In the News
The Giving Review: David Keating was right
By Michael E. Hartmann
Institute for Free Speech president David Keating offered a helpful comment in February 2018 during a panel discussion at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., about a Capital Research Center report that Michael Watson and I researched and wrote, The Flow of Funding to Conservative and Liberal Political Campaigns, Independent Groups, and Traditional Public Policy Organizations Before and After Citizens United. He was right…
[T]he report compared the total amount of money raised by political campaigns and independent groups during the two full, two-year election cycles before and after the U.S. Supreme Court’s much-maligned 2010 Citizens United decision…
During his remarks, Keating opined “about the total numbers given between Democrats and Republicans, whether it’s for independent groups or for candidates and political action committees. I think that’s pretty much solely” a function, he said, “of what party is in the minority.”
“It’s always easier to get people to give money when there’s this ‘terrible person’ leading the other party, right?” …
So far in the current 2019-20 cycle, in which incumbent President Donald Trump is a candidate for re-election, according to FEC data, reported receipts for Democratic candidates for federal office have totaled more than $2.9 billion. For federal Republican candidates, they’ve totaled $962 million.
As for independent groups so far this cycle, according to CRP’s numbers, liberal ones have spent $119.8 million and conservative ones about $58.3 million.
Keating was right.
Supreme Court
HuffPost: The Critical Cases The Supreme Court Will Hear In First-Ever Remote Arguments
By Paul Blumenthal and Ryan J. Reilly
For the first time in history, millions of Americans will be able to listen live as the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments this week…
Here’s a look at the cases…
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc. (May 6):
An association of political consultants who would like to make robocalls soliciting campaign donations is challenging a 1991 law banning robocalls to cellphones and a 2015 amendment to that law allowing an exception for robocalls to collect debts owed to the federal government. The consultants argue that the law and the government debt collection exception infringe on First Amendment speech rights. If the court rules in favor of the consultants, its decision may come down to whether it must strike the entire law or can merely sever the government debt collection exception.
[Editor’s Note: The Institute for Free Speech filed an amicus brief in this case in support of the American Association of Political Consultants.]
The Courts
FOX45: State delegates, pastors sue Gov. Hogan over COVID-19 Executive Orders
By Dan Lampariello
Three Republican State Delegates along with numerous Maryland pastors and business owners have filed a lawsuit against Republican Governor Larry Hogan in federal court over his COVID-19 related Executive Orders…
In the more than 50 page lawsuit, the 18 plaintiffs argue that their right to free speech and assembly have been violated by the Governor’s orders…
“It’s so important we maintain our freedoms,” said Del. Neil Parrott, who represents district 2A and is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. “This is America and in America we are not forced to just stay in our houses and not have any political free speech.”
The lawsuit also alleges that State Delegate Dan Cox was threatened with arrest by the Maryland State Police if he attended a “Re-open Maryland” rally Saturday.
Cox wrote in the lawsuit that he was warned by a senior law enforcement official that the “Governor has his sights on you” and that “if I attend, ride along and speak at the Reopen Rally, I would potentially be arrested because certain individuals had indicated they may stop cars and arrest you.” …
Governor Larry Hogan’s office denied the allegations.
Courthouse News Service: Judge Clears Paycheck Protection Loans for Wisconsin Strip Clubs
By Joe Kelly
A federal judge on Friday blocked the U.S. Small Business Administration from denying federal coronavirus relief loans to multiple Wisconsin strip clubs based on their businesses’ sexual nature, ordering the government agency to start facilitating the emergency loans by Monday…
“[T]he Constitution does not permit the SBA to exclude the plaintiffs…based on the content of their speech,” the judge declared.
Congress
The Hill: McConnell’s Senate agenda for next week focuses on nominees and pandemic
By Alexander Bolton
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) office has outlined a busy Senate schedule for next week that is focused on combating the coronavirus pandemic and confirming several of President Trump’s stalled nominees…
The Rules Committee will hold a hearing Thursday on James Trainor to serve on the Federal Election Commission. The Trump nominee was the target of criticism from Democrats in March over his role working on the 2003 redistricting of congressional districts in Texas, which cost Democrats several House seats in the 2004 election.
PACs
Washington Post: Technology once used to combat ISIS propaganda is enlisted by Democratic group to counter Trump’s coronavirus messaging
By Isaac Stanley-Becker
A new Democratic-aligned political action committee advised by retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, is planning to deploy technology originally developed to counter Islamic State propaganda in service of a domestic political goal – to combat online efforts to promote President Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
The group, Defeat Disinfo, will use artificial intelligence and network analysis to map discussion of the president’s claims on social media. It will seek to intervene by identifying the most popular counter-narratives and boosting them through a network of more than 3.4 million influencers across the country – in some cases paying users with large followings to take sides against the president…
“It’s often said campaigns are a battle of ideas, but they’re really a battle of narratives,” said David Eichenbaum, a Democratic media consultant who is a senior adviser to the PAC. “Today those narratives spread quickly online.”
Media
Wall Street Journal: Trump’s First Amendment Education
By The Editorial Board
Remember when Democrats were up in arms over an ad critical of Joe Biden’s Ukraine dealings and demanding Facebook take it down? Now the outrage is reversed as the Trump campaign cries foul over a progressive Super Pac spot on the President’s handling of the coronavirus. More than demanding its removal, the Trump campaign is suing a Wisconsin station for airing it. The lawsuit should be dead on arrival but it’s instructive for the self-defeating standards the campaign proposes for controlling political speech.
The 30-second ad from Priorities USA is called “Exponential Threat,” and it plays audio snippets with captions of President Trump’s remarks against a backdrop of a graph showing a rising number of coronavirus cases. In the first snippet, President Trump says “The coronavirus,” and in the second he says “this is their new hoax.”
Democrats have flogged Mr. Trump’s “new hoax” comment, made at a rally in late February, to suggest he was denying the existence of the virus. In context it’s clear he was referring to efforts to use the virus as a political weapon against him. He was defending his response and comparing Democratic attacks to the just-finished impeachment saga.
But campaign ads don’t do nuance and never have. Even those that are false are almost always protected by the First Amendment. The Trump campaign should know better than to ask the courts to referee what political statements may be uttered in the heat of a campaign.
Online Speech Platforms
The Hill: The dangerous liberal ideas for censorship in the United States
By Jonathan Turley
The only thing spreading faster than the coronavirus has been censorship and the loud calls for more restrictions on free speech. The Atlantic recently published an article by Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods calling for Chinese style censorship of the internet.
They declared that “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong” as “significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in such practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with society norms and values.”
The justification for that is the danger of “fake news” about coronavirus risks and cures. Yet this is only the latest rationalization for rolling back free speech rights. For years, Democratic leaders in Congress called for censorship of “fake news” on social media sites. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have all engaged in increasing levels of censorship and have a well known reputation for targeting conservative speech…
Many of us in the free speech community have warned about the growing insatiable appetite for censorship in the West. Yet we have been losing the fight, and free speech opponents are now capitalizing on the opportunity presented by the pandemic.
Townhall: Twitter Just Suspended Candace Owens for a Really Dumb Reason
By Bronson Stocking
Conservative commentator Candace Owens was suspended from Twitter after posting a tweet criticizing Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) and encouraging Michiganders to flout the governor’s stay-at-home order, one of the strictest in the nation. Despite protests throughout the state, Gov. Whitmer signed an executive order on Thursday extending business closures through May 28…
Twitter user @robbystarbuck said he spoke to Twitter about Owens’ suspension. Twitter confirmed Owens was indeed suspended for her tweet about the Michigan stay-at-home order and said they would reinstate Owens’ account only if she agreed to delete her tweet.
The States
OPB: Campaign Finance Limits Lose Twice In Oregon
By Rebecca Ellis and Jeff Mapes
Backers of strict curbs on campaign money in Oregon lost twice Friday in their attempt to quickly impose limits on donations to candidates for public office.
The actions – involving limits at the statewide level and in Portland’s mayoral campaign – came after the Oregon Supreme Court ruled on April 23 that strict limits do not violate state constitutional protections on freedom of expression. In doing so, the court reversed a long-standing ruling barring limits on political donations.
On Friday, Oregon Secretary of State Bev Clarno announced that she would not allow a 2006 voter-approved initiative that placed a $1,000 limit on donations to statewide candidates and a $100 limit on contributions to legislative candidates.
Clarno’s office released a brief statement saying that “the Secretary has concluded that Measure 47 from 2006 was not made operative” by the Supreme Court decision, “and as such there is no change in current state election laws.”
Meanwhile, Multnomah County Circuit Judge Thomas Ryan ruled that Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler’s campaign did not need to limit his spending, after a suit filed by his main opponent questioned his use of contributions.
News of the North: APOC issues notice to Anchorage man over political website
The Alaska Public Offices Commission has filed a Notice of Deficiency against an Anchorage political operative after stating he failed to file reports in support of 2020 House and Senate candidates.
On Thursday, April 30, the commission informed Michael Chambers, a resident of Anchorage, that he was being fined at a rate of $50 per day after the organization found that he was supporting candidates via a website he operates.
According to APOC, Chambers owed $1,250 as of April 29. The commission stated that the accruals will end if Chambers registers with the group.
The website, rinosafari.com, targets members of the House Majority and many Republican members of the Senate. It also contains links to various candidates’ campaign pages and “donate” buttons.
In an interview with News of the North on Wednesday, April 29, Chambers said he did not feel he was violating the law and that he would “continue to operate” his site.
Daily Sentinel: State dismisses complaint against Davis
The Colorado Secretary of State’s Office has dismissed a campaign finance complaint filed against Mesa County commissioner candidate Cody Davis, who is running for the District 1 seat in the Republican Party primary next month.
The office’s Elections Division determined that the complaint, filed by Grand Junction resident Brian Timothy Fenwick, failed to cite sufficient facts to support his claim that Davis accepted what amounted to a campaign contribution from county workers.
In his complaint, Fenwick alleged that by having several county workers appear with Davis on a series of online video conferences, that amounted to a contribution to his campaign.
Without ruling that any contributions actually occurred, the division said campaign finance laws prohibits state and local subdivisions from making contributions, but does not bar candidates from accepting them.
EFF: The Constitution Does Not Allow Courts to Silence Criticism of Local Police Departments
By Monica Price
EFF has filed an amicus brief urging the Tennessee Supreme Court to overturn a court order that would otherwise ban a victim from disclosing that she was subject to domestic violence or from speaking out about the police department’s handling of the investigation. The court order was issued under a Tennessee law that authorizes preliminary injunctions against speech in divorce cases. Importantly, the order banned the statement without any judicial determination that the allegations were false or in any way legally actionable.
Pamela Stark is in the midst of a divorce from her husband, Memphis Police Officer Joe Stark. The court prohibited her from making any public allegations against her husband on social media. Pamela Stark then shared a Facebook post criticizing the Memphis Police Department’s investigation into her domestic violence allegations against Joe Stark, asking “who do you turn to when those sworn to uphold the law, don’t.”
As a result of that post, the court held Pamela in contempt of court, arrested, and jailed her. She was released only after she agreed to remove her Facebook post.
But, as EFF explained in the amicus brief, the right to disclose government misconduct lies at the core of First Amendment protections. Pamela Stark has the right to criticize the Memphis Police Department and its officers, even if that includes her husband.
