In the News
Concurring Opinions: FAN 195.1 (First Amendment News) Institute for Free Speech Releases the Free Speech Records of Judges on Trump’s Short List
By Ronald K.L. Collins
The Institute for Free Speech has just released The Free Speech Records of Judges on Trump’s Short List.
Here is the introduction to its study:
“With Justice Anthony Kennedy retiring, President Trump has a second opportunity to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court.”
“As with the the previous nomination, the Institute for Free Speech seeks to analyze the records of potential nominees to educate the public on where these justices stand on First Amendment issues.”
The “Institute for Free Speech analyses on the free speech records of some of the judges on President Trump’s list of potential nominees. The Institute for Free Speech will continue to update this page with additional analyses until a nominee is named.”
Again, the records of the potential nominees as compiled by the Institute can be found here.
First Amendment Watch: Institute For Free Speech Releases Free Speech Records For Trump’s Potential SCOTUS Nominees
President Trump will have a second opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court judge to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. Institute for Free Speech compiled the free speech records of some of President Trump’s list of potential nominees.
The list can be found here.
Overlawyered: Awaiting a Supreme Court nominee
By Walter Olson
The White House has indicated that President Trump will announce a nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy Monday evening. Jonathan Adler breaks it all down at Volokh Conspiracy as does David Lat in a series of posts (sample: feeder judge Brett Kavanaugh “sends clerks to almost all the justices, on both sides of the aisle.”) Other resources while we wait:
Factually rich cheat sheet with links to writings and opinions of judges thought to be on the list [TIFIS]
The New Civil Liberties Alliance has evaluated the likely picks on the basis of their posture toward the powers of the administrative state. Chris Walker at the Yale Journal on Regulation examines related issues of their views on administrative law. And the Institute for Free Speech on records on free expression…
Red Meat Radio: Rebel Yell: Of Founders, Dark Money, And Private Association (Smith, Fox)
State Auditor John Dougall and Sasha Clark (co-founder, Dicio Group) talk with Capital University Law School Professor Bradley Smith, one of the nation’s leading authorities on election law and campaign finance. Smith discusses the 60th Anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in NAACP v. Alabama. He also discusses the proper and improper use of transparency. To learn more about the Institute For Free Speech, see ifs.org.
Supreme Court
Wall Street Journal: Trump Takes a Final Look at Supreme Court Choices
By Peter Nicholas and Louise Radnofsky
President Donald Trump on Sunday polled outside advisers about his Supreme Court nominee and appeared to favor different finalists as the day wore on, wrestling with a decision that is crucial to his legacy and that could tip the court’s yearslong balance firmly toward conservatives.
On the eve of his planned Monday night announcement, Mr. Trump was undecided and was making calls and asking questions about a quartet of finalists: federal judges Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge, Thomas Hardiman and Amy Coney Barrett, people familiar with the search process said.
During the day Sunday, Mr. Trump zeroed in on different aspects each finalist brought to the equation, and his own advisers weren’t certain where he would land, noting a final decision could come just hours before Monday’s televised announcement, set for 9 p.m. EDT. “It’s a jump ball,” said one person familiar with the search.
“We are close to making a decision,” Mr. Trump said Sunday afternoon as he prepared to return to Washington from a weekend at his New Jersey golf club. “Let’s just say it’s the four people. Every one you can’t go wrong. I’ll be deciding tonight or tomorrow sometime by 12 o’clock, and we’re all going to be meeting at 9 o’clock,” he said.
New York Times: McConnell Tries to Nudge Trump Toward Two Supreme Court Options
By Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Martin
Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, told President Trump this past week that Judges Raymond M. Kethledge and Thomas M. Hardiman presented the fewest obvious obstacles to being confirmed to replace Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the Supreme Court, according to Republican officials briefed on the conversation.
While careful not to directly make the case for any would-be justice, Mr. McConnell made clear in multiple phone calls with Mr. Trump and the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, that the lengthy paper trail of another top contender, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, would pose difficulties for his confirmation…
[W]hile Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial opinions are publicly known, Mr. McConnell is uneasy about relitigating Bush-era controversies, the officials briefed on his discussions with Mr. Trump said.
With Senator John McCain’s absence because of brain cancer, Republicans have just 50 votes, and Mr. McConnell does not want to draw the ire of his libertarian-leaning Kentucky colleague, Senator Rand Paul, who opposed hawkish Bush policies…
Mr. McConnell is similarly wary of imperiling the votes of two moderate Republicans, Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine. He has told Mr. Trump he could lose the two senators, who support abortion rights, if he picks another judge seen as a contender, Amy Coney Barrett…
Mr. McConnell was originally hopeful that Mr. Trump would select Amul Thapar, a federal appeals court judge who was previously on the bench in Kentucky, but has concluded that the president is unlikely to name him.
Internet Speech Regulation
Wired: How Facebook Checks Facts and Polices Hate Speech
By Nicholas Thompson
Chris Cox has long been the chief product officer for Facebook … He recently sat down with WIRED editor in chief Nicholas Thompson…
NT: … On free speech and community, you’re moving much more towards making a safe community and away from the initial ideas of social media platforms from the Arab Spring of free speech. Neutral platform versus high-quality content, you’re definitely moving towards high-quality content, much more of a publisher, less of a neutral platform. Am I right or wrong on those three?
CC: You’re right on all of it…
NT: And then on the sort of the easy spectrum, like the Honest Ads Act, it seems like you’re actively [supporting] it. So on that end of the spectrum, you’re good with it.
CC: … It’s a hard one. But it’s nice when you can do it and say, “And, this is something we did in cooperation with the government.” So it helped having a body of people who were saying the thing is certified.
NT: My theory of government regulation is that it’s very hard for governments to regulate tech companies because by the time the bill is passed, everything is evolved past what they were thinking about. So my dream regulation would be government to get you together, to talk a lot, and to threaten you really aggressively, but then not do anything. And then you would self-regulate yourself really closely.
CC: That’s happening right now.
FEC
The Hill: FEC dismisses complaint alleging Trump Org made illegal Trump campaign contribution
By Jacqueline Thomsen
Federal Election Commission (FEC) officials wrote in documents released Friday that the Trump Organization may have made an illegal contribution to the Trump campaign by having a staffer assist Melania Trump with her speech at the Republican National Convention, but dismissed the complaint because the action was too minor to be considered a violation of law.
FEC lawyers wrote in an April 2017 filing, first made public on Friday, that Trump Organization employee Meredith McIver’s assistance in writing Trump’s July 2016 speech may have resulted in “a corporate contribution to the Committee.”
However, commissioners wrote that because the value of such services appeared to be too minor for consideration, the commission decided to dismiss the allegation…
The complaint had alleged that the Trump Organization, President Trump and the Trump campaign had violated federal law by not compensating McIver for her services in advance, instead paying her after the speech was given.
President Trump, according to the filing, said he paid for McIver’s services – totaling $356.01 – with “personal funds and then contributed those services to the Committee as an in-kind candidate contribution.”
Dallas News: FEC calls out Ted Cruz campaign three times for exceeding donation limits
By Rachel Cohrs
Sen. Ted Cruz’s Senate campaign committee has received three letters from the Federal Election Commission this election cycle for accepting campaign contributions that exceeded federal limits.
The FEC sent the “Ted Cruz for Senate” committee letters in September, April and June…
Cruz’s campaign has received the most notices of excessive contribution out of 32 Senate campaigns…
Brett Kappel works on FEC compliance cases as an attorney, and said it is rare for Senate campaigns to receive repeated notices of contribution limit violations. However, he said the letters to Cruz’s committee have been from the FEC’s reporting analysis division, not its enforcement division…
Cruz’s committee responded to the first two FEC inquiries by reattributing donations to donors’ spouses, redesignating contributions from the primary to general election race, returning money to Cruz’s joint fundraising committee, and refunding some donations…
Part of the reason for Cruz’s reported excessive contributions could be the structure of online contributing on his website…
Many of the contributions cited by the FEC were small, repeated contributions made by individuals.
The States
Baltimore Sun: Groups call on Mayor Pugh to support public financing of Baltimore elections
By Luke Broadwater
More than 30 groups sent letters Friday asking Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh to support a City Council bill that would provide public financing for local campaigns.
The council on Monday is set to pass an amendment to the City Charter to establish the “Fair Elections Fund” and a commission to govern it. If approved, the bill would be sent to Pugh. With her support, it would be put to the voters in November…
Baltimore’s 15 council members have been unanimous in their support of the bill, but Pugh has not committed to signing it. She says she will wait to comment until after it passes.
Should Pugh veto the bill, the council could override, but would face a logistical challenge. To make the November ballot, charter amendments must be passed by the end of July, and the council has no more meetings scheduled this month…
The charter amendment, sponsored by Councilman Kristerfer Burnett, would allow the city to provide matching funds for small donations for qualifying candidates who pledge not to accept large donations or special interest money…
But many details of the proposal remained unsettled – most notably, how to pay for it.
