In the News
The National Interest: The Myth That the Rich Rule America
By Rainer Zitelmann
Many people claim that America’s wealthiest citizens set the country’s political agenda. All around the world, the USA is held up as a prime example of how, in capitalist countries, the rich not only dominate the economy but also politics…
And if the rich did really control American politics, Trump would never have won the 2017 election—Hillary Clinton would have…
[If] money alone could buy political power, Joe Biden would not be president today. Perhaps it would be Michael Bloomberg… Probably never before in history has a candidate spent so much money of his own money in such a short space of time on an election campaign, about a billion dollars in just over three months…
In a 2016 op-ed for the New York Times under the headline “The Power of Political Money is Overrated,” [IFS Chairman] Bradley A. Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission concluded: “But while money is critical to inform the public and give all views a hearing, this election proves once again that money can’t make voters like the views they hear. Jeb Bush is not the only lavishly funded candidate to drop out of the race … The evil of ‘money in politics’ is vastly overstated.”
Bloomberg Government: Trump Inaugural Probe Spurs Warning on Election Commission Bias
By Kenneth P. Doyle
A top Democratic lawmaker is calling for election regulators to guard against the appearance of bias at the agency after a watchdog found problems with the Federal Election Commission’s review of Donald Trump’s inaugural committee…
[Rep. Zoe] Lofgren responded to an investigation led by FEC Inspector General Christopher Skinner that examined allegations that the commission’s review of Trump’s inaugural committee was tainted by [official Debbie Chacona’s] ties to a top Trump campaign aide, derailing pursuit of possible campaign finance violations…
Former Republican Commissioner Bradley Smith said he wasn’t sure if the FEC needed to change its ethics rules and cautioned against being “too cynical about bias.”
Chacona, who has been at the FEC since 1992 and still heads the commission’s Reports Analysis Division, is “a very professional employee,” Smith said…
Smith said the FEC’s authority over presidential inaugural committees is limited and it’s largely up to Congress to decide if the rules should be strengthened. It’s possible the commission hasn’t provided enough guidance to staff about how to review inaugural committee reports, he said, “but Congress hasn’t provided enough guidance to the commission.”
New from the Institute for Free Speech
FEC Scheme to Hide Decisions Is Illegal and Violates Due Process
The Institute for Free Speech announced today that it has urged two federal judges to put a stop to unethical legal gamesmanship by members of the Federal Election Commission. In a pair of amicus briefs, the Institute informed the judges that a faction of commissioners “seeks to delegate enforcement of federal campaign finance laws” to private groups by refusing to close case files or allow the prevailing commissioners to defend their actions in court after the Commission has voted not to investigate a complaint…
“The FEC’s Democrats are misleading the courts and abandoning the duties of their office in an unprecedented way. The FEC has resolved these cases, but it’s hiding them from the court, the public, and even the targets of the complaint,” said Institute for Free Speech Chairman and former Federal Election Commission Chair Bradley A. Smith.
“Every FEC Commissioner wins some votes and loses others. They must be able to accept that. Americans deserve fair treatment from the government, not manipulation of the judicial process to put them in jeopardy after the Commission has already cleared them,” said Smith…
The Institute filed the virtually identical briefs in two cases with the same plaintiff suing the FEC for separate claims, Campaign Legal Center v. Federal Election Commission, bearing case numbers 20-CV-0809 and 21-CV-0406, respectively. To read the briefs, click here and here.
Welcoming Our Newest First Amendment Fellow, Glynis Gilio
The Institute for Free Speech is pleased to announce that Glynis Gilio has joined the organization for a one-year term as a First Amendment Fellow. In this role, she will work alongside the Institute’s attorneys to tackle all aspects of trial and appellate practice in cases challenging restrictions on Americans’ rights to freely speak, publish, assemble, and petition.
Glynis explains, “The First Amendment is the cornerstone of my education. I’m overjoyed to be working at IFS, not only because I’m able to work in an area of law to which I’m deeply devoted, but because I know I that, as a member of the IFS team, my work will contribute to the most fundamental pursuit of our republic – the preservation of liberty.”
Prior to joining IFS, Glynis worked as a Legal Fellow at Statecraft PLLC, The Fund for American Studies, Pacific Legal Foundation, the Goldwater Institute, and Freedom Foundation. Glynis was also an Inaugural Member of the Academy Fellowship at The Heritage Foundation. In 2021, she was the recipient of the John Norton Distinguished Fellow Award for her work at the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the Goldwater Institute…
In addition to her IFS fellowship, Glynis is an adjunct professor of First Amendment and Media Law at the University of Saint Francis in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
We are excited to benefit from Glynis’ contributions to our litigation efforts during her fellowship. Please join us in extending a warm welcome to Glynis as the newest member of our growing legal team.
Supreme Court
New York Times: A First Amendment Precedent
By Adam Liptak
Four years ago, at his Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch indicated that a 1964 precedent protecting press freedom was secure. “That’s been the law of the land for, gosh, 50, 60 years,” he said of the decision, New York Times v. Sullivan, which made it very hard for government officials to win libel suits.
But last month, Gorsuch said it was time for the Supreme Court to take another look at the case. “What started in 1964 with a decision to tolerate the occasional falsehood to ensure robust reporting by a comparative handful of print and broadcast outlets,” he wrote in a dissenting opinion, “has evolved into an ironclad subsidy for the publication of falsehoods by means and on a scale previously unimaginable.”
He is not alone in calling for reconsideration of the decision… Justice Clarence Thomas, for instance, has repeatedly called for the Supreme Court to reconsider Sullivan and rulings extending it, saying they were “policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law.”
In March, Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit endorsed that view in a dissent but said that overturning Sullivan would be a heavy lift. “I recognize how difficult it will be to persuade the Supreme Court to overrule such a ‘landmark’ decision,” he wrote. “After all, doing so would incur the wrath of press and media.”
Donor Privacy
Philanthropy Roundtable: S. 1981 Threatens Donor Privacy
By Elizabeth McGuigan
The U.S. Supreme Court recently confirmed the importance of the right to give privately, as a key parallel to our freedom of association, in its Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta decision.
While the IRS has historically held confidential the private information of taxpayers, including charitable foundations and individual donors, recent leaks make it all too clear: IRS data is no longer safe from the public eye. The ongoing problems with the IRS led to enforcement funding being dropped from the infrastructure bill and Congressional calls for investigations.
Why then are proponents of S. 1981, also known as the ACE Act, willing to expose the private financial information of charitable donors to the public? As we have discussed here before, S. 1981 would impose new rules and mandates on popular charitable vehicles like donor-advised funds (DAFs). In addition to the increased tax and administrative burdens on charitable organizations, there are three specific provisions in this bill that threaten donor privacy.
Free Speech
Pew Research Center: How Americans feel about ‘cancel culture’ and offensive speech in 6 charts
By Katherine Schaeffer
Americans have long debated the boundaries of free speech, from what is and isn’t protected by the First Amendment to discussions about “political correctness” and, more recently, “cancel culture.” The internet has amplified these debates and fostered new questions about tone and tenor in recent years. Here’s a look at how adults in the United States see these and related issues, based on Pew Research Center surveys.
Online Speech Platforms
The Verge: Twitter launches new process for reporting COVID misinformation
By Makena Kelly
On Tuesday, Twitter announced that it will begin testing a new reporting feature for users to flag tweets containing possible misinformation.
Starting today, users will be able to report misinformation through the same process as harassment or other harmful content, through the dropdown menu at the top right of every tweet. Users will be prompted to select whether the misleading comment is political, health-related, or falls into another category. The politics category includes more specific forms of misinformation like content related to elections. The health category will also include an option for users to flag COVID-19-specific misinformation…
Twitter said that not every report will be reviewed as the platform continues to test the feature. But the data obtained through the test will help the company determine how it could expand on the feature over the next few weeks. The test could be used to identify tweets containing misinformation that have the potential to go viral as well.
Washington Post: Running a disinformation campaign is risky. So governments are paying others to do it.
By The Editorial Board
There’s a risk to running a disinformation operation yourself: If the operation gets caught, you get caught, too. So governments, politicians and parties around the globe have found a solution. They pay someone else to do it for them…
The proper policy response is elusive, not least because of the implications for free corporate expression. A vow among nations not to pay private companies to do their disinformation dirty work — and to prevent those within their borders from engaging in foreign interference? A sort of export control regime for disinformation as a service? President Biden, after a false start, might have had some success persuading Russian President Vladimir Putin to crack down on the worst ransomware actors in Russia. Now countries interested in Internet arms treaties have another weapon that needs controlling.
Congress
The Hill: House Democrats introduce John Lewis voting rights bill
By Marty Johnson
More sweeping legislation — H.R. 1, the For the People Act — looks increasingly like a lost cause in the evenly split Senate given broad GOP opposition.
