The Insider: Judge Thomas Hardiman’s Rulings on the First Amendment Are a Mixed Bag (In the News)

By David Keating
We found four cases relevant to First Amendment speech freedoms where Judge Hardiman either wrote or joined an opinion. Additionally, he voted against a petition for en banc review of Delaware Strong Families v. Denn, where CCP represented the plaintiff in one of the most important campaign finance cases of 2016…
The question presented in this lawsuit was simple. Should the state have the power to regulate groups that publish nonpartisan voter guides in essentially the same way that it regulates candidate committees, political parties, and PACs?
Judge Hardiman did not sit on the panel that heard this important case. However, he and the other Third Circuit judges received a petition asking the full en banc court to review the decision. A short brief accompanied the petition, which was denied. Judges Kent A. Jordan and Thomas I. Vanaskie voted to grant the petition, but Judge Hardiman did not…
After en banc review by the Third Circuit was denied, a certiorari petition was filed, unsuccessfully, with the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a highly unusual six-page dissent denouncing the Court’s refusal to hear the case. Such dissents are rare. Justice Samuel Alito also announced that he would have granted review.

Filed Under: David Keating, In the News, Published Articles, Uncategorized

Federalist Society: Campaign Finance Takeaways from the 2016 Election (In the News)

By Luke Wachob
2016 was a surprising year in politics. One surprise that hasn’t received much attention yet is the minimal role played by “money in politics” in the presidential election. One of the best-funded candidates in history, Hillary Clinton, lost to an opponent who raised less than half of what she did. Not just that, but independent supporters of Clinton outspent those advocating for Trump nearly 3-to-1…
Deregulating campaign finance after the 2016 cycle should become less controversial. (Although the pro-regulation crowd and their media cheerleaders will no doubt work hard to prevent that.) Hillary Clinton’s massive fundraising operation showed that regulations don’t prevent prominent politicians from building a “war chest” to scare off challengers. Donald Trump’s victory, despite comparatively little spending, showed how public figures can leverage their celebrity to make campaign finance restrictions irrelevant. Meanwhile, new voices without the benefit of fame are stifled by the same laws supposedly preventing the wealthy from gaining political advantage.
What is left is to liberalize the system so that everyone – not just the Clintons and Trumps of the world – can thrive in politics.

Filed Under: In the News, Luke Wachob, Published Articles, Uncategorized

Cases from Potential Supreme Court Nominees

Colloton Coca-Cola v. Purdy Cross v. Mokwa MCCL v. Kelley Republican Party v. White Stahl v City of St. Louis Wersal v. Sexton Other ACLU v. Alvarez (Sykes) B.H. v Easton (Hardiman) Ezell v. City of Chicago (Sykes) Lavin I and V (Kethledge) Lavin v. Husted (Kethledge) League of Women Voters v. Quinn (Sykes) Lodge […]

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Daily Media Links: Trump team talks of setting up political arm, Out-of-state cash in hot races does little to help Dems, and more…

In the News The Sun Daily: Making Sense – How NOT to lose an election By Tan Siok Choo Although full spending reports haven’t been submitted, assuming both candidates spent all that they raised, as at Oct 28 this year, Clinton’s war chest totalled an astronomical US$687 million (RM3 billion), more than double Trump’s US$307 million. […]

Filed Under: Daily Media Links, Uncategorized

Daily Media Links 11/16: Trump’s lobbyist ban complicates administration hiring, Initiated measure prompts early announcement for Governor’s race, and more…

CCP Should Candidates Have Control Over Who Can Speak About Elections? By Luke Wachob After losing to Republican John Faso in New York’s 19th congressional district, Teachout wrote an op-ed bemoaning the number of ads run in the race… Calling super PAC ads “annoying” and “negative” is fine for a losing candidate who wants to vent, […]

Filed Under: Daily Media Links, Uncategorized

Daily Media Links 11/7: Clinton’s super-sized fundraising machine pushes legal boundaries, How Trump Took Over the Media By Fighting It, and more…

In the News Washington Post: Legal team seeking to undo super PACs files suit to push FEC to act By Matea Gold A bipartisan group of congressional members and candidates is filing a federal suit Friday against the Federal Election Commission, seeking to force the agency to act on a complaint it brought against 10 super […]

Filed Under: Daily Media Links, Uncategorized

Daily Media Links 11/4: Time for an ACLU Shift on Campaign Finance?, K Street says social media are growing faster than traditional lobbying as way to influence Washington, and more…

CCP Super PAC Funding Comes Overwhelmingly from Individuals, Again By Luke Wachob Data from the 2016 election continues to undermine a key prediction made by critics of Citizens United in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s famous 2010 ruling. Once again, super PACs are being funded overwhelmingly by citizens, not corporations. As reported by The […]

Filed Under: Daily Media Links, Uncategorized

Missourinet: Missouri voters to decide whether campaign contributions will be limited (In the News)

By Jason Taylor
Amendment 2 would limit donations to statewide, legislative, and judicial offices to $2,600 per election and would cap contributions to political parties at $25,000.
Ryan Johnson with Missouri Alliance for Freedom contends the current arrangement, which allows for unlimited donations, is a central pillar of free speech…
Johnson with Missouri Alliance for Freedom contends large contributions don’t lead to outsize influence of those donors. He notes St. Louis billionaire Rex Sinquefield has made such donations this year with little to show for it. “He spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $11 million this election cycle. And most of those results did not turn out the way he desired.” Johnson also points to a study by the Center for Competitive Politics which showed no relationship between contribution limits and states’ corruption rates. The Center for Competitive Politics claims its mission is “to promote and defend First Amendment rights to free political speech, assembly, and petition.”

Filed Under: In the News, Quotes CCP, Uncategorized

Daily Media Links 8/22: Bernie Sanders’ New Political Group Raises Campaign Finance Questions, Why Corporations Have an Important Role to Play in Political and Social Issues, and more…

CCP Warren and Whitehouse Deceive on Oil Industry Contributions Joe Albanese But for the sake of demonstrating how easy it is to spin a lawmaker’s campaign contributions, let’s give Senators Warren and Whitehouse the same treatment using data again from the Center for Responsive Politics. The Senators clearly support investigations against Exxon that could lead […]

Filed Under: Daily Media Links, Uncategorized

Daily Media Links 7/26: Here’s What You Won’t Hear About Citizens United at the Democratic National Convention This Week, IRS Gives Opposite Rulings to Convention Committees, and more…

Citizens United Reason: Here’s What You Won’t Hear About Citizens United at the Democratic National Convention This Week Damon Root Needless to say, you won’t hear much at the DNC this week about how the federal government once tried to claim the power to ban books in its losing Citizens United argument. Nor will you […]

Filed Under: Daily Media Links, Uncategorized

The Center for Competitive Politics is now the Institute for Free Speech.