We’re Hiring!
Senior Attorneys – Institute for Free Speech – Washington, DC or Virtual Office
The Institute for Free Speech is hiring three attorneys, including at least one Senior Attorney with at least 10 years of experience and two other experienced attorneys with at least four to six years of experience in an expansion of its litigation and legal advocacy capabilities.
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. You would work to secure legal precedents clearing away a thicket of laws and regulations that suppress speech about government and candidates for political office, threaten citizens’ privacy if they speak or join groups, and impose heavy burdens on organized political activity.
A strong preference will be given to candidates who can work in our Washington, D.C. headquarters. However, we will consider exceptionally strong candidates living and working virtually from anywhere in the country. In addition to litigation or advocacy-related travel, a virtual candidate would be required to travel for quarterly week-long visits to IFS’s headquarters after the pandemic’s impact has receded.
[You can learn more about this role and apply for the position here.]
In the News
John Locke Foundation: Event Video- The High Stakes of H.R. 1: Election Integrity, Speech, and Privacy
It is called the “For the People Act of 2021.” It’s anything but. Passed in the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 220 to 210, with no Republican support, H.R. 1 is raising alarm bells on a variety of fronts. In this conversation, our experts will discuss the bill’s impact on the integrity of elections, the negative effect on public discourse and donor privacy, and the potential for its provisions to lead to one-party rule…
Featuring:
-Bradley A. Smith
Chairman, Institute for Free Speech; Former Chairman, Federal Election Commission
-Rep. David Rouzer
NC-7th District, U.S. House of Representatives
-Dr. Andy Jackson
Director of the Civitas Center for Public Integrity, John Locke Foundation
-Jon Guze
Senior Fellow, Legal Studies, John Locke Foundation
New from the Institute for Free Speech
As H.R. 1 Moves to the Senate, Consider What Motivates Politicians
By Alex Baiocco
“Campaign finance laws… easily can serve as incumbent-protection devices, insulating current officeholders from challenge and criticism,” now-Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a 1996 University of Chicago Law Review article. Kagan warned that “there may be good reason to distrust the motives of politicians when they apply themselves to reconstructing the realm of expression.”
Recent commentary from politicians in Congress validates the wisdom in Kagan’s writing. In comments celebrating the House of Representatives’ partisan passage of H.R. 1, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) explained that achieving the Democrats’ legislative agenda will be easier if certain voices are “not weighing in.” In other words, suppressing speech is not an unfortunate side effect of the bill’s complex and onerous regulations on advocacy. It’s a primary motivation.
As the Senate begins debate on its own version of the bill, S. 1, Democrats should consider the short-sightedness of their anti-speech motives. Not long ago, several key Republicans, still in control of the Senate, expressed their own interest in suppressing political speech by “regulating money.”
Misunderstanding Corporate PACs: The Media’s Mistaken Target
By Nathan Maxwell
In the aftermath of the Capitol riot on January 6, certain media outlets have turned their attention toward an often-misunderstood vehicle for political contributions – corporate PACs. The newsletter Popular Information reached out to 144 corporations whose company PACs contributed to the campaign efforts of one or more of the 8 Senators who voted to object to the certification of the election results in January.
A trio of Washington Post reporters wrote that the corporate PACs that are now halting donations as a result of the election objections are “reexamin[ing] their role in powering the nation’s fractious politics.” The New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin argued that these groups “shouldn’t be paying the refs” at all. Language like this hyperbolizes and misconstrues corporate PACs’ impact on campaigns and politics and inspires three important points that warrant clarification.
1) Only a fraction of the corporate PACs’ donations in the 2020 cycle went to objectors in the Senate…
2) Corporate PACs are not party loyalists…
3) Corporate PACs are funded voluntarily by a company’s employees…
Despite the overheated rhetoric, corporate PACs are not a threat to democracy; they are democracy at work. Business leaders and employees have a stake in the political climate just as every other American does. Exaggerating corporate PACs’ role in the post-election chaos will serve only to discourage First Amendment-protected civic engagement and silence valuable perspectives.
Congress
Washington Post: H.R. 1 can’t pass the Senate. But here are some voting reforms that could.
By Richard L. Hasen
Are Democrats in Congress and their good government allies going to blow it again on voting rights? It sure looks like they could — by portraying the 791-page For the People Act, or H.R. 1, as the only hope to save American democracy from a new wave of Republican voter suppression.
This mammoth bill has little chance of being enacted. But a more pinpointed law, including one restoring a key part of the Voting Rights Act, could make it out of the Senate to guarantee voting rights protections for all in the 2022 and 2024 elections…
Congress likely has the power to do many, but not all, of the things H.R. 1 proposes…
But potential unconstitutionality of some provisions is not the main problem with H.R. 1. Instead, the problem is that the bill contains a wish list of progressive proposals that make it unlikely to survive debate in the Senate. In addition to sensible provisions protecting voting rights, the bill also contains controversial rules on campaign financing, including the creation of a public financing program for congressional candidates, new ethics rules for the Supreme Court, and a requirement that most candidates for president and vice president publicly disclose their tax returns…
What would be in the new, narrower bill?
Capital Research Center: Scott Walter’s Written Statement Before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee
By Scott Walter
[The Captured Courts report issued by the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee] has 18 references to “dark money,” a popular insult among the political classes that’s rarely defined clearly. The page devoted to explaining “dark money” in Captured Courts certainly lacks legal precision: is it money in 501(c)(3) nonprofits? in (c)(4) nonprofits? (c)(6)s? in donor-advised funds? All these and more meet the report’s sole criterion of “funding for organizations and political activities that cannot be traced to actual donors.” The report goes on to call dark money “troubling,” “a uniquely pernicious threat” to our courts.
Perhaps the best definition of “dark money” came from the wit who said, Dark money is support for speech the Left wants to silence. That definition brings to light the way “dark money” conjures up a bogeyman; it shifts debate away from the substance of legal and political disputes by implying that one’s opponents are nefarious, even though they simply use the same kind of funding arrangements that everyone else does.
That’s not to say all sides today are equal when it comes to “dark money.” The Left, by any measure, has far more of it than conservatives. And the Left’s funding arrangements are, in some ways, more dark than conservatives’ arrangements.
Before we look at the numbers, let’s consider how this very hearing is unthinkable without “dark money” flowing to everyone here. A decade ago, a liberal group coined “dark money” to refer only to 501(c)(4) nonprofits—the independent expenditure groups helped by, and demonized because of, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision—though now the term is used vaguely to encompass all nonprofits, donor-advised funds, and sometimes super PACs…
In short, to say that a group of people making an argument in the public square receives “dark money” is like saying that those people use words, that they talk on telephones, that they have friends—donors and fellow advocates—with whom they regularly work on common projects to support that argument.
NPR: An Old Debate Renewed: Does The U.S. Now Need A Domestic Terrorism Law?
By Greg Myre
Bruce Hoffman at the Council on Foreign Relations has studied terrorism, in the U.S. and abroad, for decades. He believes it’s time for a domestic terrorism law — with caveats.
“Much as after 9/11, we recognized that we were in a new world, in a new era, and had to make signal adjustments. I think we’re in the same position now,” said Hoffman.
However, Hina Shamsi, head of the ACLU’s national security project, says it would be a mistake to enact such a measure.
“There’s no need for new law to deal with white-supremacist violence or other forms of what people think about as terrorism,” she said. “The problem is not lack of laws. It is a lack of will that the law enforcement agencies have exhibited throughout our history to focus on actual white-supremacist violence.” …
Civil rights groups say a domestic terrorism law would likely raise First Amendment questions over free speech, and possibly Second Amendment issues regarding weapons. In short, the Constitution permits Americans to own guns and fiercely criticize the government.
Candidates and Campaigns
New York Times: Russian Interference in 2020 Included Influencing Trump Associates, Report Says
By Julian E. Barnes
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia authorized extensive efforts to hurt the candidacy of Joseph R. Biden Jr. during the election last year, including by mounting covert operations to influence people close to President Donald J. Trump, according to a declassified intelligence report released on Tuesday…
The declassified report represented the most comprehensive intelligence assessment of foreign efforts to influence the 2020 vote. Besides Russia, Iran and other countries also sought to sway the election, the report said. China considered its own efforts but ultimately concluded that they would fail and most likely backfire, intelligence officials concluded…
The declassified report did not explain how the intelligence community had reached its conclusions about Russian operations during the 2020 election…
“Foreign malign influence is an enduring challenge facing our country,” Avril D. Haines, the director of national intelligence, said in a statement. “These efforts by U.S. adversaries seek to exacerbate divisions and undermine confidence in our democratic institutions.”
Online Speech Platforms
Politico: MAGA voters discovered a new home online. But it isn’t what it seems.
By Mark Scott and Tina Nguyen
As former President Donald Trump’s supporters have flocked to alternative social media networks, many are turning to SafeChat, a fast-growing platform known for its tolerance of high-octane MAGA content.
In the nine weeks since the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, SafeChat’s app has been downloaded more times than in all of 2020, quickly becoming a hotbed of conspiracy theories and disinformation that paints President Joe Biden’s new administration in the worst possible light.
But the once-obscure social network, which touts its security protections and respect for free speech, is not just MAGA-friendly. It’s also a conduit that enables fringe groups attacking the Chinese Communist Party to speak directly to — and influence — Trump supporters, creating a “Star Wars” barlike atmosphere where AR-15 enthusiasts and a growing number of white nationalists can mingle with Chinese dissidents.
The States
Reason: The Texas Bill That Prohibits Social Media Censorship Is a Mess
By Robby Soave
Political bias on social media is one of the biggest issues animating the political right these days, and thus many conservatives talk about doing something to prevent “Big Tech” censorship. Several Republican-controlled states are considering passing legislation designed to accomplish just that.
The Texas Senate, for instance, is poised to approve SB12, which ostensibly prohibits social media companies from restricting their users’ speech.
“We need to recognize in Texas, maybe particularly in Texas, we see that the First Amendment is under assault by the social media companies and that is not going to be tolerated in Texas,” said Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in support of the bill.
The First Amendment is not under assault by social media companies. On the contrary, the First Amendment defends the free speech rights of private entities—like social media companies—against restrictive government action, like this bill. It would be more accurate to say that the First Amendment is under assault by the Texas legislature. A private company deciding what kind of speech it allows on its platform is precisely the kind of thing the First Amendment protects from government interference.
Maine Public Radio: Maine Lawmakers Again Seek To Limit Foreign Influence In Anti-Power Line Referendum
By Steve Mistler
Central Maine Power’s controversial transmission project is again the target of another referendum that could scuttle the project, and the issue of foreign influence in the campaign has also surfaced once again.
A new slate of bills in the Maine Legislature could sideline Hydro-Quebec, a major financial beneficiary of the power line that’s already spent an estimated $10 million promoting its purported benefits to Maine residents.
Some lawmakers say a company whose sole shareholder is the government of Quebec has no business attempting to influence the ballot initiative. But Hydro-Quebec and other project supporters say silencing the company is unfair and potentially unconstitutional…
The company stands to net more than $12 billion, and last year it spent nearly $7 million opposing a ballot initiative that was ultimately halted by Maine’s law court.
It’s since hired one of the top Washington, D.C. lobbying firms to assist with campaign messaging to fend off another anti-corridor referendum expected to take place in November.
Republican state Sen. Rick Bennett of Oxford told lawmakers during a public hearing Monday that all of this influencing activity should not be permitted by a corporation that is effectively under the control of a foreign government…
The problem for corridor opponents is that while it’s illegal under state and federal law for foreign companies or governments to spend money to influence the outcome of candidate campaigns, those same laws are largely silent on foreign spending on ballot campaigns.
The loophole was first reported by Maine Public Radio two years ago, prompting state lawmakers to back a bill that would close it.
Daily Wire: Teachers Compile List Of Parents Who Question Racial Curriculum, Plot War On Them
By Luke Rosiak
A group of current and former teachers and others in Loudoun County, Virginia compiled a lengthy list of parents suspected of disagreeing with school system actions, including its teaching of controversial racial concepts — with a stated purpose in part to “infiltrate,” to use “hackers” to silence parents’ communications, and to “expose these people publicly.”
Members of a 624-member private Facebook group called “Anti-Racist Parents of Loudoun County” named parents and plotted fundraising and other offline work. Some used pseudonyms, but The Daily Wire has identified them as a who’s who of the affluent jurisdiction outside D.C., including schools staff and elected officials…
Secret communications reviewed by The Daily Wire do not offer any evidence of racism by the group’s targets, or even attempt to. Their opponents were apparently those who objected to, sought to debate, or were even simply “neutral” about “critical race theory,” a radical philosophy opposed by many liberals and conservatives but increasingly embraced by governments.
Federalist: California Bill Proposes Removing Cops Who Express Religious Or Conservative Beliefs
By Gabe Kaminsky
A new bill introduced by California State Assembly Member Ash Kalra in San Jose would prohibit police officers from serving if they have used arbitrarily defined “hate speech” or are affiliated with a “hate group.”
The bill, known as the California Law Enforcement Accountability Reform Act (CLEAR Act), claims to combat “the infiltration of extremists in our law enforcement agencies” and would mandate a background check for all officers who have “exchanged racist and homophobic messages.”
Kalra claims that AB 655 is necessary to prevent “the apparent cooperation, participation, and support of some law enforcement” in the Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
The bill defines hate speech as “as advocating or supporting the denial of constitutional rights of, the genocide of, or violence towards, any group of persons based upon race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.”
Pacific Justice Institute Senior Staff Attorney Matthew McReynolds said this broad and purposefully arbitrary definition could give way for Christians and conservatives to be classified as “hateful” based on the premise of rejecting abortion or supporting Proposition 8 in California, a same-sex amendment that passed in 2008.
The Texan: Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying Ban for Cities and Counties Given High Priority in the Texas Senate
By Brad Johnson
Much of the Republican Party of Texas has rallied behind a prospective ban on taxpayer-funded lobbying. Two bills have already been filed to ban it across the board — one in each chamber — but another was filed to ban the practice specifically for cities and counties.
Authored by Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston), Senate Bill (SB) 10 has both a low bill number, signaling high priority, and nine joint authors…
“Stopping Taxpayer Funded Lobbying” is included among Lt. Governor Dan Patrick’s legislative priorities for the session…
[Bob Hall (R-Edgewood)], who spearheaded the legislation last session and continued its advocacy during the interim, said of SB 10, “Governmental entities and non-profit organizations currently funded with public taxpayer dollars are using those dollars to hire lobbyists to advocate against bills intended to protect taxpayers. It’s unethical to use that money to influence legislation to their advantage by hiring lobbyists and lobby firms to peddle their opinions about bills and influence legislators.”
