September 15, 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

Daily Caller: ‘Stochastic Terrorism’ Is The Newest Way The Left Plans To Censor Dissent

By Sarah Weaver

.....Far left activists have recently deployed a “sophisticated, academic-sounding” crowbar to batter tech companies and ideological dissenters alike, but the strategy is getting mixed reviews from free speech and extremism experts interviewed by the Daily Caller.

Instances of the phrase “stochastic terrorism” have seen a massive spike online since 2016 and more recently in the last few months, as activists seek to de-platform and censor personalities and brands that refuse to hew to their particular worldview...

Some experts interviewed by the Caller were worried about a heated political environment in which rhetoric could, however unintentionally, lead to violence.

“I think a lot of people are careless with their words, and I think people on all sides of the political spectrum need to tone it down basically,” David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech told the Caller...

Keating said censorship would prove to be “a mistake in the long run,” and the term “stochastic terrorism” was little more than a rhetorical flourish.

“I think it’s a classic overreaction dressed up in a sophisticated academic sounding word,” Keating said.

Congress

Bloomberg Government: What to Know in Washington: Covid Cases Hinder Senate Democrats

By Brandon Lee and Michaela Ross

.....A new version of a long-pending Democratic-backed proposal to require greater donor disclosure by groups spending money to influence federal elections has been set up for a Senate vote, Kenneth P. Doyle reports.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y) on Tuesday placed the measure on the chamber’s legislative calendar, clearing the way for a motion to proceed to the bill, although a date isn’t set.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) introduced Monday an updated version of the measure incorporating changes—including greater transparency for digital campaign ad funding—made when the bill was packaged with a broader voting rights measure. That bill was blocked by a GOP filibuster last fall.

New York Times: Senate to Investigate Charge That Trump Meddled in Prosecutor’s Office

By Benjamin Weiser

.....The Senate Judiciary Committee will investigate allegations that the Justice Department under President Donald J. Trump sought to use the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan to support Mr. Trump politically and pursue his critics, the committee’s chairman said on Monday.

The Courts

Washington Post: Journalism or political activism? Project Veritas is on trial over 2016 sting.

By Erik Wemple

.....Critics of Project Veritas, the undercover-video group famous for its stings against media organizations and other institutions, have decried its sensationalism and reliance on deceptive tactics to gather its material. The group’s founder, James O’Keefe, counters that Project Veritas practices a form of journalism that serves the public interest — and that has lamentably fallen out of favor with mainstream outlets...

This week, a jury in a D.C. federal court will hear some variation of this debate, as the trial begins in the 2017 case Democracy Partners, LLC, et al. v. Project Veritas Action Fund.

Candidates and Campaigns

Election Law Blog: “The Unique Appearance of Corruption in Personal Loan Repayments”

By Rick Hasen

.....John Martin has posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming, Cornell Law Review). Here is [an excerpt from] the abstract:

By conducting a comprehensive survey consisting of 2,428 participants . . . this Article finds that [personal loan repayment limits] are in fact quite defensible in a post-Cruz world. Indeed, survey respondents perceived a significantly greater likelihood of quid pro quo corruption when a candidate receives a contribution to repay personal loans versus to cover campaign expenses. Such a finding provides empirical support for a distinctive appearance of corruption in personal loan repayments, which in turn strengthens the state’s interest in regulating them. This Article thus contributes to the campaign finance literature by offering a vital first quantitative look into exactly how personal loan repayments affect the public’s perception of corruption.

Donor Exposure

Washington Examiner: Nikki Haley lashes out at Democrats for allegedly leaking her donor list

By Salena Zito

.....On Tuesday, Haley sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding that the Department of Justice investigate the illegal delivery, receipt, and public disclosure of a list of the identities of donors to Stand for America. "These illicit acts are subject to criminal penalties, and it is your duty to launch an inquiry, follow the facts wherever they lead, and prosecute,” she wrote. Haley added that once Garland's office has concluded its investigation, it should prosecute all those responsible to the fullest extent permitted by law.

The materials, which contained donor names — all influential men and women in the conservative movement — were leaked in August to Politico in a chilling act of intimidation against conservative political speech. Haley, a Republican, has been an outspoken critic of New York's no-bail laws and believes this is an instance of retaliation.

The States

Americans for Tax Reform: Anti-Privacy Measure on the Arizona Ballot, Anti-Election Integrity Measure Tossed by Judge

By Doug Kellogg

.....The measure that remains on the ballot would require non-profit issue groups to disclose the “original source of funds” for any contributions totaling $5,000 to an organization that spends at least $25,000 on “campaigns.”

While made to sound like it’s limited to campaign finance, the definition of “campaigns” is loose and would limit the ability of citizen groups, non-profits, and issue advocacy organizations to talk about policy issues.

The measure’s definition of “independent campaign spending” includes any public communication that “promotes or attacks” a candidate within a full calendar year of an election; simply refers to a candidate within three months of an election in their district; any critiques or praise for ballot referendums. It also seems to include criticisms of political party-led voter registration efforts.

Oddly enough, political action committees that receive more than $5,000 from one individual are not covered by the measure.

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