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.]
ICYMI
The Federalist: Democrats’ H.R. 1 Election Takeover Would Also Control What Americans And Politicians Say
By Tiffany Donnelly
Democrats often rail against the dangers of “hate speech” and “extremist content,” yet their radical election overhaul bill, H.R. 1, would use taxpayer funds to subsidize the very speech they claim is bigoted…
Under their radical plan, participating congressional candidates would receive a 600 percent match from the government for donations up to $200, with additional funding in the weeks leading up to a general election. Thus, a $200 donation would ultimately be worth $1,400 to the candidate…
The First Amendment prohibits discrimination against individuals based on the content of their message. It’s an important and necessary feature of our government, ensuring people in power can’t punish citizens because they have different or unpopular views. As a result, however, the government can’t be as discerning as its citizens when it decides to fund political candidates.
If H.R. 1 is enacted, taxpayers would be constitutionally required to fund the speech of all candidates that meet the bill’s qualifications. This includes any speech labeled by Democrats as racist, antisemitic, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise hateful. Voters across the political spectrum would be appalled by the offensive messages H.R. 1 would subsidize.
Supreme Court
Americans for Prosperity: The high stakes of privacy: Renowned Chinese dissident tells Supreme Court that freedom depends on First Amendment protections
Dr. Yang Jianli wants the U.S. Supreme Court to remember that the right to privacy in association is essential to freedom. Not just in the United States, but worldwide.
“There are always some people who tend to use power to interfere with freedom,” he says.
This is the thrust of an amicus curiae brief Dr. Yang filed in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, challenging California’s demand that nonprofit groups hand over lists of their supporters and their personal information.
His argument is as personal as it is powerful.
Ever since his narrow escape from the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, Dr. Yang’s work challenging authoritarian regimes has placed him directly in the crosshairs of the Chinese government.
Today, that danger has extended to those who support his work through Citizen Power Initiatives for China (CPI), the human rights group Dr. Yang founded in the United States in 2008 to promote a peaceful democratic transition in China.
As a nonprofit, CPI relies on contributions from people throughout the U.S. — California included. And as with all nonprofits groups whose work involves controversial issues, privacy of their supporters is paramount.
“Whoever wants to support us must have some connection to China. Either they have family, friends or a business,” explains Dr. Yang. “China has a long arm to harass and surveil — this is a well-known fact.”
He hopes sharing the real-life consequences of intimidation of private citizens by those in power, alongside the nearly 290 other vastly diverse organizations and individuals who have also weighed in on the case, will raise awareness of the range of people, causes, and movements impacted by Americans’ ability to maintain privacy.
The Courts
By Tyler Olson
Anna Paulina Luna, the former 2020 GOP nominee for Democrat Rep. Charlie Crist’s House seat, is suing the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over alleged inaction on a complaint about Twitter never verifying her account.
Luna, according to a copy of her lawsuit first obtained by Fox News, tried for months to get her Twitter account verified, even as other candidates in her primary race already had blue check marks on their profiles.
She continued to not have a blue check on her Twitter profile as she competed against Crist, D-Fla., in the 2020 general election. Luna’s suit says that this is despite the fact she met “all the requirements in Twitter’s rules” to be verified…
Luna filed a complaint with the FEC in October over Twitter not verifying her account. That complaint said the blue-check Twitter verification is “something of value” the social media giant provided to her opponents but not to her, amounting to an illegal corporate political donation.
Now, Luna’s lawsuit says, it’s been more than 120 days since her initial complaint was filed. She seeks to have the court force the FEC to act on her complaint.
The Detroit News: Rochester school parent sues, alleges district got her fired for speaking out
By Jennifer Chambers
A parent in Rochester Community Schools has filed a federal lawsuit against the school district, alleging its board president called her employer and got her fired for advocating on social media for schools to reopen amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Elena Dinverno filed a civil lawsuit Monday in U.S. District Court in Detroit against the Oakland County district, board president Kristin Bull and superintendent Robert Shaner, alleging they unlawfully restricted her free speech.
Dinverno has two children in the district, which began the school year remotely last fall. In the lawsuit, Dinverno describes herself as a “vocal and effective advocate for her position” who frequently “questioned and criticized” the decisions of the board through posts and comments in two Facebook groups: “RCS Parents for In-Person Education” and “Conservative Parents for Rochester.”
Congress
Palmetto Promise: ‘For the People Act’ Would Invade Americans’ Privacy, Stifle Free Speech
By Ellen Weaver
The First Amendment protects every American’s right to criticize government and join together with fellow citizens in support of a cause. Yet if Congress has its way, exercising these freedoms may soon come with a risk — and a price tag — most can’t afford.
Under the so-called “For the People Act,” known as H.R. 1 in the House and S. 1 in the Senate, Americans who support social or religious causes would have a target painted on their backs. To exercise your rights to speak, assemble, and petition the government, you might have to sacrifice your right to privacy.
The 800-plus page bill would impose campaign finance regulations on groups that so much as name a candidate or elected official in their communications. To be clear: campaign contributions are already publicly disclosed. The new rules are not for political groups or candidates, and they are not just for advertising. The legislation is written so broadly that even a church group or nonpartisan nonprofit’s own website, tweets, or Facebook posts could be regulated like campaign ads.
The bill would publicly expose many nonprofit supporters, threatening religious minorities and groups with unpopular views. Without the shield of privacy, Americans would be far more vulnerable to harassment and discrimination for their beliefs.
Online Speech Platforms
AP News: Facebook board upholds Trump suspension
By Barbara Ortutay
Former President Donald Trump won’t return to Facebook — for now.
The social network’s quasi-independent Oversight Board voted to uphold his ban from the platform after his account was suspended four months ago for inciting violence that led to the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
While upholding the suspension, the board faulted Facebook for the way it made the decision.
The board said the ongoing risk of serious violence justified Facebook’s suspension at the time, but said it “was not appropriate for Facebook to impose an ‘indefinite’ suspension.”
The board said Facebook was seeking to avoid its responsibilities by applying “a vague, standardless penalty” and then referring the case to the board to resolve.
The board agreed with Facebook that that two of Trump’s Jan. 6 posts “severely violated” the content standards of both Facebook and Instagram.
“We love you. You’re very special,” he said in the first post, and “great patriots” and “remember this day forever” in the second. Those violated Facebook’s rules against praising or supporting people engaged in violence, the board said.
The board says Facebook has six months to reexamine the “arbitrary penalty” it imposed on Jan. 7 and decide on another penalty that reflects the “gravity of the violation and the prospect of future harm.”
The board says the new penalty must be “clear, necessary and proportionate” and consistent with Facebook’s rules for severe violations.
The board says if Facebook decides to restore Trump’s accounts, the company must be able to promptly address further violations.
Taxpayer-Financed Campaigns
SocArXiv Papers: Does Public Campaign Funding Crowd Out Private Donation Activity? Evidence from Seattle’s Democracy Voucher Program
By Alan Griffith and Thomas Noonen
During each election cycle, the city of Seattle distributes four $25 vouchers to every registered voter, which may be donated to and redeemed by campaigns for city office. Through a difference-in-differences research design, we study the causal effect of Seattle’s program on various outcomes in city council elections in the first two cycles after implementation, with two comparison groups drawn from other cities in Washington and California. We find that the program led to an approximately 62-100% increase in total contributions and a 400% increase in number of unique donors. The effects on dollars and donors are entirely driven by small donors, defined as those who contribute less than $200 to a campaign. We find statistically insignificant evidence of decreases in private donations, although our point estimates suggest moderate-to-substantial crowd-out ratios. We further show that the program led to a 76-86% increase in candidates for city council. These results provide some of the first causal evidence on the effect of decentralized public campaign finance schemes, while also speaking to broader questions measuring the effects of money in politics, campaign regulation, and the effects of public funds on private giving.
Fundraising
Center for Responsive Politics: Out-of-state donors power record Senate fundraising
By Karl Evers-Hillstrom
Democratic senators in battleground states are raking in donations from out-of-state donors, amassing a hefty cash advantage over potential GOP challengers who haven’t launched Senate bids yet.
Four of the most competitive 2022 Senate races are in states held by Democrats: Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire and Nevada. Each of the incumbents in those states received more than three-quarters of their campaign cash from out-of-state donors in the first three months of 2021.
The influx of national donations points to another historically expensive election. The 2018 midterms and 2020 election each smashed fundraising and spending records, driven by online donors bankrolling faraway congressional contests. Nine of the 10 most expensive Senate races took place in 2020, led by the half-billion-dollar special election in Georgia. Democrats dominated fundraising in those contests. The 2022 cycle is off to a hot start, home to four of the five largest Senate fundraising hauls through the first three months of an election cycle…
Representing one of the smallest states in the nation, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) raised 91 percent of her money from out-of-state donors to start the 2022 cycle. Those national donors, primarily New York and Massachusetts residents, helped Hassan pull in $2.9 million from January through March. Hassan is on track to blow away her 2016 haul of $18.6 million.
Candidates and Campaigns
Truthout: Former Ethics Head Blasts “Openly Corrupt” Ted Cruz for “Selling Access”
By Chris Walker
A government watchdog expert who formerly served as head of the Office of Government Ethics lashed out at Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) this weekend after an op-ed by the senator heavily implied that Republicans would take punitive actions against so-called “woke CEOs.”
Cruz, writing a column in The Wall Street Journal last week, took aim at companies that have recently spoken out against new restrictive voting proposals…
“This time, we won’t look the other way on Coca-Cola’s $12 billion in back taxes owed… This time, when Major League Baseball lobbies to preserve its multibillion-dollar antitrust exception, we’ll say no thank you. This time, when Boeing asks for billions in corporate welfare, we’ll simply let the Export-Import Bank expire,” Cruz wrote in his column.
Walter Shaub, who formerly served as the head of the Office of Government Ethics, took note of Cruz’s words over the weekend, describing them as revealing more than what the senator might have intended them to.
“This may be the most openly corrupt thing any Senator has said,” Shaub, who is currently a senior ethics fellow at the Project on Government Oversight, wrote on Twitter. “It’s the part everyone knows: these crooks sell access.”
“This is why our republic is broken,” Shaub continued in his short missive against Cruz’s words. “Immoral politicians selling power we’ve entrusted to them like it’s theirs to sell.”
The States
Nonprofit Times: At Least 10 States Going After Donor Disclosure
By Mark Hrywna
At least 10 states have considered legislation this year to restrict requiring nonprofits to report on a confidential basis the names of donors, which they report annually to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) via Schedule B of the Form 990.
According to the National Council of Nonprofits, lawmakers in South Dakota enacted two laws prohibiting the executive branch from requiring any filing or report that is “more stringent, restrict, or expansive than that required by state or federal law” or provide the state with “personal affiliation information” of any member, supporter, volunteer or donor to a nonprofit in the state.
WMUR: NH Senate Election Law Committee considers House-passed bill to move state primary to late June
By John DiStaso
The Senate Election Law Committee on Monday also took under advisement for additional work House Bill 263 to revise state laws relating to the raising and sending of campaign funds.
The bill passed the House on a roll call of 196-173 on April 8 – also almost entirely along party lines with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed.
Rep. Joe Sweeney, R-Salem, the executive director of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee and the bill’s sponsor, said the bill would do away with the little-used voluntary campaign spending limit law.
Current law allow candidates to receive individual contributions to a maximum of $5,000 before they file for office and then a maximum of $1,000 per donor for the primary election and $1,000 per donor for the general election – for a maximum of $7,000 per donor.
The bill would end pre-filing contributions but then allow filed candidates to raise a maximum of $3,500 from a donor for the primary and $3,500 for the general election – for the same $7,000 maximum per donor.
House Bill 263 would also increase from $5,000 to $10,000 the limit on individual contributions to non-candidate political committees.
Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan told the committee his office has taken no position on the proposed changes.
Sen. James Gray, R-Rochester, the committee chair, noted that by eliminating the pre-primary “exploratory” contribution allowance, candidates who decide late to enter the race and become candidates during the filing period would not be, in effect, penalized by being able to raise only $2,000 per donor.
Washington Examiner: State bill will provide immunity for drivers who unintentionally injure protesters
By Emma Colton
A Tennessee bill would create harsher penalties for protesters while offering immunity to some drivers if they unintentionally injure a protester.
“This legislation promotes law and order and protects Tennessee communities against violence by safeguarding public roadways and increasing penalties for those who commit these reprehensible acts against innocent people,” Republican state Rep. Ron M. Gant said. “These senseless acts have no place in a civil society.”
State lawmakers will discuss the legislation, House Bill 513, on Tuesday, which Gant and other sponsors say is needed to prevent violence.
The legislation would also increase the penalty against protesters who block a roadway, making it a Class E felony, which carries up to six years in prison.
However, critics say it will discourage people from protesting and keep people from “raising our voices against whatever they want to pass.”
Washington Examiner: School makes Black Lives Matter official speech to protect against dissenting views
By Emma Colton
The Rochester Public Schools Board in Minnesota approved Black Lives Matter messaging under protected “government speech,” which officials say protects the school from being held liable for allowing those views while not allowing dissenting opinions.
“[By] adopting the messages that you’re adopting as government speech, you’re saying these are the messages that we’re communicating as a school district, and by doing that, we’re not also creating a forum to allow other types of speech to enter the forum,” the school board’s attorney, John Edison, said.
The phrases “brown lives matter,” “indigenous lives matter, “stop Asian hate,” and the pride flag are now also considered government speech.
Under government speech, “it is the government itself that is speaking … it can control what that message is. So, you don’t have the same issue [of] people coming forward and saying that by expressing a certain message you have to allow others to be expressed, too. That concept does not apply when you’re talking about government speech,” according to Edison.
