Business: Editorial: Attempt to ban corporate cash a cynical political maneuver By Editorial Board .....The question of whether there is too much money in politics is a fair one that is often raised these days. A push for a ballot proposal that on its surface looks like it might help curb that influence is looking to take advantage of voter frustration to limit corporate political donations to both candidates and political action committees. An organization called Michiganders for Money Out of Politics turned in 562,000 signatures earlier this month to put on the November ballot a measure that would bar DTE Energy, Consumers Energy from donating directly or indirectly to state-level candidates and parties. It would also prohibit contributions from any company holding state or local contracts worth more than $250,000, which would sweep in more than 900 businesses, including Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. Washington Times: Nonprofits shouldn’t have to rely on Supreme Court protection By Rick Santorum .....First Choice should have won its fight long before it reached the high court. Since the 1958 NAACP v. Alabama — another unanimous decision — the Supreme Court has consistently held that state demands for donor lists infringe on our constitutional rights. Yet the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals still ruled in favor of New Jersey in the case. Just like the 9th Circuit ruled for California a decade ago, when state Attorney General Kamala Harris demanded that every nonprofit in the state hand over its list. In both cases, only the Supreme Court’s intervention saved Americans from having their donations and personal information exposed. Still, the Supreme Court cannot take every case. Nor should Americans have to wage constant, costly and lengthy legal battles to protect such basic rights as privacy and freedom of association. That is where legislation comes in. Since 2018, 22 states have enacted versions of the Personal Privacy Protection Act, designed to explicitly prohibit government agencies and officials from making unlawful demands for confidential donor information. Officials who violate these protections can face legal consequences under statutes designed to prevent politically motivated fishing expeditions. Ballotpedia News: Iowa becomes the 25th state to ban foreign contributions to ballot measure committees By Andrew Bahl .....On June 2, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) signed legislation, HF 2601, which prohibits foreign contributions in ballot measure elections. Iowa previously had a ban on foreign funding for candidate elections, but no such prohibition on foreign contributions to ballot measure committees. Iowa is now the 25th state to ban foreign nationals or governments from contributing to ballot measure campaigns. It is also one of 19 states to prohibit foreign contributions to both campaign and ballot measure committees. MTFP: How unidentifiable donors are funding Montana’s anti-dark money initiative By Victoria Eavis .....The Montana-based group promoting a ballot initiative that would make campaign finance more transparent obscures its own financial backers with a murky fundraising structure, according to publicly available campaign finance filings reviewed by Montana Free Press. The Transparent Election Initiative is a nonprofit organization pushing to “stop corporate and dark money cold” in elections. The group is currently aiming to pass a citizen’s initiative — known as The Montana Plan, or I-194 — that would prohibit political spending by “artificial persons” such as nonprofits, corporations, trusts, trade associations and others. The nonprofit is set up by former Montana Commissioner of Political Practices Jeff Mangan. 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