The Courts

U.S. News & World Report: Appeals Court Upholds Montana’s Nonpartisan Judicial Races

By Associated Press

A federal appeals court has upheld a Montana law that says judicial candidates cannot seek, accept or use political endorsements in their campaigns.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a U.S. District Court ruling that found Montana has compelling interests in an impartial and independent judiciary.

Mark French argued the rule violated his First Amendment rights as he ran for Justice of the Peace in Sanders County. He was endorsed by the county’s Republican Central Committee, which was chaired by his wife, but state law did not allow him to use the endorsement in his campaigning.

Wisconsin John Doe

Wall Street Journal: An Attack on My Privacy in Wisconsin’s Political War

By Leah Vukmir

[A]ccording to the Wisconsin Justice Department report released Thursday, my personal emails, along with approximately 500,000 of those belonging to my colleagues in the Wisconsin Senate and other Republican leaders, were acquired in a John Doe investigation.

The emails had been kept in the Governmental Accountability Board building in a unsecured file called “opposition research.” …

[I]n 2012 a liberal judge named Barbara Kluka allowed Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, a Democrat, to conduct a secret investigation into whether Gov. Walker had broken campaign-finance laws. He had not.

Mr. Chisholm weaponized an arm of the government, which was supposed to be Wisconsin’s ethics watchdog, to issue broad subpoenas and warrants for documents. The agency even worked with law enforcement to conduct paramilitary raids on people’s homes.

These raids and seizures were the result of a mere accusation of campaign-finance violation, for which there was no basis. As it turns out, investigators at the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board took it upon themselves to acquire the personal emails of Republican politicians, including me.

Free Speech

Reason: The End of Free Speech

By Katherine Mangu-Ward

Led by an increasingly vehement and erratic President Donald Trump, the same party that was poised to die on the hill of free speech when it was being threatened by angry progressives was suddenly ready to eliminate First Amendment rights on the football field, revoke citizenship for flag burning, pull broadcast licenses over bad comedy sketches, and expand libel laws to take down annoying members of the media. There are greater threats to speech, it turns out, than a bunch of angry co-eds.

In the face of calls for censorship from the left and the right, meanwhile, one of the most important traditional defenders of speech has begun a slow but undeniable retreat. Dealing with internal dissension in the wake of Charlottesville, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) tiptoed away from its proud legacy of free speech absolutism. And poll after poll revealed that Americans of both parties are ready and willing to see speech rights abridged in the service of partisan goals.

Nothing that has happened so far in 2017 is yet irreversible. But as the ACLU is undermined from within and the right once again sheds the mantle of free speech in favor of a cape made of the American flag, the sharp edges of our First Amendment rights are eroding. 

Congress

Wall Street Journal: Tax Code Change Could Free Churches, Charities to Become Political Players

By Julie Bykowicz

The House tax bill would allow churches and other nonprofits to advocate for candidates and take political positions without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status, rolling back what’s known as the Johnson Amendment. The Senate plan doesn’t take that step, meaning it will be one of many items up for debate as lawmakers work to pass a law that President Donald Trump can sign before the year’s end. The conference committee is set to hold its first meeting Wednesday.

Some Republican senators have expressed interest in adopting the House’s approach to the Johnson Amendment. Sen. James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican who has long advocated for doing away with the Johnson Amendment, said Vice President Mike Pence in a meeting last week again “brought it up to me” that the House change should be included in the final tax legislation…

“If Congress is able to use the tax bill as a vehicle to repeal the Johnson Amendment, the White House would support it,” White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said.

It is unclear if Republican senators will agree to add it to the final bill, but it they do Democratic senators are preparing to fight the move by invoking the Byrd rule, which prohibits the Senate from considering nonrevenue matters as part of any reconciliation bill.

Corporate Speech

The Hill: House committee goes after Patagonia for suing Trump

By Julia Manchester

The House Natural Resources Committee ripped outdoor retailer Patagonia on Friday, saying the company was lying to the public about President Trump’s decision to cut the size of two national monuments in Utah.

The committee tweeted out an image that mocked Patagonia’s announcement that it would sue the administration over the decision.

“The assertion that ‘the president stole your land’ is designed to mislead and terrify the uninformed. Their deception speaks volumes about their contempt for rural Americans in Utah,” the committee said in a statement.

“Of course, Patagonia, a self-interested corporation like any other, knows the truth, but they don’t care. Lies and distortions are better for their bottom line,” the statement said.

Slate: Patagonia Won’t Be Quiet

By Christina Bonnington

Patagonia is doing what many Americans have been doing all year and wish the Democratic party had the guts to do: Fight back against the Trump administration. U.S. citizens have been calling, writing, and emailing to their representatives in Washington to share their opposition to a variety of issues, including plans to replace the Affordable Care Act and eliminate Net Neutrality. And they’ve had varying degrees of success. Patagonia, unlike those constantly contacting our representatives, might have a voice that our government will listen to: a voice with corporate money behind it…

Patagonia has a vested interest in keeping public lands like Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante public: It’s some of the outdoor playgrounds where many of its customers like to play. With fewer places to hike, camp, or fish, there could be less need for clothing that addresses those activities. Patagonia’s CEO is open about what the company stands to gain from its intervention with these monuments. But the bottom line is that these lands don’t have a voice, and the people who want to see these beautiful landscapes preserved for future generations don’t have one either. Patagonia does.

Axios: Patagonia’s fight over the national monuments

“The privately-held [Patagonia, based in Ventura, Calif.] in 2012 became one of the first businesses licensed under a California law that allows corporations to pursue social and environmental advocacy as part of their missions. The classification shields Patagonia from potential claims that company advocacy expenses are hurting profits.”…

This is one of the year’s huge business trends: CEOs and corporations – prodded by shareholders, millennial customers and their own workforces – are increasingly vocal on political issues.

The States

Montgomery Advertiser: Secretary of State asks Google to remove anti-Moore ad

By Melissa Brown

Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill this week asked Google to take down an anti-Roy Moore ad from its digital platforms due to language meant to “misinform and confuse voters.”

Merrill on Thursday said Google, the parent company of YouTube, had removed the ad. The ad could not be found in a search of Google or YouTube early Thursday evening.

Highway 31, a Super PAC supporting Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Doug Jones’ campaign, paid for the digital spot that said “your vote is public record, and your community will know whether or not you stopped Roy Moore.”

A source familiar with the matter said Highway 31’s ad was flagged, triggering a standard review that found it fell under the “misleading content” category of Google’s advertising policies due to a perceived implication that a voter’s ballot is public record…

Adam Muhlendorf, a Highway 31 spokesman, said in a statement Thursday that the PAC “was in contact with Google to ensure the ad runs through Election Day.”

“The fact of the matter remains that John Merrill is inferring an intent that is simply not true,” Muhlendorf’s statement said.