We’re Hiring!
Senior Attorney – Institute for Free Speech – Washington, DC or Virtual Office
The Institute for Free Speech is hiring a Senior Attorney with a minimum of seven years of experience.
This is a rare opportunity to work with a growing team to litigate a long-term legal strategy directed toward the protection of Constitutional rights. We challenge laws, practices, and policies that infringe upon First Amendment freedoms, such as speech codes that censor parents at school board meetings, laws restricting people’s ability to give and receive campaign contributions, and any intrusion into people’s private political associations. You would work to hold censors accountable; and to secure legal precedents clearing away a thicket of laws, regulations, and practices that suppress speech about government and candidates for political office, threaten citizens’ privacy if they speak or join groups, and impose heavy burdens on political activity.
[You can learn more about this role and apply for the position here.]
Supreme Court
The Hill: How Cruz Supreme Court case could lead to unlimited anonymous election spending
By Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in the campaign finance case Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate…
The case itself was created by Sen. Cruz to strike down yet another part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (aka “McCain-Feingold”), which limits special interests’ sway over our elections. The bipartisan law, for instance, limits the amount ultra-wealthy individuals can contribute to national party committees, and limits what dark-money groups can spend in the run-up to Election Day. Big special interests hate the law, so Republicans have relentlessly challenged it. The Roberts Court has provided them repeated victories against the law, including the infamous Citizens United decision. Despite this persistent assault from the right, McCain-Feingold remains a battered-but-standing buttress, safeguarding ordinary Americans from unfettered onslaught by special-interest money.
Congress
New Jersey Globe: Malinowski Introduces Bill Targeting Scam Fundraising Committees
By Joey Fox
Rep. Tom Malinowski (NJ-07), alongside fellow swing-district Rep. Katie Porter (CA-45), introduced a bill today aimed at preventing so-called “Scam PACs” from fraudulently soliciting political donations and keeping the proceeds for themselves.
If passed by Congress, the Stopping Corrupt Actors from Making Political Action Committees (SCAM PAC) Act will ban political action committees from making disbursements to anyone closely involved in the management of the PAC or their immediate family members.
Free Speech
New York Times: Stay Woke. The Right Can Be Illiberal, Too.
By John McWhorter
That said, I’m genuinely open to the idea that censorship from the right is more of a problem than I have acknowledged. The truth may be, as it so often is, in the middle, and a legal case from the past week has made me think about it.
Making sense of things requires synthesis, identifying what explains a lot rather than perceiving a buzzing chaos of people suddenly crazed, which is an implausible and even effort-light approach to things. In that vein, our problem today is illiberalism on both sides.
We will salute, then, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker, who last week ruled, in a 74-page opinion, in favor of six professors at the University of Florida who were barred by school officials from acting as expert witnesses in cases challenging state policy on issues ranging from restrictive voting laws to Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’s attempt to withhold funds from schools with mask mandates.
Candidates and Campaigns
Politico: Army of millionaires fuel Senate primary spending spree
By Natalie Allison
Trump may have also played a role in changing the stigma that often surrounds wealthy candidates who spend freely to win office.
“Self-funders have always been around, but they often came with the political baggage of appearing to buy their elections,” said Caleb Burns, a partner at Wiley Rein who specializes in campaign finance.
Noting that Trump proudly proclaimed during the 2016 primary that his wealth meant he wasn’t beholden to outside interests, Burns said, “Trump proved the point that self-funding does not have to be a political liability. That may be why we are seeing so many wealthy candidates paying their own way in the primaries.”
The States
Lawfare Blog: Washington’s Election Misinformation Bill Demonstrates Dangers of Compromising First Amendment Values
By Jeff Kosseff
Exactly one year after the Jan. 6 violence at the Capitol, Washington Governor Jay Inslee announced his support for a bill that his office said “would outlaw attempts by candidates and elected officials to spread lies about free and fair elections when it has the likelihood to stoke violence.” That bill would make such lies a gross misdemeanor, subject to up to 364 days in jail.
Inslee’s motives are laudable. But his solution—jailing people for political speech—raises substantial First Amendment problems. The debate playing out in Washington state is a broader illustration of the fragility of the robust First Amendment protections that courts have provided to speech for the past century. Some officials and commentators across the political spectrum are increasingly willing to sacrifice core free speech protections to address the problems of the day. And this illiberal trend should concern everyone, regardless of partisan affiliation.
Inquire: The ACLU Suddenly Reverses Its Support For Transparency
By Zaid Jilani
At least a dozen state legislatures are considering legislation that would require more transparency in school curricula and materials. In the left-leaning press this is largely being reported as a response to growing conservative concern around instruction related to race and gender, which is probably correct.
But transparency in public schools — which are taxpayer-backed government entities that we are compelled by law to send our kids to, with few alternatives — is not an entirely new concept…
The Pennsylvania bill, which was passed by the legislature and then vetoed by the Democratic governor Tom Wolf, would’ve required schools to post some instructional material online. Wolf warned that the “legislation is a thinly veiled attempt to restrict truthful instruction and censor content reflecting various cultures, identities, and experiences.”
Amidst these debates, America’s foremost civil libertarian organization, the American Civil Liberties Union, decided to side with the position Wolf and other Democrats have taken, decrying these bills for their supposed “chilling” effect: …
This marks a reversal for the ACLU, which has always argued for government transparency in all arenas, including in schools.
