The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech August 4, 2022 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 Luke Wachob at [email protected]. In the News Washington Examiner: To prevent political violence, support for nonprofit groups should stay private By Nathan Maxwell .....For the latest demonstration of why people deserve a right to privacy when supporting nonprofit advocacy groups, look no further than the controversy surrounding the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization... After a draft of the majority opinion in Dobbs was leaked to the media, pro-life groups suffered a wave of arson and vandalism. Wisconsin Family Action, a group that advocates Judeo-Christian values in its state, was the target of one such arson in May in retaliation for its pro-life views. Spray-painted on the outside of the building was a warning: “If abortions aren’t safe, then you aren’t either.” Other attacks with the same warning have occurred in Maryland, Washington, Florida, and North Carolina... Pro-choice groups have plenty of reasons to fear for their privacy too... If supporters of nonprofit causes were exposed by government mandate, as proposed by legislation such as the DISCLOSE Act, more people would suffer similar harassment, and fewer people would make their voices heard. That’s antithetical to the First Amendment and a healthy democracy. Speech and association aren’t free if they come at the cost of our safety. The Courts Chicago Tribune: Federal lawsuit challenges new limits on contributions to Illinois judicial candidates By Dan Petrella .....A former Illinois attorney who retired to Texas and two conservative political action committees filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday challenging recently approved restrictions on campaign contributions to judicial candidates in Illinois on First Amendment grounds. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago by the conservative Liberty Justice Center on behalf of John Matthew Chancey, Fair Courts America and Restoration PAC, comes three months before Illinois voters will cast ballots in two Illinois Supreme Court races that will determine whether Democrats maintain their 4-3 majority on the state’s highest court. Seeking to preserve Democratic control of all three branches of state government, Democrats in the legislature approved a measure last year that bars judicial candidates from receiving campaign cash from out-of-state contributors and groups that don’t disclose their donors. This year, lawmakers approved another measure that bans contributions in excess of $500,000 per election cycle from a single source to independent expenditure committees set up to support or oppose judicial candidates. In their lawsuit, Chancey and the PACs argue that both laws violate free-speech rights established in cases including the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United decision, which opened the door to unlimited political contributions. Congress The Sentinel: IRS targeting amendment designed to protect free speech By Dave Trabert .....The proposed Schumer-Manchin $433 billion spending extravaganza includes $46 billion for the IRS, which the Wall Street Journal says will be used to audit the middle class. And IRS staff will be free to target groups for exercising free speech unless an amendment proposed by Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) is added. A statement from Braun’s office says, “For 27 months, from February 2010 until May 2012, the IRS systematically targeted conservative tax-exempt applicants for additional scrutiny and delay. As prominent Democratic politicians and the media condemned conservative non-profit groups, the IRS sought to rein in the groups’ political speech.” The Braun Amendment would insert the traditional IRS targeting rider most recently included in the FY 2022 Omnibus Appropriations bill (P.L. 117-103) that prohibits the IRS from targeting citizens for exercising their free speech rights. FCW: Lawmakers push Biden for an order to root out dark money from federal contractors By Chris Riotta .....The White House has a powerful tool in its arsenal to begin chipping away at dark money in national elections – and its impact could transform the way major corporations conduct business with the federal government. That’s according to more than 60 lawmakers who recently signed a letter to President Joe Biden urging him to use his executive powers and require large federal contractors to disclose their political spending... The Professional Services Council, which represents organizations within the government technology and professional services industries, said current PAC rules are "sufficient" and that the letter "misidentifies the problem." ... The lawmakers acknowledged in their letter to the president that "the best way to deal with issues of good governance and unchecked political spending" would be for Congress to pass a comprehensive bill like the DISCLOSE Act. Donor Privacy Law.com: State Agrees to Pay $8M in Attorney Fees in Donor Privacy Case By Cheryl Miller .....The state of California is poised to pay $8 million in legal fees to a conservative nonprofit after losing a years-long battle to unveil the organization’s top donors. The appropriation to Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization with reported ties to the Koch family, is included in the Legislature’s annual claims-against-the-state bill. The legislation provides funding for legal settlements involving the state. Free Expression Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Should the Law Limit Private-Employer-Imposed Speech Restrictions? By Eugene Volokh .....Ten years ago, I wrote a descriptive and analytical law review article called Private Employees' Speech and Political Activity: Statutory Protection Against Employer Retaliation, which aimed to catalog these often-little-known statutes. This year, I'm returning to the subject, trying to analyze the strongest arguments for and against such statutes. The article (Should the Law Limit Private-Employer-Imposed Speech Restrictions?) will be published later this year in a Journal of Free Speech Law symposium issue, together with other articles that stemmed from an Arizona State symposium on Non-Governmental Restrictions on Free Speech; and this week and next I'd like to serialize it here. Let me begin with the Introduction and the beginning of the argument in favor of such statutes, though you can read the entire article in PDF if you'd like; future posts will also of course cover the arguments against such statutes. Independent Groups New York Times: Trump Has Big Plans for 2025, and He Doesn’t Care Whether You Think He’ll Win By Thomas B. Edsall .....Trump has a vast array of 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) nonprofit tax-exempt advocacy groups that serve several purposes. They perform what Peter Singer, a senior fellow at New America, describes as a “shadow government” function, “filled with people who either have been or want to be in government — or both,” a way station for prospective political appointees. These advocacy groups, Singer continued, can “set a political party’s agenda,” giving a 2025 Trump administration a “jump-start.” Candidates and Campaigns Honolulu Civil Beat: Can Patrick Branco’s Mainland Backers Buy Him A Seat In Congress? By Nick Grube .....Adav Noti is the vice president and legal director of the Campaign Legal Center in Washington. His organization considers red-boxing to be illegal coordination between candidates and super PACs. The problem is, he said, the Federal Election Commission has yet to do anything about it in terms of enforcement. Noti said he reviewed the content on Branco’s website and described it as “brazen” and an “egregious” violation of the rules. “It’s coordinated in every way you can think of,” Noti said. “What this means is that when some wealthy spender comes in and buys these ads as requested the candidate is going to be indebted to that spender. That’s exactly what anti-corruption laws are intended to prevent.” Branco declined to be interviewed for this story, but in a text message said that he did not coordinate with any outside group and had “no idea why anyone would spend to support or oppose me.” “We need strong campaign finance reform, and I’m going to push for that in Congress to get money out of our elections,” he said. Washington Post: Democrats face blowback after boosting far-right Michigan candidate By Patrick Marley .....Democrats faced a backlash Wednesday — including from within their own ranks — after inserting themselves into a GOP primary in western Michigan, helping a far-right candidate who has embraced false claims about the 2020 election to topple a Republican who had voted to impeach Donald Trump. Daily Caller: Left-Wing Dark Money Groups Boost Dem Candidate Who Pledged To Fight Dark Money, Records Show By Gabe Kaminsky .....A Democratic Wisconsin Senate candidate who has railed against “dark money” in politics is being supported by a left-wing dark money network, Federal Election Commission (FEC) records show. Mandela Barnes, whose top Senate primary opponents dropped out of the race in July, said in February “Dark money has no place in democracy” and pledges on his website “to stand up to the corrupting influence of dark money.” At the same time, Barnes was endorsed Monday by the Family Friendly Action PAC — which is dumping millions in his race to unseat Republican Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson and is largely funded by the dark money groups Sixteen Thirty Fund and America Votes, according to FEC filings. The States Boston.com: At City Hall, flags would need approval to fly under proposed ordinance By Christopher Gavin .....A trio of city councilors have proposed an ordinance to require either a City Council resolution or mayoral proclamation for a flag to be raised outside Boston City Hall. The filing was announced by Mayor Michelle Wu’s office on Tuesday, a day before a flag bearing a red Christian cross is slated to fly over City Hall Plaza. Scientific American: A Proposed Antiabortion Law Infringes on Free Speech By Hayley Tsukayama .....A bill under consideration in South Carolina seeks to restrict what its residents will be able to read online about abortion. As a consequence, it also threatens to restrict what all of us can say. I work for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that fights for digital civil liberties, including free expression, privacy and innovation. And while we are not a reproductive rights group, we pay close attention to areas where restrictions on abortion and other reproductive care infringe on these core issues... The South Carolina bill comes from Republican state Senators Richard Cash, Rex F. Rice and Daniel B. Verdin III, S. 1373, the Equal Protection at Conception—No Exceptions—Act, makes abortions illegal in South Carolina, and also makes it a crime to, broadly defined, “aid, abet, or conspire” with someone to procure an abortion... There are glaring free-speech issues in the bill. 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 ‌ ‌ ‌ The Institute for Free Speech | 1150 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 801, Washington, DC 20036 Unsubscribe [email protected] Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by [email protected]