This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact Luke Wachob at [email protected].
|
|
New from the Institute for Free Speech
.....Last May, a solicitor for the Pennsbury School Board shouted down and censored critics of a new district policy during public comment time at a board meeting, screaming “you’re done!” Several of the targets of his wrath said, “see you in court.” After almost a year of litigation, the board agreed last night to settle the lawsuit and pay $300,000 in attorney’s fees and nominal damages.
In addition, the district has rewritten its public-comment policy to conform to the First Amendment and the federal court’s preliminary injunction ruling. It also abolished its so-called civility policy and parted ways with the law firm that was advising it during the time it censored comments, including the solicitor who shouted down speakers.
The lawsuit was filed last October by Bucks County residents Douglas Marshall, Simon Campbell, Robert Abrams, and Tim Daly. They were represented by attorneys from the Institute for Free Speech and Michael Gottlieb of Vangrossi & Recchuiti.
“School boards across the country should take note. Rules for public comments must respect the First Amendment rights of speakers. If you are limiting which opinions may be shared, you’ll be held liable for violating First Amendment rights,” said Alan Gura, Vice President for Litigation at the Institute for Free Speech.
|
|
The Courts
By Becky Bohrer, Associated Press
.....A federal judge on Thursday denied a request to block campaign finance provisions of a ballot measure approved by Alaska voters in 2020, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on their outlined claims.
U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason in a written ruling also said that in the context of elections, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that “‘lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter ... election rules on the eve of an election.’” She said the plaintiffs “waited over one year to seek preliminary injunctive relief.”
There is a special election for U.S. House and a primary in Alaska on Aug. 16.
The lawsuit was filed earlier this year on behalf of political donors and third-party groups known as independent expenditure groups. They argued the disclosure rules are unconstitutional and burdensome...
The challenged disclosure rules included disclaimers required for ads and required reporting around contributions greater than $2,000 that are given to or received by independent expenditure groups.
|
|
By Breccan F. Thies
.....A University of Washington professor is suing the school after the administration punished him for not including a Native American “land acknowledgement” in his class syllabus.
His lawsuit is being backed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
|
|
FEC
By Dave Levinthal
.....[T]he Federal Election Commission unanimously agreed to give Americans three more weeks to critique Google's request to quickly allow political committees' emails to skirt its Gmail spam filters...
The unanimous decision Thursday of the 6-member, bipartisan Federal Election Commission follows a recent Insider report about how the public had little knowledge of the obscure but potentially pivotal case for Gmail users— or much time at all to send the FEC comments on it.
The FEC originally stated the public had until July 11 to issue feedback on Google's request, which became public July 6. Regulators then revised the deadline to July 16 before officially extending it Thursday to August 5...
FEC Chairman Allen Dickerson, a Republican, said it is "prudent to exercise our discretion" to extend the public comment period, given the case's implications.
Added Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub: "There seems to be quite a lot of interest in this one."
Republican FEC Commissioner Trey Trainor expressed concern Thursday that the FEC hadn't yet proposed or drafted an official response to Google, and that beyond Google's request itself, "the public has nothing to comment on."
He also lamented that the commission, in general, is often slow to make decisions, and that regulated companies such as Google are "moving more quickly than we are."
Nevertheless, Trainor voted to extend the comment period, citing the FEC having initially, and erroneously, advertised the public comment deadline as July 11...
The FEC has directed people to email comments about the case to the email address [email protected].
|
|
By Ashley Gold
.....The Federal Election Commission has received hundreds of public comments, virtually all negative, on a Google pilot program that would protect campaign emails from being automatically filtered as spam.
Per an Axios review of hundreds of comments submitted to the FEC, people hate Google's idea, which the company introduced to ease tensions with conservatives who argue their political emails are unfairly flagged for spam by Gmail filters.
|
|
By Jason Hancock
.....A member of the Federal Election Commission is criticizing her agency’s failure to fully investigate groups that funneled $6 million of anonymous money into Missouri to boost Eric Greitens’ 2016 campaign for governor.
Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat, said in an official statement of reasons made public this week that the scheme “was clearly designed to avoid the transparency federal law requires.” But her colleagues declined to authorize a full investigation, she wrote, because they felt it would not be a wise use of the agency’s resources.
“Time after time, my colleagues claim we should not use our resources to pursue investigations,” Weintraub wrote. “But this agency was created to ‘follow the money’ and is charged with enforcing the law. The comprehensive record before the commission demonstrating a multimillion-dollar contribution-in-the-name-of-another scheme is exactly the sort of matter for which Congress appropriates funds to the FEC to enable us to investigate.”
|
|
By Madison Hall
.....Two commissioners in the Federal Election Commission are beefing after an intense public hearing over California Rep. Eric Swalwell's request to use campaign funds for overnight childcare for when he travels abroad and for campaign events...
Thursday's public hearing grew intense at its end when Trump-appointed Commissioner Trey Trainor took a moment to disparage Swalwell for his travels.
"To be real honest with you," Trainor said, "I'm actually going to pass judgment on it. I think it's abhorrent that Congressman Swalwell would have such a young child and want to leave them in the care of someone else, for a weeklong trip overseas and using donor contributions to pay for that. I think it's inappropriate we even had to address this question."
Following the hearing, FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat appointed by President George W. Bush, took to Twitter to address Trainor's rhetoric and treatment of Swalwell at the hearing. She likened his treatment to the TV show "The Handmaid's Tale."
"I have never seen a requestor treated so disrespectfully by a member of this Commission. This is the United States of America, not the Republic of Gilead," Weintraub tweeted.
Trainor publicly responded, writing that "I've never seen campaign donors treated so disrespectfully! The Republic will persevere even if Swalwell doesn't get all the junkets he'd like."
|
|
Online Speech Platforms
By Benjamin Wofford
.....But the rise of this new messenger has disquieted some. For one, it’s unclear whether influencers are following federal disclosure rules. And as at similar firms, the names of Urban Legend’s influencers and clients are a closely held secret—or were, until recently—creating the prospect of an internet flush with untraceable money, in which Americans can no longer tell an earnest opinion from a paid one...
In Washington, there’s been a swell of interest in the influencer business, across the political spectrum. It bears the signs of an incipient arms race, much like the advent of super PACs a decade ago. Hany Farid, a professor of computer science at UC Berkeley who has briefed the Biden administration on social media regulation, predicted that Urban Legend’s model will be recapitulated widely before the 2024 presidential election. “This is the future,” Farid told me…
“To understand what Urban Legend is doing, you have to look at where we are as a society,” says Makembe. “There’s a lack of trust”—in institutions, in media, in each other—a worsening problem that he says Urban Legend is solving. Others are less sanguine. “You’re getting paid to manipulate your followers,” Farid says flatly. “Somebody with 3,000 followers is now, essentially, a lobbyist.”
|
|
Candidates and Campaigns
By Barnini Chakraborty
.....A Phoenix man is suing GOP Rep. David Schweikert of Arizona for defamation over a "homophobic" ad by the congressman allegedly meant to out primary challenger Elijah Norton ahead of the Aug. 2 primary.
|
|
By Roger Sollenberger
.....The Oz setup involves a somewhat confusing super PAC, which has a “dark money” nonprofit twin. The super PAC has raised more than $4 million, including a donation from the nonprofit...
Brett Kappel, campaign finance specialist at Harmon Curran, explained the arrangement.
“The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision allowed corporations, including nonprofit organizations, to make unlimited contributions to Super PACs, which then could spend those funds on independent expenditures supporting or opposing candidates,” Kappel said.
But where super PACs have to disclose their donor information, nonprofit organizations don’t. That gives donors a layer of anonymity—instead of giving to the super PAC, give to a nonprofit that gives to the super PAC. The nickname “dark money” is a pejorative reference to that anonymity.
“Citizens United essentially created a system of legalized money laundering, which allows wealthy donors to funnel unlimited amounts of money through nonprofit organizations to Super PACs to support candidates of their choosing without ever having to reveal their identities,” Kappel said.
|
|
The States
By Andrea Eger
.....The governing board for Epic Charter School voted unanimously on Wednesday to pay out more than a half-million dollars in court-ordered sanctions to a former state senator who was targeted in a lawsuit for publicly questioning the administrative practices of the school’s ousted and recently indicted co-founders.
In March, the overhauled school board voted to end a 2-year-old legal crusade against Ron Sharp, a former Republican state senator from Shawnee. A judge finalized the judgment in the case Tuesday…
An Oklahoma County district judge not only slapped Epic with a bill for $36,000 for Sharp’s legal fees in defending himself against the lawsuit but also ordered the school to pay the senator $500,000 in sanctions under a state law intended to prevent the use of lawsuits or threats of lawsuits to intimidate or silence critics exercising their First Amendment rights.
Oklahoma’s anti-SLAPP, or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, law is called the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act. Epic had appealed the ruling all the way to the Oklahoma Supreme Court before the board recently halted that appeal.
|
|
By Taylor Goldenstein
.....For the past two and a half years, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has declined to sue hundreds of candidates and elected officials who altogether owe more than $700,000 to the state in unpaid fines for campaign reporting violations...
The state has few restrictions on political spending by design, with the laws supported by Republican lawmakers who generally oppose government regulation. It’s one of only 11 states that put no limits on individual contributions to campaigns.
And the Texas Ethics Commission, the regulatory agency in charge of enforcing those laws, doesn’t have many tools at its disposal to go after scofflaws aside from letter notifications. Its last line of defense against delinquent filers is to refer their cases to the attorney general’s office.
“We have very few rules when it comes to campaign finance in Texas, and the few that we do have are not enforced, clearly,” said Anthony Gutierrez, executive director of Common Cause Texas, a government watchdog group. “What’s the point of even having the rules?”
Refusing to collect the fines is the latest exhibit of the antagonistic relationship between Paxton and the Texas Ethics Commission. In recent years, Paxton’s office has questioned the constitutionality of the agency’s work, and though his office is charged with defending state agencies in court, he has declined to defend it against a still-ongoing suit filed by political allies of his who seek to gut the agency. The unusual move has cost the state over $1 million by forcing it to seek outside counsel.
|
|
By Alexandra Presta
.....Over 230 bills turn into laws Thursday as a result of the Kentucky General Assembly's legislative session…
Anti-SLAPP bill: House Bill 222 seeks to protect freedom of speech. “SLAPP” is an acronym for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation." A SLAPP lawsuit alleges defamation against people who criticize public individuals and entities through acts of censorship and intimidation.
This bill offers protection for those exercising their First Amendment rights in speaking out against a matter of public interest from SLAPP lawsuits.
Ed. note: The Institute for Free Speech wrote about recent updates to anti-SLAPP laws here. Read our full 50-state anti-SLAPP report card here.
|
|
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 First Amendment rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government. Please support the Institute's mission by clicking here. For further information, visit www.ifs.org.
|
|
Follow the Institute for Free Speech |
|
|
|
|
|
|
