The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech February 17, 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 NewsBreak: FoCo schools to pay $107,500 in legal fees in free speech lawsuit By Justine Lookenott .....The Forsyth County School District will be paying $107,500 in attorney fees to Mama Bears of Forsyth County after the group won a lawsuit against the school district. On March 15, 2022, members of the group Mama Bears of Forsyth County protested several books available in school libraries by reading the explicit content out loud at the BOE meetings when they were forced to stop… Prior to the lawsuit, emails obtained by NewsBreak reveal that attempts were made by school officials to limit the public participation policy for BOE meetings following the March 15 meeting. New from the Institute for Free Speech Testimony of Bradley A. Smith Before the Kansas House of Representatives Committee on Elections .....Last August, we published our Free Speech Index of the 50 states. It’s the most comprehensive report ever published on state laws regulating speech about government and public policy. An editorial in The Wall Street Journal told readers, “it’s worth spending a few minutes to read a new report from the Institute for Free Speech. It’s an index of how state laws and regulations treat political committees, grassroots advocacy, independent expenditures, and the like. The results aren’t partisan, and they’re probably not what you expect.” I regret to inform you that Kansas earned a disappointing 65% score in this report. Many of the free speech deficiencies in your state’s law would be addressed by this bill if some minor amendments are made to it. If these and one other deficiency I describe in my testimony (regarding reporting of independent expenditures by non-PACs) are addressed, then we estimate the score for Kansas would rise to 83%, the second-best free speech score in the nation. While improvements are urgently needed to protect free speech, there are several good features in the existing Kansas campaign finance law. In particular, its definitions of contribution expenditure are much better than in most states. The cabining of speech regulation to express advocacy also is praiseworthy. Supreme Court Federalist: How A Terrorist Victim Can Help The Supreme Court Address Section 230 By Philip Hamburger .....In 2015, Nohemi Gonzalez—a 23-year-old American studying in Paris—was gunned down by Islamic State (ISIS) terrorists while dining at La Belle Equipe bistro. The U.S. Supreme Court will consider these wrenching facts of Gonzales v. Google on Feb. 21. Bound up with Nohemi’s fate is the fate of Section 230. Raw Story: Watchdog fears George Santos could end up 'laundering money' thanks to Ted Cruz court case By Travis Gettys .....Questions raised about the campaign finances of Rep. George Santos (R-NY) are a "prime example" of the threat to democracy posed by a Supreme Court ruling in favor of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), according to a non-partisan watchdog. The decision, handed down in June last year, eliminated a $250,000 cap on loans candidates can recover with money raised after an election, which the court's three liberals condemned. The ruling could let Santos legally repay himself $705,000 that he claims to have given his campaign in personal loans, reported The Daily Beast. “The ruling was egregiously bad as far as ‘the appearance of corruption,’ at a minimum,” said Saurav Ghosh, director of federal reform for the Campaign Legal Center. “Before the Cruz decision, there’d be a limit on how much he could pay himself back after the election. But now there’s no limit, so the potential for corruption is enormous.” The Courts Reason ("Volokh Conspiracy"): Court Blocks N.Y. Law Mandating Posting of "Hateful Conduct" Policies by Social Media Platforms (Including Us) By Eugene Volokh .....From Volokh v. James, decided today by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. (S.D.N.Y.): "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought that we hate.'" Matal v. Tam (2017)... The Media Federalist: James Clapper Can’t Stop Lying By David Harsanyi .....In an interview with The Washington Post’s “fact checker,” former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper contends that Politico misled the public about a letter he and 50 other former intel officials signed during the 2020 presidential campaign warning that the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story could be Russian deception. “There was message distortion,” Clapper tells The Washington Post. “All we were doing was raising a yellow flag that this could be Russian disinformation. Politico deliberately distorted what we said. It was clear in paragraph five.” It was not clear, at all. Candidates and Campaigns Politico: Black candidates keep losing winnable races — and say the Democratic Party may be why By Brittany Gibson and Holly Otterbein .....Few Democratic candidates suffered more heartbreak on election night than Mandela Barnes. The Wisconsin Democrat, having been largely left for dead politically, came within 1 percentage point of ousting Sen. Ron Johnson. But for Barnes’ aides, it was something more than a missed opportunity — it was a painful example of how candidates of color continue to face questions about their ability to win. Had the campaign gotten just a wee bit more air cover from super PACs at the race’s critical closing juncture, they reasoned, Barnes would have won. “There’s no question in my mind,” said Kory Kozloski, Barnes’ campaign manager. “If we were able to communicate at the same levels as Ron Johnson, Mandela Barnes would be in the United States Senate today.” Daily Beast: George Santos Raked In Cash for a Recount That Never Happened By Roger Sollenberger .....Saurav Ghosh, director of federal reform at government watchdog Campaign Legal Center, told The Daily Beast that Santos appears to have “abused” one of the “most unregulated areas of campaign finance.” Essentially, Ghosh said, federal guidelines say candidates can have recount accounts, which allow them to raise money above the usual election contribution limits, “but they don’t really delineate how the money can be spent.” “Recounts are one of the most unregulated areas of campaign finance. They’ve been around for decades, and I think some of the institutional views of recount funds in general reflect the thought that they’re going to have an impact on elections,” he explained. “However, recount accounts aren’t treated the same way as general election funds—which deal with money raised and spent to influence voters—because essentially recount money is only supposed to be related to post-election recounts or legal fees related to challenging election results.” The States People United for Privacy: Indiana Makes a Bipartisan Push for New Privacy Protections By Luke Wachob .....The Hoosier State is one step closer to implementing landmark protections for personal privacy. In late January, the Indiana House and Senate passed legislation (H.B. 1212 and S.B. 303, respectively) to shield Americans’ identities and personal information when joining or supporting nonprofit organizations. The bill is a strong response to the rising tide of doxing, hacking, and harassment of donors to social causes. “Some people like to give anonymously. This gives them that protection,” explained Indiana Sen. Liz Brown, who sponsored the Senate bill. The legislation prohibits state officials from making invasive demands or disclosures about Americans’ support for nonprofit groups. It enjoyed strong bipartisan support in both chambers, passing the Senate unanimously by a vote of 50-0, and passing 77-21 in the House. If signed into law by Governor Eric Holcomb, Indiana would become the 15th state to adopt this critical protection for privacy and free speech. Inforum: North Dakota lawmakers toss bills to boost campaign finance transparency By Jeremy Turley .....In a 42-51 vote, the state House of Representatives on Wednesday, Feb. 15, killed House Bill 1500, which aimed to crack down on so-called dark money — campaign spending that comes from unknown sources. Capitol Media Services: 'Dark money' opponents want to block effort to quash law By Howard Fischer .....The group that convinced voters last year to outlaw "dark money'' is asking a judge to block a bid by two special interest groups to keep the law from taking effect. In new legal filings, attorney Chanele Reyes told Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott McCoy there is nothing unconstitutional about ensuring that voters know who is trying to influence elections... Challenging the law is the business-oriented Arizona Free Enterprise Club, which has taken advantage of the current law to finance campaigns to affect ballot measures but until now has not had to disclose from whom it is taking donations. It is joined by the Center for Arizona Policy, which also has been active in Arizona politics, as well as two individuals, not identified, who said if the law takes effect it will chill their right to donate, something they say is akin to free speech. Among their arguments is that donors are entitled to privacy. They cite a specific provision in the Arizona Constitution that says an individual's "private affairs'' will not be disturbed. "The act violates that right by forcing the disclosure of information related to the confidential monetary and in-kind donations to charities engaging in campaign media spending,'' according to attorneys for the Goldwater Institute, which is representing them. FIRE: New FIRE model legislation takes on DEI bureaucracy’s chilling effect on campus .....[T]oday, FIRE is introducing model legislation that prohibits the use of political litmus tests in college admissions, hiring, and promotion decisions. Legislation is strong medicine, but our work demonstrates the seriousness of the threat. While the current threat involves coercion to support DEI ideology, efforts to coerce opposition to DEI ideology would be just as objectionable. Attempts to require fealty to any given ideology or political commitment — whether “patriotism” or “social justice” — must be likewise rejected. 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]