Free Speech Politico: Why Even Nazis Deserve Free Speech By Greg Lukianoff and Nico Perrino If your social media newsfeed doesn’t provide ample anecdotal evidence that free speech is suffering a public relations crisis, look to the polling: A recent Knight Foundation study found that fewer than 50 percent of high school students think that people […]
By John Ryder
In 2016, Multnomah County, Oregon, passed, and voters approved, a measure which created contribution limits, expenditure limits, registration requirements, and disclosure requirements for spending related to county races. The expenditure limits provide that individuals and entities may only spend money if the money was collected subject to the contribution limits.
The new rules also limit aggregate independent expenditures per election cycle for individuals and political committees, impose no independent expenditure limits on small donor committees, and completely prohibit independent expenditures by all other entities, including corporations and non-profit organizations.
The primary problem with this misguided effort restricting constitutional rights of political speech is that it ignores not only Citizens United but also 40 years of settled campaign finance case law…
Multnomah County filed a petition for validation of the rule in Oregon state court in May. The Taxpayers Association of Oregon, represented by the Center for Competitive Politics, is seeking to intervene in the case and has masterfully outlined the legal problems with new rules and with the rule’s supporters’ arguments.
By Brendan Kirby
Trump ordered a 90-day pause of travelers from six majority-Muslim nations and a 120-day pause on refugee resettlements to give the government time to implement “extreme vetting” procedures. But appeals courts in Richmond, Virginia, and San Francisco both ruled the executive order unconstitutional and blocked it from taking effect.
The Supreme Court partially reversed that, allowing portions of the ban to take effect. The court has set oral arguments for Oct 10 to consider the underlying merits of the case.
Other briefs filed this month include…
A friend-of-the-court brief by two organizations, the Public Policy Legal Institute and Center for Competitive Politics. They object to the appeals courts assessing motive based on campaign statements: “A judicial 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.”
Last week, Nonprofit Quarterly (NPQ), a website and magazine that writes about nonprofit management and governance, published an article about “liberating” 501(c)(4) advocacy nonprofits from the “‘dark money’ trap.” It was a response to another recent piece in the American Prospect by Nan Aron and Abby Levine of the progressive Alliance for Justice offering a […]
By Gordon R. Friedman
A Multnomah County judge heard hours of what he said were “illuminating” arguments Tuesday for why new political campaign spending limits should be allowed or overturned.
Multnomah voters overwhelmingly approved new limits on campaign contributions last year. But the Oregon Supreme Court, citing the state constitution’s strong free speech protections, has largely said no, no, no…
Attorney Owen Yeates, representing the Taypayer Association of Oregon, countered: “It doesn’t matter if 89 or 99 percent of the voters agree to something if it tramples on the rights of voters and of speakers in the county,” he said.
“We have to protect the ability of people to make meaningful communications to the public. And here, that costs money,” said Yeates, of the Center for Competitive Politics, a Virginia-based group that has argued against campaign finance limits.
Bloch, the judge, promised to provide as a ruling “as quickly as I possibly can.” That’s expected to be before September 1, when the new campaign spending limits take effect.
He said his decision will likely not be the final one, given that both sides have indicated their openness to appeals.
By Alex Swoyer
Some of the world’s biggest tech companies pleaded with the Supreme Court this week to update decades-old precedent governing telephones, saying that cell-tracking technology threatens Americans’ most fundamental privacy rights…
Lower courts have split over whether data held by a third party is protected, and Selina MacLaren, an attorney for Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said there’s a lot of excitement surrounding Carpenter’s case.
She said the case could even affect the way reporters go about their jobs.
“This type of surveillance threatens to reveal where journalists go and where their sources go,” she said.
David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, said he feared governments trying to monitor Americans engaged in other First Amendment activities such as freedom of association.
“In many respects, this is potentially a lot more serious than all the concern about the NSA telephone call records and where they’ve analyzed calls being made overseas and such, because this is tracking movements of U.S. citizens in the United States and the government being able to get that information without having to get a warrant,” said Mr. Keating.
People’s Pundit Daily: Big Tech Asks Supreme Court to Protect Cell Phone Location Data (In the News)
Big technology companies filed a brief late Monday night asking the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to protect people’s cell phone location data. The friend-of-the-court brief was submitted in the case of Carpenter v. United States, which will be argued in the fall…
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is representing Timothy Carpenter, a man who had months’ worth of cell phone location information handed over to police without a warrant.
In 2011, the government obtained from cell companies months’ worth of phone location records for suspects in a robbery investigation in Detroit, without getting a probable cause warrant. In the case of Mr. Carpenter, those records spanned 127 days and revealed 12,898 separate points of location data.
That’s an average of over 100 location points per day.
The ACLU is joined by 20 media organizations warning of a chilling effect resulting from easy law enforcement access to the location information of reporters and their sources. They are also joined by groups from every end of the political spectrum, including the Center for Competitive Politics, Center for Media Justice, Color of Change, Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Tea Party Patriots.
Filed Under: In the News