This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact Luke Wachob at [email protected].  

Bucks County Courier Times: Pennsbury settles free speech lawsuit. What it could mean to other districts

.....The impact of a lawsuit the Pennsbury School Board settled last week with four district residents over their right to comment at board meetings could reach far beyond Bucks County.

U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith: Hyde-Smith Says Dem. Donor Disclosure Bill is Unconstitutional

.....Under questioning from Hyde-Smith, David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, focused on the detrimental effects the disclosure requirements in S.443 would have on groups trying to petition the government.

Ed. note: Read David Keating's full written testimony on the DISCLOSE Act here or here (PDF).

E-Pluribus:  July 20, 2022

.....[Y]esterday, there was a Senate Rules Committee hearing on The DISCLOSE Act, a bill that many free speech advocates, including the ACLU, find concerning for its potential to chill speech by exposing donors to issue groups. The Institute for Free Speech’s Luke Wachob has a short thread on the hearing:

New Jersey Monitor: Lawmakers take aim at lawsuits that quash public participation

.....A bill by Assemblyman Paul Moriarty (D-Gloucester) would give judges more power to dismiss lawsuits known as “SLAPPs,” short for strategic lawsuits against public participation...

Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have anti-SLAPP laws on the books, according to the Institute for Free Speech. New Jersey does not, prompting the institute in February to give the Garden State an ‘F’ on its national report card examining states’ anti-SLAPP protections...

A few other lawmakers joined Moriarty’s cause recently. Assemblyman Raj Mukherji (D-Hudson) and Sen. Joseph Lagana (D-Bergen) introduced a similar bill last month modeled after the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act proposed by the nonprofit Uniform Law Commission in 2020. That organization of state commissioners recommends and drafts model state legislation.

Ed. note: Read our full 50-state Anti-SLAPP Report Card here. Read "An Open Letter in Support of the Uniform Law Commission’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act", co-signed by 28 organizations including the Institute for Free Speech, here.

.....Every spring, bold, controversial Supreme Court decisions splash across news media, obscuring more subtle, but important, decisions that don’t get the same attention. Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, No. 21-12, 596 U.S., 142 S.Ct. 1638 (May 16, 2022), was one of those important, but not highly publicized, First Amendment decisions. Its importance came from signaling to lower courts and legislators that the Court meant what it said in earlier cases protecting free expression, rather than from its direct result: the substantive invalidation of a limit on post-election campaign contributions that harmed challengers and new candidates.

FEC v. Cruz’s most important signal may be the current Court’s six-vote majority support for First Amendment protections for political speech, sending a strong message that legislators and lower courts should not play fast and loose with constitutional limits on government regulation of political expression: “the First Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it.” FEC v. Cruz, slip op., at 16, quoting, McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185, 209 (2014).

In particular, the decision buttressed recent Court decisions requiring legislators and regulatory agencies to have solid evidence of problems they claim as justification for regulation rather than speculating about possible problems: “We have ‘never accepted mere conjecture as adequate to carry a First Amendment burden.’” (FEC v. Cruz, slip op., at 15, quoting McCutcheon, 572 U.S. at 210). Friend of the court briefs from the Institute for Free Speech (pp. 4-5, 7-8, 11) and other organizations (e.g., Public Policy Legal Institute (pp. 19-23)) had asked the Court to issue such a reinforcing message, citing McCutcheon and other cases.

U.S. Senator Bill Hagerty: Hagerty Delivers Opening Statement At Rules Committee Hearing on the DISCLOSE Act

.....First, this bill would require virtually any entity that engages in political speech, including non-profits, to publicly disclose the names and addresses of its significant contributors. This is a thinly veiled attempt to send the message that, if you support an organization that happens to support causes with which some disagree, you become a target for criticism, harassment, and intimidation—even if your support has nothing to do with the organization’s position on a certain issue. It would fuel new frontiers of cancel culture and personalization of politics.

New York Times: Democratic Group Sues the Federal Election Commission Over Trump’s 2024 Hinting

.....A Democratic super PAC filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday, seeking to force officials to take action against Donald J. Trump for all but running for president in 2024 without having declared himself a candidate.

The College Fix: Professor’s lawsuit demands free speech rights in ‘battle for the soul of the university’

.....[Professor Stuart] Reges filed a lawsuit last week against his employer, the University of Washington, after administrators punished him for his controversial land acknowledgment statement. He accuses administrators of retaliating against him for protected political speech.

A computer science professor, Reges had inserted his own spin on a land acknowledgement statement UW recommended every professor put on their syllabi.

UW’s suggestion: “The University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot nations.”

Instead, Reges put: “I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.”

The university initiated an investigative hearing over the matter, ordered the removal of the clause from the syllabus, and opened a new section of the class at the same time as Reges’ class for offended students.

Cleveland.com: Ohio Senate candidate J.D. Vance makes about face on accepting corporate PAC money

.....While running in the Republican primary race for U.S. Senate earlier this year, J.D. Vance flatly said he would not accept any contributions from corporate PACs.

The City: De Blasio Gave Up on Running for Congress — But He Can Use Money He Raised to Pay Off His Old Debts

.....Twice in the last eight months former Mayor Bill de Blasio has publicly flirted with a run for office, first openly talking about his desire to be elected governor and then launching a run for Congress.

Insider NJ: ELEC: Big Six Committees Post Below Average in Federal Year

.....With no state elections this year, the so-called “Big Six” fund-raising committees reached the year’s midpoint with slightly below average fund-raising and spending...

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.