Supreme Court
By Heidi Kitrosser
On Tuesday, February 27, the Supreme Court will consider whether the 11th Circuit was correct in holding that the presence of probable cause necessarily defeats a claim of retaliatory arrest for First-Amendment-protected expression…
Among the questions to watch for from the justices are those designed to tease out the practical dangers each party’s position might pose. For example, the city might be asked to grapple with scenarios in which government officers intentionally and openly retaliate against protestors for their protected speech by targeting those people for aggressive enforcement of laws against minor transgressions, such as jaywalking. Lozman’s attorney might be pushed, on the other hand, to consider the limits of a complainant’s ability to state a claim for retaliatory arrest based on speech that is protected but that may show violent impulses on the speaker’s part. It will be interesting as well to see to what extent, if at all, the justices’ questions reflect recent events, such as the demonstrations and violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, protests against President Donald Trump’s administration, and protests by Black Lives Matter. And of course, we can count on old First Amendment chestnuts like the chilling effect and the heightened value of “core” political speech to crop up throughout the discussion.
Free Speech
Cato: The Russian Danger
By John Samples
The law seems informed by the following assumptions. Public officials need to hear foreign views, especially about international affairs. They have the ability to sort out the false from the true if they know who is behind the arguments. In contrast, voters might be moved by foreign speech to the detriment of the nation. Hence, voters must be prevented from hearing such speech even if its source is disclosed. To put it mildly, this distinction between officialdom and voters is contrary to the foundations of freedom of speech. If voters lack this basic capacity of citizenship, why protect speech through the First Amendment? The distinction seems paternalistic.
The law is the law, and the indictment made a good enough case against the defendants that at least 12 grand jury members endorsed the charges. But the indictment comes at a difficult time for free speech. Facebook and other tech giants have been put on the defensive in DC. For some, only foreign malevolence could propel a man like Donald Trump to the White House. Fears about national security can foster public actions that otherwise would be rejected. This might be one of those moments when something must be done and the “something” that is selected does real harm to freedom of speech. That outcome could easily be worse than whatever threat the Russians pose to American democracy.
Congress
CNN: Sen. Whitehouse: Trump is in the back pocket of billionaires
By Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
In his State of the Union address, President Donald Trump said, “We have gone forward with a clear vision and a righteous mission — to make America great again for all Americans.”
However, behind the scenes, President Trump is not calling all of the shots. While he golfs and tweets and watches cable news, several disturbingly powerful billionaires are pulling the levers and winning special treatment…
On the anniversary of Trump’s swearing-in, a group of Democratic Senators released a report on how the President has outsourced his decision-making to billionaires looking to advance their own interests. These billionaires don’t care about putting Americans back to work or ending unfair trade deals or “draining the swamp.” They care about controlling government, for their own financial benefit, in a way the Founding Fathers would have recognized as corruption.
The Hill: Conservative riders would unleash more big money in politics
By Rachel Curley
One rider would prevent the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from finalizing popular new rules to require public corporations to disclose their political spending to shareholders and the public…
Another rider would repeal the Johnson Amendment, a 64-year-old law that bans charities and religious organizations from engaging in partisan politics while retaining their tax-exempt status…
There’s also a rider that stops the IRS from developing a new definition of nonprofit political activity to clarify what tax-exempt entities can and cannot do in the political process. Until we get clarification on what nonprofits can and cannot do, organizations like Crossroads GPS will be able to take advantage of outdated rules, injecting tens of millions of secret corporate money into the political process.
And finally, there’s a rider that would relax the limits on how much the national parties may spend in coordination with presidential campaigns. This would make it easier for mega donors to get around the current law, which says an individual donor may give a maximum of only $2,700 directly to a presidential candidate per election.
The States
Bangor Daily News: Maine GOP leader’s ‘news’ website propels ethics watchdogs into uncharted territory
By Michael Shepherd
Thursday will begin with a Maine Ethics Commission hearing on the once-anonymous “news” website run by a top state Republican Party official who is trying to claim that he was acting as a journalist and not an operative.
The ‘press exemption’ is a key tenet of Maine ethics law, but the democratization of media makes it hard to interpret. Earlier this month, Jason Savage, the Maine GOP’s executive director, told the commission that he owns the Maine Examiner, which drew an ethics complaint from Democrats after it influenced the Lewiston mayoral election in December.
Although the Maine Republican Party promoted the site’s posts, it told the commission that it knew nothing about Savage’s link to the Maine Examiner until January. Maine law forces entities making independent expenditures above $250 in a municipal election to report them…
In a memo, Jonathan Wayne, the executive director of the five-member commission, said it should give “serious consideration” to Savage’s claim of independence from the party. But it also says commissioners “may wish to be cautious about accepting an argument or creating a precedent that could lead to an accountability gap.”
Arkansas Online: Little Rock lawsuit called free-speech curb
By Chelsea Boozer
A judge should bar Little Rock from enforcing its campaign fundraising timeline because the shortened time frame violates mayor challenger Frank Scott Jr.’s First Amendment right, his attorney said in a court filing.
Scott joins the only other announced contender in this year’s mayoral race, Warwick Sabin, in seeking to dismiss the city’s lawsuit, which names both men and the Arkansas Ethics Commission as defendants.
In the lawsuit the city filed last month, Little Rock wants a judge to rule on whether Scott and Sabin must adhere to a city ordinance that restricts campaign fundraising to the June before a November election, and to order the Ethics Commission to enforce the measure.
Scott and Sabin both formed exploratory committees last year and began raising funds through the committees…
“If the Court subjects the Ordinance to intermediate scrutiny, the City cannot meet its burden. It cannot show that prohibiting Mr. Scott from accepting campaign contributions more than five months before the 2018 mayoral election prevents ‘quid pro quo corruption’ or its appearance, or that the Ordinance employs means that are closely drawn to serve that interest,” Scott’s response said.
U.S. News & World Report: Complaints Question Harwell’s PAC Help, $3.1m Self-Loan
By Jonathan Mattise, Associated Press
One complaint says a December mailer by Harwell PAC should be reported as a $24,845 in-kind contribution to the candidate, but isn’t.
It alleges registration for a website funded by Tennesseans for Good State Government, formerly Harwell PAC, lists Harwell staffer Kara Owen’s government phone number and the site was registered while she was working.
Owen called it legal because the domain was initially registered to host Harwell’s constituent survey.
Another complaint questions whether Harwell can financially back a $3.1 million self-loan.
PAC legal adviser Austin McMullen called the statements baseless.
Sharon Ford, a conservative group’s president who almost challenged Harwell in 2014, filed the complaints.
