You know that feeling when you read an op-ed on a pertinent issue and all of a sudden you realize there is no author listed? Your heart starts beating out of your chest. Your palms get sweaty. Pupils dilate. You have just been exposed to the immense danger of ANONYMOUS POLITICAL SPEECH. No, of course, […]
By Aurora Barnes
The petition of the day is:
Patriotic Veterans, Inc. v. Hill
Issues: (1) Whether Indiana’s Automatic Dialing Machine Statute creates a content-based restriction that cannot survive strict scrutiny under Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona; and (2) whether the ADMS is a valid time, place and manner restriction.
CCP amicus brief: voters, not government, evaluate appropriateness of candidate expression Alexandria, VA – The Mississippi Supreme Court last week dismissed with prejudice an attempt to discipline a judge over constitutionally protected speech. The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP), represented by the UCLA Scott & Cyan Banister First Amendment Clinic, filed a brief in the case […]
Filed Under: Blog, Newsroom, Press Releases, Eugene Volokh, Judge Gay Polk-Payton, Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Judge Gay Polk-Payton, UCLA Scott & Cyan Banister First Amendment Clinic, Mississippi
By Luke Wachob
Missouri Governor Eric Greitens believes that individuals should be able to support causes they believe in privately. Missourians who donate to nonprofit groups such as the National Rifle Association, he says, should not be forced to have their name, address, occupation and employer appear in a public and searchable government database…
Governor Greitens should be commended for bucking the trend of politicians, like Schumer and McCaskill, who attempt to silence their critics. In supporting privacy and free speech, the governor protects both his supporters and detractors from retaliation.
Policymakers should seek balance between transparency and privacy. We have a right to know what our government is doing, but the government has no right to monitor our political affiliations or beliefs. Requiring candidates and parties to disclose their donors, while protecting privacy for nonprofit advocacy groups, is a compromise everyone should get behind.
By Joe Albanese
A new report by the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) asks a key question: would tax-funded campaigns help challengers beat incumbents more often? The study examines state legislators running for re-election in two groups of states. One group consists of the five states with some form of tax-financed campaigns (Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, and Minnesota). The other group is the remaining 45 states.
CCP’s report shows incumbents win at sky-high rates no matter what state group they’re in. From the 2010 to 2016 election cycles, 89 percent of incumbents won in tax-financing states, and 91 percent won in the others. The gap between these states is statistically insignificant – there is basically no difference between them. This is like when a poll says candidate A will beat candidate B, but the survey is within the margin of error; meaning B could be tied with or even beating A. The situation is the same here. We cannot tell the difference between re-election rates in tax-financing states and other states…
Our new report shows that Americans should be skeptical of public financing and its claimed benefits. Any “reform” that subsidizes politicians should be seen for what it is: a program that spends your tax dollars on politics.
By Kenneth P. Doyle
Relying on statements President Donald Trump made during his campaign to argue against his proposed immigration restrictions could chill free speech in campaigns, posing “an unacceptable risk to First Amendment interests,” according to a new brief filed with the Supreme Court ( Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, U.S. No. 16-1436, brief filed 6/9/17).
The friend-of-the-court brief filed by the nonprofits Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) and Public Policy Legal Institute (PPLI) urges the high court to grant review of a lower court decision that struck down Trump’s executive order…
“A review of campaign speech-even speech that sheds light on the reasons for later official action-chills expression and conflicts with numerous long-standing protections for campaign speech,” the brief said…
Dickerson, CCP’s legal director, said in a statement regarding the new Supreme Court brief in the travel-ban case: “If courts begin probing campaign statements to determine the legality of later official actions, candidates will be less inclined to give their frank opinions. The true victims of this principle are voters, who rely on unfiltered campaign speech to evaluate candidates’ fitness for office.”