In the News
Colorado Springs Gazette: Colorado gets ‘F’ for free speech
By Editorial Board
Our recent “F” grade comes from the Institute for Free Speech, which defends individuals from establishment attacks on their liberties. It deemed the state’s campaign finance laws so top-down and authoritarian our 12-percent score put us above only Alaska, West Virginia, and Kentucky. Five states score 100 percent; an additional six have “A” grades, scoring 94 percent or higher.
“The Supreme Court has long recognized that political speech strikes at the core of the First Amendment, yet today the court gives less protection to that core political speech than it does to topless dancing, flag burning, or tobacco advertisements,” wrote law professor and author Bradley A. Smith, a Harvard Law School graduate and accomplished lawyer who chairs the institute.
Colorado’s oppressive tangle of campaign finance regulations strikes fear among those interested in funding, organizing, or otherwise participating in the process. Doing so can lead to kangaroo court battles and fines most working people cannot afford.
The regulations are so convoluted the secretary of state’s “Colorado Campaign and Political Finance Manual” spends 146 pages trying to simplify them for the public.
The Arkansas Project: Arkansas Ranks Low in Political Giving Freedom
By Marc Kilmer
If you want to influence public policy, you can do a lot of things – you can write letters, publish op-eds, talk to your friends, or lobby legislators. You can also give money to political campaigns. This political giving is a key part of how Americans speak on political issues. According to a new ranking, Arkansas does pretty poorly in protecting this aspect of political speech.
The Institute for Free Speech just published its first “Free Speech Index – Grading the 50 States on Political Giving Freedom.” …
According to this index, Arkansas ranks 32nd among the 50 states in terms of laws that protect residents’ ability to contribute to political speech…
It’s clear that Arkansas can do better in terms of protecting the ability of its residents to have a voice in the political process. Legislators should take a look at this report, review what is happening in states that have higher grades, then consider what reforms they might make to give Arkansans a little more freedom to give to the political causes they support.
New from the Institute for Free Speech
Appellee’s Brief in Thomas v. Schroer
To determine whether the Tennessee Billboard Regulation and Control Act of 1972 (“Billboard Act” or “Act”) applies to and thus restricts noncommercial speech at a given location, state officials must analyze a sign’s message and evaluate whether it supports “activities conducted on the property” to determine the relationship between the two. Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-21-103(3). Accordingly, the district court held that “the Billboard Act is an unconstitutional, content-based regulation of speech.” Order, R. 356, Page ID # 6952…
The Tennessee Billboard Act here infringes on ideological speech, which is “probably the most highly protected” category of speech. Ackerley Commc’ns v. City of Cambridge, 88 F.3d 33, 37 (1st Cir. 1996). In that context, “the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Police Dep’t of Chi. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972) (collecting cases). Accordingly, the State must demonstrate that the Act meets the highest standards of constitutional scrutiny. Under those standards, the district court correctly concluded that the Act unconstitutionally discriminates between speech based on content.
Free Speech
NPR: What Free Speech Has To Do With Skim Milk, Condoms And Corporate Political Spending
By Emily Sullivan and Alina Selyukh
In a landmark case that restructured American campaign finance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that political donations amount to a form of speech protected under the First Amendment, even when the spending is done by corporations and unions instead of individual people.
Though companies can’t directly donate to campaigns, the ruling gave them power to freely spend money in support or opposition of political candidates on the federal, state or local level. This led to the creation of a new type of political fundraising vehicle called superPACs, which contributed to the explosive growth of campaign spending. They now outspend the national political parties.
As NPR’s Nina Totenberg put it, Citizens United represented one of the key cases showing how the Supreme Court has over time “extended some – but not all – of the rights guaranteed to individuals in the Bill of Rights” to corporations.
Washington Post: Why I’m suing for my right to flip off the president
By Juli Briskman
While acknowledging that the First Amendment protected my right to extend my middle finger, my boss told me that “corporate protection” dictated that he terminate me on the grounds of a social media policy that prohibits “obscene” or “inappropriate” content. Akima does business with the government, and company executives obviously feared that the Trump administration would (unconstitutionally) penalize my employer for my gesture. So, that Tuesday, they forced me out.
The First Amendment bars retaliation against me by Trump. But Trump doesn’t need to punish me for my speech if fear of him spurs my employer to do it. And a private employer can’t suppress my freedom of expression on my own time out of fear of illegal government retaliation without violating Virginia employment law, which is why I filed a lawsuit against my former employer this week.
I am not alone in having my ability to make a living threatened by my desire to exercise my right to free speech.
The Media
National Review: On the Cowardly Firing of Kevin Williamson
By David French
The Atlantic has caved to the intolerant mob and fired Kevin Williamson…
I know it’s easy for some to dismiss Kevin’s termination as mere inside-baseball media drama. But it’s more than that. It’s a declaration by one of America’s most powerful media entities that it can’t even coexist with a man like Kevin. If he wants to write, he should run along to his conservative home. His new colleagues simply couldn’t abide his presence…
And so it goes, the steady, inexorable division of America into the tolerable and the intolerable – with the range of tolerable people narrowing ever-so-rapidly. There’s no grace in this brave new world. There’s no charity. It’s not enough to disagree. Now we must ruin. Now we must humiliate. Saying “you’re wrong” is no longer enough. The argument isn’t sufficient.
One final note, The Atlantic was attracted to Kevin in part because of his independence, because he was willing to say what he thought even if he infuriated members of his own ideological tribe. And he often did. In return, he didn’t face a mere news cycle of fury. He faced it for weeks that stretched into months and have now stretched into years. The Atlantic couldn’t face friendly fire for a few days. Its cowardice hurts us all.
Candidates and Campaigns
PBS News Hour: The rise of the anti-PAC Democrat
By Jessica Yarvin
A growing number of Democrats running for Congress in 2018 are foregoing contributions from political action committees, opting for a more grassroots approach to fundraising in a bid to appeal to the party’s progressive base…
Now, looking to the midterms, Democrats are “championing bold reform agendas, including getting dark money out of politics and limiting the influence of corporate special interests,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Tyler Law said in a statement. He added that the rejecting money from political action committees, or PACs, is “particularly powerful because it appeals to voters across the political spectrum.” …
Congress must pass campaign finance laws to make elections more fair and more responsive to the American voter, not corporations, said Liz Kennedy, the director of Democracy and Government Reform at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.
“The levels of cynicism about the role of government and about government working for wealthy special interests are completely unsustainable,” she said. “We need to change the rules and need strong, clear anti-corruption solutions and need real leadership on those solutions.”
Cincinnati Enquirer: Critics say Rep. Jim Renacci may have used ‘straw donor’ scheme to fund state campaign account
By Deirdre Shesgreen
Shortly after Rep. Jim Renacci announced his gubernatorial bid last March, the Ohio Republican doled out $56,000 in campaign contributions to 12 House Republican candidates and several political action committees affiliated with those lawmakers.
Eight of those Republicans then turned around and contributed to Renacci’s state gubernatorial campaign, to the tune of $26,700, within weeks or even days of Renacci’s initial contribution to their campaigns and PACs.
Campaign finance experts say it looks like a “straw donor” scheme, with Renacci using his federal campaign account and allied lawmakers to evade Ohio’s campaign finance limits.
Renacci has since abandoned his gubernatorial bid to run for U.S. Senate in Ohio’s marquee Senate race, in which he hopes to unseat Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown.
During his gubernatorial run, Renacci was legally barred under Ohio law from transferring more than $12,707 from his federal House committee to his state gubernatorial committee. He made that maximum transfer last June.
Santa Clarita Valley Signal: Keep dark money out of local elections
By Bryan Caforio
We need to get dark money out of politics, and that’s why I’m calling on all of my fellow Democratic candidates to join me in signing the People’s Pledge.
Almost all of the dysfunction in our political system can be traced to a single issue: the corrupting influence of money in politics. And that reality has only worsened after the disastrous Citizens United decision from the Supreme Court-a ruling which effectively allows unlimited interference in our elections by outside groups, corporations and billionaires through super PACs…
The People’s Pledge originated in the 2012 Massachusetts Senate race between now-Senator Elizabeth Warren and her Republican opponent Scott Brown, and has since been used and proposed by numerous progressive candidates across the country to protect our democracy, including Eric Garcetti when he first ran for Mayor of Los Angeles, Russ Feingold when he ran for Senate in Wisconsin, and many others.
Here’s how the People’s Pledge works: if all Democratic candidates sign the People’s Pledge, and if any group-other than an individual candidate’s designated campaign committee-makes an independent expenditure on a candidate’s behalf, then that candidate shall make an equal contribution from his or her own campaign committee to the charity of the other candidate’s choice.
The States
Arizona Daily Star: Ducey signs bill overriding local laws on certain campaign-finance disclosures
By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services
Arizona cities are losing their right to demand that nonprofit groups seeking to sway local elections divulge who is financing the effort.
Gov. Doug Ducey late Thursday signed legislation that pre-empts local ordinances requiring these groups to register as political action committees. The measure, which takes effect this summer, also makes any effort to identify contributions off limits. It was promoted by Rep. Vince Leach, R-Tucson…
It is not known whether Tempe will challenge the new law as an unconstitutional infringement on local powers. Other charter cities, including Phoenix, are considering similar measures.
There also is currently a statewide initiative drive to put a “right to know” provision in the Arizona Constitution to require that all sources of $10,000 or more be made public.
