The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech January 25, 2023 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 [email protected]. In the News AZCentral: Why disclosing 'dark money' donations actually hurts your freedom of speech By Alec Greven .....Your free speech rights became much less secure after the passage of Proposition 211 last year. The new law harms your right to join others to form groups to press for government reform. With the law’s forced disclosure of names and addresses, fewer will want to join such groups and lend their voice to important social issues. Those who think the status quo is just fine probably welcome these changes. The rest of us should worry. So it’s a good thing that the Goldwater Institute recently filed a lawsuit challenging the measure, saying it violates Arizonans’ constitutional rights to free speech and assembly. Sure, transparency sounds good. And transparency for the government is a good idea. Yet there are very good reasons to protect your privacy and that of all Arizonans. Many people want to keep their advocacy on policy issues private, especially in an era of extreme political division. Forsyth County News: ‘Please trust the judgment of our educators.’ What's next in the books debate in Forsyth schools By Sabrina Kerns .....[Forsyth County Board of Education] Chief Communications Officer Jennifer Caracciolo presented a draft of changes to the board’s public participation policy, which removes portions challenged in a lawsuit filed by the Mama Bears against board members and Forsyth County Schools last summer. In November, a federal judge ruled that portions of the policy were unconstitutional, temporarily repealing the board’s ability to enforce certain rules during meetings. Now, the district plans to remove those same portions of the policy entirely, including those stating that: ● Visitors at meetings should “conduct themselves in a respectful manner” so as not to disrupt the board’s business. ● Every speaker should address the board as a whole instead of individual members. ● Speakers should keep their remarks “civil” and avoid the use of “obscene” or “profane” language. ● “Loud and boisterous conduct or comments” by speakers at meetings are not allowed. The new draft of the policy is now available for public feedback on the district’s website, www.forsyth.k12.ga.us, where it will remain for the next 30 days. Caracciolo said she will present the draft again at the board’s next meeting in February for a final vote. The Courts Election Law Blog: Federal District Court in Mackey Case Rejects First Amendment Defense to Criminal Prosecution for Spreading Twitter Memes Falsely Telling Hillary Clinton Supporters They Could Vote by Hashtag/Text By Rick Hasen .....You can find the opinion here (h/t Eugene Volokh). I write about this case in Cheap Speech. I think, and the district court agrees, that it does not violate the First Amendment to make it a crime to lie about when, where, or how people vote. The Supreme Court so indicated in dicta in the Mansky case. That kind of “false election speech” can be limited consistent with the First Amendment even though laws regulating “false campaign speech” (such as statements that “my opponent voted six times to raise taxes”) likely cannot be. (I am less sure about whether the existing statute that Mackey is prosecuted under covers this conduct). "On the Merits" Podcast (Bloomberg Law): Ohio Corruption Case Asks, Is It Bribery or Donation? Hosted by David Schultz .....A trial is currently underway against the former speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives over allegations he accepted millions in bribes. But he says the money was political speech protected by the First Amendment - and that he has Supreme Court cases to back him up. Independent Groups OpenSecrets: ‘Dark money’ groups have poured billions into federal elections since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision By Anna Massoglia .....Outside spending to influence federal elections has since topped $9 billion, a new OpenSecrets analysis found. More than $2.6 billion of that comes from unknown sources, with secretly-funded nonprofits accounting for over $1 billion of the outside spending reported to the Federal Election Commission since the 2010 cycle. Online Speech Platforms Washington Post: Google to stop exempting campaign email from automated spam detection By Isaac Stanley-Becker .....Google plans to discontinue a pilot program that allows political campaigns to evade its email spam filters, the latest round in the technology giant’s tussle with the GOP over online fundraising. The company will let the program sunset at the end of January instead of prolonging it, Google’s lawyers said in a filing on Monday. The filing, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, asked the court to dismiss a complaint lodged by the Republican National Committee accusing Google of “throttling its email messages because of the RNC’s political affiliation and views.” “The RNC is wrong,” Google argued in its motion. “Gmail’s spam filtering policies apply equally to emails from all senders, whether they are politically affiliated or not.” Reason: How the CDC Became the Speech Police By Robby Soave .....According to a trove of confidential documents obtained by Reason, health advisers at the CDC had significant input on pandemic-era social media policies at Facebook as well. They were consulted frequently, at times daily. They were actively involved in the affairs of content moderators, providing constant and ever-evolving guidance. They requested frequent updates about which topics were trending on the platforms, and they recommended what kinds of content should be deemed false or misleading. "Here are two issues we are seeing a great deal of misinfo on that we wanted to flag for you all," reads one note from a CDC official. Another email with sample Facebook posts attached begins: "BOLO for a small but growing area of misinfo." Candidates and Campaigns New York Times: Mystery Deepens Around George Santos’s $700,000 in Campaign Loans By Michael Gold and Nicholas Fandos .....An updated campaign finance report filed on Tuesday raised new questions about the source of six-figure loans that Representative George Santos gave his congressional campaign. Politico: The improbability of George Santos’ $199 expenses By Jessica Piper .....Rep. George Santos’ congressional campaign reported dozens of transactions just cents below the threshold that would have triggered a requirement to preserve spending records — an unusual spending pattern that is now part of broader complaints about alleged financial improprieties. Santos, who admitted in December that he faked parts of his biography, already faces a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission alleging his campaign repeatedly reported suspicious expenses. Those included eight charges of exactly $199.99 at an Italian restaurant in Queens and another $199.99 charge at a Miami-area hotel where rooms do not usually go for less than $600 per night. The specific amount matters because campaigns are required by law to keep receipts or invoices for expenses greater than $200. The States Reason ("Volokh Conspiracy"): Idaho Supreme Court Rejects Proposed Attorney Speech Code By Eugene Volokh .....Resolution 21-01, modeled on the American Bar Association's proposed Rule 8.4(g), would allow lawyers to be punished for "engag[ing] in … harassment," defined as "in representing a client or operating or managing a law practice or in the course and scope of employment in a law practice, engag[ing] in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment": Associated Press: Senate panel advances long-stalled campaign finance reform By Sarah Rankin .....A Virginia Senate committee advanced a bill Tuesday that would prohibit lawmakers from using campaign funds for personal expenses like a mortgage or country club membership — a change lawmakers have long resisted adopting. Applause broke out in the room after the bill from Sen. Jennifer Boysko and three Democratic colleagues passed unanimously. Virginia state lawmakers are currently outliers in the nation for their ability to spend money donated to their campaigns on virtually anything. Despite a bipartisan insistence that lawmakers want to find compromise on a reform, similar bills adding limits to how campaign funds can be spent have been repeatedly defeated in recent years. Cleveland.com: Transparency laws will help expose dark money at the root of Ohio pay-to-play: editorial By Editorial Board .....Within days of the FBI’s July 2020 arrest of five powerful Ohio Statehouse figures, charging them and a dark money group with helping to engineer a sweeping bribery and corruption scheme to pass a nuclear bailout bill, House Bill 6, politicians of both parties introduced dark-money disclosure bills... No surprise: All three bills died without a hearing -- victims of an even worse dark-money conspiracy, the conspiracy of tacit acceptance, nay, even celebration of a culture of hidden influence-peddling in Columbus that, shamefully, has barely changed since the HB 6 arrests. 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]