This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].
|
|
We're Hiring!
.....The Institute for Free Speech is seeking a skilled communicator with experience in media relations and a proven record of developing relationships with journalists and influencers. This role will support all aspects of the Institute for Free Speech’s work. The Communications Director will understand both traditional media outreach efforts and social media to share the Institute’s pro-speech message.
This position demands a candidate who has an in-depth understanding of what drives news stories and can use the news cycle to educate the public on the threats to and the importance of free speech. In short, you will help spread the Institute’s message and fight for the First Amendment’s speech freedoms and a culture of free speech in the court of public opinion.
|
|
In the News
By Amanda Pampuro
.....The state of Wyoming asked a 10th Circuit panel on Wednesday to revive a law requiring the disclosure of donors paying for election ads, which a federal judge threw out as vague.
In 2019, the Wyoming Legislature passed a bill requiring organizations disclose donors funding political ads during elections.
In the 2020 primary, Second Amendment advocacy group Wyoming Gun Owners paid $1,229 to run a radio ad asking listeners to support one candidate for state Senate and to tell the opponent “that Wyoming gun owners need fighters, not country-club moderates who will stab us in the back the first chance they get.”
The organization declined to disclose its donors because it didn’t see the ad as any different from the work it conducts outside of election season.
Wyoming Gun Owners paid the state's $500 fine and sued, arguing the law was vague and chilled its freedom of speech. A federal judge agreed in 2021 and enjoined the state from forcing the Wyoming Gun Owners to disclose donors.
Wyoming appealed. The gun owners filed a cross-appeal hoping to keep the law from being applied to anyone.
|
|
FEC
By Sarah Mearhoff
.....Nearly three months after failed congressional candidate Liam Madden described live on the radio a self-funded scheme to inflate his campaign fundraising numbers, a nonprofit campaign finance watchdog group has filed a complaint against the Republican nominee with the Federal Election Commission.
In the 30-page complaint filed on Tuesday, attorneys from the Campaign Legal Center ask that the FEC investigate Madden and “seek appropriate sanctions for any and all violations,” including civil penalties and injunctive relief “to remedy these violations and prohibit any and all future violations.”
|
|
By Lee E. Goodman and Andrew G. Woodson
.....On behalf of Citizens United and Citizens United Foundation, Wiley attorneys Lee Goodman and Andrew Woodson submitted comments to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in response to the agency’s proposal to expand regulation of free internet communications. The comment opposed an agency proposal to regulate the internal production and staff costs of organizations that post political content for free on their own websites and other social media platforms.
|
|
Online Speech Platforms
By Robby Soave
.....The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) played a direct role in policing permissible speech on social media throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Confidential emails obtained by Reason show that Facebook moderators were in constant contact with the CDC, and routinely asked government health officials to vet claims relating to the virus, mitigation efforts such as masks, and vaccines.
|
|
By Nate Hochman
.....I went on to test a variety of right-wing ideas that have been coded as “misinformation” by the kinds of fact-checkers and experts who have recently exerted increasing control over the public narrative online. The point isn’t that all of these ideas or theories are correct or merited — they aren’t. The point is that they expose a double standard — ChatGPT polices wrongthink — and raise deeper concerns about the paternalistic progressive worldview that the algorithm appears to represent.
|
|
The States
By Tres Watson
.....Our current campaign finance system is structured upside-down. Anonymous, unaccountable ‘dark money’ groups have access to unlimited money, with state parties having a higher limit than candidates, who are allowed to raise the least. This ensures ‘dark money’ groups dominate spending at every level, gives a hefty advantage to personally wealthy candidates, who’s only limit is the balance line of their bank account, and it deprives candidates control of their own campaign’s message.
We need to stop tilting at windmills. This money will be spent one way or another; let’s structure our campaign finance laws to acknowledge that truth and even the playing field. Kentucky needs to join the other 11 states that allow unlimited contributions to candidates. Empowering candidates with the highest access to funding will diminish the role of dark money groups, make running for office more accessible to people who aren’t already wealthy, and help clean up toxic messaging in campaigns.
As with every policy change, there needs to be a tradeoff. In this case, it’s subjecting campaigns to increased transparency and accountability in exchange for dropping the limits.
|
|
By Erin McCullough
.....While not considered a top priority for lawmakers this legislative session, several bills introduced in the Tennessee General Assembly seek to address campaign finance and voting hours in different ways.
Sen. Frank Niceley (R—Strawberry Plains) has introduced a campaign finance bill in the legislature that would limit contributions from people who are not Tennessee residents. The bill would cap out-of-state donations to 30% of the total contributions.
The bill specifies that the contributions include those received by a candidate or a political campaign committee...
The only other elections-related bill introduced in the General Assembly so far is SB0203 by Sen. Page Walley (R—Savannah). This bill would allow churches and other religious organizations to be exempt from the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act of 1980 if they choose to spend money supporting or opposing “measures related to questions of public or private morality,” which include but are not limited to “alcohol, drugs, abortion, marriage or gambling.”
|
|
By Nicholas DeBenedetto
.....First Amendment doctrine has long held that the government cannot compel people to engage in particular forms of expression against their will. By requiring businesses who wish to allow, or don’t mind, concealed handguns on their premises to post a sign stating that they welcome firearms, the states are doing exactly that.
New York’s and New Jersey’s laws essentially require these businesses to publicly adopt a position on guns and gun policy — an inherently political subject in 2023. If businesses in generally anti-gun areas decide to allow firearms on their premises and post the state-mandated sign to that effect, they may make themselves targets for boycotts, protests, or even vandalism. When a state forces businesses to adopt and announce such viewpoints, those businesses unnecessarily risk alienating customers and being subjected to retaliation by those who don’t share their positions.
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
