This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].  
In the News

By Ben Protess, Jonah E. Bromwich, William K. Rashbaum and Kate Christobek
.....Whether hush money can amount to a campaign donation is not settled law. At the federal level, this issue arose with the prosecution of John Edwards, the former senator and presidential candidate, in a 2012 case that ended with jurors deadlocked over the majority of the charges, which prosecutors ultimately dropped.
Another case came in 2018, when Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to federal charges involving the hush money. Because he pleaded guilty, the issue was never tested in the courts, but some campaign finance experts and conservative legal scholars have argued that the case was bogus.
“Michael Cohen Pled Guilty to Something That Is Not a Crime,” was the headline in a National Review article at the time.
Ed. note: The 2018 National Review article linked above was written by IFS Chairman and former FEC Chair Bradley A. Smith.
By Roger Sollenberger
.....There’s also a possibility that, despite the federal preemption doctrine, prosecutors will invoke a state campaign finance law—New York Election Law § 17-152, “conspiracy to promote or prevent election.”
“Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,” that statute reads.
As a group of legal experts wrote at Just Security on Monday, the question here is whether Trump and Cohen used “unlawful means,” and whether that broadly defined term—while not enumerating a crime per se—would also be preempted by federal law.
David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, dismissed the idea.
“If there is any relevant provision of state law, it wouldn’t matter as the Federal Election Campaign Act would preempt it. See for example, 52 USC 30143, which says in part that ‘the provisions of this Act, and of rules prescribed under this Act, supersede and preempt any provision of State law with respect to election to Federal office,’” Keating told The Daily Beast.
Supreme Court
 
By George F. Will
.....As long as the awful law exists, concerning which the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Monday, be careful what you say to, or write about, unauthorized immigrants. Congress, in one of the federal government’s increasingly frequent offenses against the First Amendment, makes it a crime if one “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in” this nation in violation of federal law. Let the formulation of hypotheticals begin in order to illustrate the law’s unconstitutional vagueness and overbreadth.
Suppose a pediatrician says an unauthorized immigrant’s child needs medical care that is available here but not in the country from which the immigrant came. Has a crime been committed? …
In the years since the 2002 enactment of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, speech restrictions imposed or encouraged — sometimes that is a distinction without much difference — by government have become more common. McCain-Feingold’s purpose was to regulate the quantity of political speech: All campaign spending is, directly or indirectly, for the dissemination of political advocacy. Since then, and especially recently, government has become promiscuous and audacious in attempting to regulate speech.
By Bethany Blankley
.....The attorneys general of 25 states have filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to protect a federal law that’s been used to prosecute those who “encourage” or “induce” illegal immigration.
The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in United States v. Helaman Hansen on March 27. The case is on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The Courts
 
By Gabrielle Russon
.....The University of Central Florida (UCF) professor known for his controversial remarks on race and for making national headlines when the school unsuccessfully tried to fire him is now suing the university.
Charles Negy sued the UCF trustees, school President Alexander Cartwright and other officials for violating his First and 14th Amendment rights in a federal lawsuit.
An arbitrator ruled last year the school did not show just cause when firing the tenured faculty member, and Negy was reinstated at UCF.
“When Charles Negy dared to express views at odds with the university’s sacred orthodoxies, UCF persecuted him with a relentlessness and a cruelty that is rare even among university administrations,” his attorney Samantha Harris said in a statement.
“While Dr. Negy has since been reinstated thanks to his union and the decision of a wise arbitrator, that alone cannot compensate him for the massive losses he suffered due to UCF’s mistreatment of him, and it cannot undo the profound chilling effect UCF’s unconstitutional actions had on his speech. Today, he is asking a court to ensure that UCF will never again be able to persecute a professor for protected speech the way it did to him.”
Knight InstituteKrasno v. Mnookin
.....On March 17, 2023, the Knight Institute filed an amicus brief on behalf of itself, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in a Seventh Circuit case challenging the University of Wisconsin–Madison’s censorship of animal advocacy. Among other practices, the university uses Facebook’s and Instagram’s optional keyword-blocking tools to automatically hide comments containing words or phrases associated with animal advocacy.
The Knight Institute’s brief explains that the vibrancy and integrity of online public forums are threatened when government actors exclude disfavored views and describes the growing use of keyword blocking to suppress criticism among public institutions. It argues that the university’s use of keyword blocking to censor speech related to animal advocacy discriminates based on viewpoint and is an unreasonable way of implementing an off-topic rule in a limited or nonpublic forum.
Online Speech Platforms

By Margot Cleveland
.....The federal government has awarded more than 500-plus contracts or grants related to “misinformation” or “disinformation” since 2020. One predominant area of research pushed by the Department of Defense involves the use of AI and ML technology to monitor or listen to internet “conversations.”
Originally used as a marketing tool for businesses to track discussions about their brands and products and to track competitors, the DOD and other federal agencies are now paying for-profit public relations and communications firms to convert their technology into tools for the government to monitor speech on the internet.
The areas of the internet the companies monitor differ somewhat, and each business offers its own unique AI and ML proprietary technology, but the underlying approach and goals remain identical: The technology under development will “mine” large portions of the internet and identify conversations deemed indicative of an emerging harmful narrative, to allow the government to track those “threats” and adopt countermeasures before the messages go viral.
The States
 
.....State lawmakers have passed three bills on campaign contributions, lobbying and gifts amid a session that’s put an emphasis on ethics reform following high-profile public corruption scandals.
House Bills 99, 137 and 142 have passed both the House and Senate and are now headed to Gov. Josh Green’s desk for consideration...
One of the recently passed bills headed for the governor’s desk, HB 99, limits the total amount of cash a candidate, candidate committee or noncandidate committee may accept from a single person during each election period. The bill’s intent is to make cash contributions easier to trace, and to put an end to campaign law violations with cash, according to a news release from the House on Monday. The legislation is part of the Campaign Spending Commission bill package.
By Cristiano Lima
.....California lawmakers this week are launching a plan to force digital giants like Facebook and Google to pay publishers for news content, taking a contentious global fight to the state level.
On Monday, California Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) announced legislation to require large tech companies to pay a “journalism usage fee” whenever they run digital ads next to news content, such as articles, while making publishers reinvest in journalism jobs.
The California Journalism Competition and Preservation Act resembles a separate bitterly contested federal bill that would allow publishers to jointly bargain content distribution terms with the tech giants. 
News industry leaders said the California bill is the first of its kind at the state level — and that it could ignite another major standoff between Silicon Valley and media groups.
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