In the News
Indiana Lawyer: 7th Circuit affirms Indiana’s ban on robocalls
By Dave Stafford
A political organization that argued Indiana’s ban on telephone robocalls disfavored political speech and was content discrimination got a terse reply from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday.
“We don’t get it,” Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote in Patriotic Veterans, Inc. v. Greg Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, 16-2059. “Nothing in the statute … disfavors political speech. The statute as a whole disfavors cold calls (that is, calls to strangers), but if a recipient has authorized robocalls then the nature of the message is irrelevant.”
Bans on computer-assisted robocalls that deliver recorded messages have been sustained in two circuits. But Patriotic Veterans sued to block I.C. §24-5-14-5 after South Carolina’s law was overturned and after the Supreme Court of the United States struck down an Arizona town ordinance regulating the content of signs in Reed v. Gilbert, 135 S. Ct 2218 (2015).
Washington Examiner: Indiana robocall ban doesn’t violate First Amendment, court rules
By Ryan Lovelace
Indiana’s Automated Dialing Machine Statute prevents a caller from using an automated telephone call that delivers a recorded message, with limited exceptions for such sources as school districts and employers.
The political action committee Patriotic Veterans Inc. challenged the law, saying it violated the group’s First Amendment rights, but the appeals court ruled that the measure didn’t discriminate based on content but rather restricted who may be called.
“Everyone has plenty of ways to spread messages: TV, newspapers and magazines (including ads), websites, social media (Facebook, Twitter, and the like), calls from live persons, and even recorded spiels if a live operator first secures consent,” wrote Judge Frank Easterbrook in the 7th Circuit’s opinion. “Plaintiff can ask its donors and potential donors to agree to receive robocalls. Preventing automated messages to persons who don’t want their peace and quiet disturbed is a valid time, place and manner restriction.”
Daily Caller: High Court Should Hear First Amendment Case Against Bullying Bureaucrats
By Wen Fa
For most of his career, Nebraska resident Bob Bennie happily conducted his business as a successful financial advisor without government harassment.
But that changed after he was quoted in a newspaper making controversial remarks about President Obama.
Suddenly, Bennie had a bullseye painted on his back by regulators who oversee his industry. The regulators relentlessly harassed Bennie’s employer until Bennie’s managers fired him from his job.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide whether to hear Bennie’s civil rights lawsuit against these vengeful bureaucrats. Everyone who values free speech should hope the justices take his case and make it clear that government can’t treat the exercise of First Amendment freedom as a punishable offense…
The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider Bennie’s case on January 6. Eight states, nine law professors, and four free-speech advocacy groups have joined Bennie in urging the justices to grant review.
Free Speech
New Orleans WWL TV: Victims of unlawful Terrebonne raid allege conspiracy by top officials
By David Hammer
A Houma police officer who was the victim of an unconstitutional sheriff’s raid of his home in August, now alleges in a federal lawsuit that the Terrebonne Parish president and levee board chairman conspired with the sheriff to seize his family’s computers and phones in an effort to silence free speech.
Wayne Anderson and his wife Jennifer Anderson amended their civil lawsuit against Terrebonne Sheriff Jerry Larpenter to add Parish President Gordon Dove and Levee Board Chairman and insurance agent Tony Alford as alleged co-conspirators.
Larpenter’s deputies raided the Andersons’ home in August suspecting someone in their house was behind anonymous blog posts criticizing the sheriff’s public insurance contracts with Alford’s insurance company, which also employs the sheriff’s wife. The blog, called “ExposeDAT,” also questioned Dove’s business partnerships with Alford as Dove was selecting Alford’s firm to write the parish government’s insurance policies.
The Andersons’ complaint in federal court in New Orleans alleges that Larpenter, Dove and Alford met after a July 11 “ExposeDAT” post and came up with a plan to silence the blog.
NJ Advance Media: Purged for our politics, 9 fired Elizabeth school employees claim in lawsuit
By Marisa Iati
Nine terminated employees of the city school district are alleging in a federal lawsuit that they were fired as political retribution, fueling a long-running war between the school board’s two bitterly opposed political factions.
The complaint filed Dec. 1 claims the board, comprised mostly of mayor-backed candidates, fired the employees for supporting opposing board candidates. It requests $100,000 per plaintiff, plus interest and other costs…
“Upon taking power, the Bollwage faction purged the Elizabeth Public Schools of those employees — including the plaintiffs — who openly supported and/or were perceived by defendants as supporting the Continue the Progress ticket, which was now the minority party,” Ryan Lockman, an attorney with Philadelphia-based Mark B. Frost and Associates, wrote in the complaint…
“This case comes down to the fact that employees cannot be terminated because they don’t belong to a particular political faction,” Lockman said. “When a government employer does that, they’ve violated the First Amendment rights of the employees subject to that action.”
Supreme Court
Wall Street Journal: ‘We Will Resist’
By Editorial Board
The Minority Leader saved his most partisan remarks for MSNBC, aptly enough, where he all but promised to block any Trump nominee to the Supreme Court. “We are not going to settle on a Supreme Court nominee. If they don’t appoint someone who’s really good, we’re gonna oppose him tooth and nail,” he said. When the MSNBC host asked if Mr. Schumer would do his best to keep the current vacancy on the High Court open, he responded “absolutely.”…
But while Democrats can use Senate rules to stretch out a Supreme Court confirmation battle, they’ll need Republican defections to defeat a Trump nominee. Democrats will no doubt try to demand a 60-vote rule, but Republicans can use former Democratic leader Harry Reid’s precedent in killing the filibuster for lower-court judges and apply that to the Supreme Court too. Mr. Schumer will have successes in opposition this Congress, but on the Supreme Court his resistance is likely to be futile.
Politico: Schumer, McConnell trade shots ahead of SCOTUS showdown
By Seung Min Kim
The Supreme Court war between Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer has begun.
The two Senate leaders on Wednesday launched their opening volleys in what is sure to be a contentious battle to confirm Donald Trump’s future nominee to the Supreme Court. This time, it’s Republicans who are vowing to press forward with the eventual nomination – and Democrats already threatening to block the person chosen to replace deceased Justice Antonin Scalia.
The Senate majority leader latched onto Schumer’s remarks from Tuesday night that Democrats were “absolutely” prepared to keep the current Supreme Court vacancy open. McConnell, who spent most of last year engineering his own blockade of Merrick Garland, was quick to criticize his new counterpart’s pledge.
“Apparently, there’s yet a new standard which is to not confirm a Supreme Court nominee at all,” McConnell told reporters Wednesday at the GOP leadership’s weekly news conference. “I think that’s something the American people simply will not tolerate.”
FCC
Cato: The FCC’s Transaction Reviews, First Amendment Risks, and the Rule of Law
By Brent Skorup and Christopher Koopman
Through license renewals and-the focus of this essay-transaction approvals, the agency allows special interest groups to dictate media content, business models, and operations. The ensuing agreements between firms and the agency provide a glimpse into how political actors and activists are able to harness the FCC’s regulatory process to chill unwanted speech and to promote speech favored by various pressure groups…
If the FCC persists in extracting public interest benefits from firms that create and distribute speech, it may see its transaction authority limited after a facial First Amendment challenge. When courts are alerted to circumstances where government intimidation of the press is foreseeable and appeal is difficult, they typically take a dim view… Since court scrutiny is higher when government action is directed at portions of the press, the FCC’s chosen path of empire building-extracting unreviewable concessions from firms during coercive transaction reviews-likely violates the Constitution’s protection of the press and free speech.
Disclosure
The Hill: House votes to require disclosure of presidential library donations
By Megan R. Wilson and Cristina Marcos
The House on Wednesday passed legislation that would require the disclosure of donations to fund the construction and operation of presidential libraries.
It is the fourth time since 2002 that the House has approved the bipartisan legislation, known as the Presidential Library Donation Reform Act. The bill has died in the Senate each time it has been introduced.
“The public should be made aware of possible conflicts of interest that sitting presidents can have or may have while raising funds for their libraries,” said Rep. John Duncan (R-Tenn.), the bill’s author. Duncan co-sponsored the bill with Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.).
“We do not know who these donors to the presidential libraries are or what interests they may have on any pending policy decisions that are to be made,” Duncan said.
Congress
The Hill: Dem bill would require Trump to release tax returns
By Naomi Jagoda
Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, on Wednesday introduced a bill that would require President-elect Donald Trump to release his tax returns…
Wyden’s bill would require sitting presidents to provide their three most recent years of tax returns to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE). It would also mandate that major-party presidential nominees release their returns to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) within 15 days of accepting the nomination at party conventions.
Under the bill, if presidents and nominees don’t release their tax returns, the Treasury secretary would provide them directly to OGE and FEC. The agencies would then make the returns public.
Citizens United
Cato: Citizens Not So United
By Tim Rowland
The 2016 election may not be a yardstick for measuring the entire political ecosystem but it does lay bare some apparent problems with the conventional wisdom about campaign finance. Most notably, Donald Trump won despite being outspent by Clinton…
The total amount of money raised by both sides-political parties and super PACs combined-represents about the cost of a single B-2 stealth bomber. That’s not chump change to be sure, but considering all the businesses and industries and causes that are out there in the modern world, that sum cannot be seen as out-of-line…
Based on the results of the fall election, Citizens United and its mountains of money are not going away anytime soon. But it might turn out that the cavalry of cash is arriving on the scene just in time to discover that its ability to sway the results has been significantly compromised.
The Media
Seymour Tribune: Letter: Learn to think critically, get news from credible sources
By Kaleb Elijah Herndon
With the national major media outlets pushing the idea of “fake news” I think that it is important that the people supporting the censorship of this “fake news” take a step back from this narrative to see what is truly being peddled to you: The abolition of free speech.
I have seen the arguments against free speech platforms, especially online, and none of them will solve the problem of “fake news” because all news has something in common. They “spin” the news to fit their political agenda with clickbait titles and half quotes. Who are you going to trust to give you the “real news?”
Misinformation is a real thing, but does any thinking person really believe that by handing the keys to a few “trustworthy” news sources to report their version of the news, and only their version, is in any way remotely a good idea?
Trump Administration
NBC2 Florida: President-elect Trump raising funds for inauguration
By Dave Elias
The Trump campaign is still actively selling his hats and t-shirts. They’ve also started selling items with the inauguration seal.
We wanted to know if it’s necessary and if it’s even legal.
The answer to both questions is yes.
A brochure obtained by NBC2 shows big donors to Trump’s campaign can gain exclusive access.
The Inaugural Committee Underwriter Benefits offers packages for those willing to give $100,000 to a million dollars…
“Let’s not be fooled. It’s entertainment at its best,” said GOP Political Consultant Dennis Pearlman.
The Trump campaign is also selling inaugural beer glasses.
“If I can have a beer and drink it out of a Trump glass, I’m one step closer to the process. It’s a novelty,” Pearlman declared.
Pearlman called it ‘Marketing 101’ and said that fundraising never stops.
Pearlman said it’s customary for presidents-elect to raise money for their inauguration, which can cost millions.
