New from the Institute for Free Speech
Every American’s Ability to Speak About the President is What Really Makes America Great
By Alex Cordell
Steyer has invested tens of millions of dollars out of his own pocket in these ads, and they are clearly resonating with Americans. He has collected more than 4 million e-mail addresses from people who signed an impeachment petition. From that list, Steyer has already begun encouraging those voters to call their congressional representatives and press them to support impeachment.
But not every citizen who is passionate about this issue has the same financial resources at their disposal as Tom Steyer. In fact, virtually none of them do. Should they be denied an opportunity to share their views as a result?
Of course not! The inability of Americans of average means to personally finance ads that will be seen across the country should not limit their ability to effectively communicate with other voters. This is why it is so critical that individuals are free to pool their resources with others who share their views to amplify their message. Fortunately, for Americans in this boat, super PACs are a useful tool to do exactly that. Super PACs level the playing field by ensuring that average voters have a platform to speak – just like politicians, media corporations, and the Tom Steyer’s of the world who can finance their own ad campaigns.
The Courts
Politico: Justice Department drops corruption case against Menendez
By Matt Friedman
The Justice Department reversed itself and dropped its corruption case against Sen. Bob Menendez on Wednesday, removing a huge burden from the senator – and national Democrats – as he prepares for a reelection campaign…
The decision by Judge Jose Linares in Newark to dismiss all the remaining counts comes less than two weeks after the Justice Department announced it would retry Menendez, a Democrat and New Jersey’s senior senator, and his co-defendant, Florida eye doctor Salomon Melgen, on corruption charges.
It also comes a week after Judge William Walls damaged the prosecution’s case by acquitting Menendez and Melgen on seven of the 18 corruption counts they had faced during a two-and-a-half-month trial last fall…
Menendez was charged in 2015 with doing official favors for Melgen in exchange for private jet flights, lavish vacations – including luxury hotel stays – and hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions. Federal prosecutors also charged Menendez with willfully leaving Melgen’s gifts off his Senate financial disclosure forms.
Walls’ ruling last week – made just before he recused himself from the case – eliminated the counts having to do with the campaign contributions.
The Intercept: In a Major Free Speech Victory, a Federal Court Strikes Down a Law that Punishes Supporters of Israel Boycott
By Glenn Greenwald
The ruling is significant for two independent reasons. The first is the definitive and emphatic nature of the ruling. The court dispensed with an oft-repeated but mythical belief about free speech rights: namely, that they only bar the government from imprisoning or otherwise actively punishing someone for their views, but do not bar them from withholding optional benefits (such as an employment contract) as retaliation for those views…
Even more important is the court’s categorical decree that participating in boycotts is absolutely protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and petition rights. Citing the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case that invoked free speech rights to protect members of the NAACP from punishment by the state of Mississippi for boycotting white-owned stores, the court in the Kansas case pointedly ruled that “the First Amendment protects the right to participate in a boycott.” In doing so, it explained that the core purpose of the Kansas law is to punish those who are critical of Israeli occupation and are working to end it: “The Kansas Law’s legislative history reveals that its goal is to undermine the message of those participating in a boycott of Israel. This is either viewpoint discrimination against the opinion that Israel mistreats Palestinians or subject matter discrimination on the topic of Israel.”
FEC
USA Today: The Stormy Daniels hush money scandal is a big deal. We’re treating it that way.
By Stephen Spaulding and Paul S. Ryan
This is at the heart of the complaints that Common Cause filed last week with the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice…
It is reasonable to question whether the money was intended to quash a salacious story at a pivotal time in a tight election. Specifically: Was the $130,000 payment made in consultation with Trump – or anyone on his campaign team – for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the presidential race?
If so, someone likely violated federal campaign finance law. At a minimum, the campaign never reported it. And depending on where the money came from, there may be other violations, too – a violation of the corporate contribution ban if it came from the coffers of the Trump Organization (where Cohen was top lawyer) or some other corporation, or a violation of the $2,700 contribution limit if it came from an individual other than Trump…
One purpose of our campaign finance laws is to provide transparency about the raising and spending of money to influence elections. Disclosure helps the public evaluate who may be beholden to whom, make informed choices on Election Day, and hold elected leaders accountable when they take office. The Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed this principle as consistent with the First Amendment – including in Citizens United v. FEC.
Candidates and Campaigns
Washington Times: Trump campaign’s speech fundraiser breaks ethics rules: Watchdog
By Stephen Dinan
A campaign watchdog demanded an ethics investigation Wednesday into whether Congress broke its own rules by allowing President Trump to use a live video stream to raise money for his re-election campaign.
Mr. Trump streamed his speech on his campaign website and offered people the chance to have their names flashed up on the screen during the proceedings, in exchange for a financial donation to the campaign.
Public Citizen, the watchdog group, said that broke the rules of the U.S. House, which hosted Mr. Trump. According to Rule V, the House makes its proceedings available to accredited media outlets, who are able to use it as long as it’s not for “any partisan political campaign purpose.”
“The Trump campaign’s use of the official broadcast of the State of the Union address for such partisan campaign purposes appears to violate Rule V of the House of Representatives,” the group said.
It said House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, who is in charge of enforcing the rules, could be sanctioned if there was a breach.
Donors
Houston Chronicle: NFL players returning to the field of politics by reviving PAC
By Jeremy Wallace
The National Football League Players Association One Team PAC has been around since June 2016, but it had not raised any money through October 2017 and had been mostly inactive.
Until now.
On Nov. 2, the PAC raised $723,000 from more than 1,300 NFL players and players union officials, according to Federal Election Commission reports made public Wednesday…
The NFL already has its own PAC called GRIDIRON PAC.
The One Team PAC is the first of its kind created by players from any of the major sports unions in the United States. A PAC like the one the players have created bundles contributions and can contribute to individual political candidates.
The States
Washington Examiner: Conservatives are passing laws requiring public universities to protect free speech. It’s probably a bad idea
By Nick Phillips
Republican legislatures that require universities to institute certain policies are likely to stir up new opposition to those policies, and to the goal of viewpoint diversity. Progressive professors and administrators will operate on the principle that if a Republican likes it, it must be bad. That may be irrational, but it means that the approach threatens to kill whatever movements are growing on campus for pro-speech policies…
Some bills are better than others. Colorado’s ban of free speech zones is a common sense measure – only 10 percent of universities still use them, and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has never lost a case challenging them as unconstitutional. Tennessee’s bill offers specific protections for faculty speech in the classroom, ensuring that honest attempts to teach that happen to offend are insulated from student overreaction. This helps cut off the reactance response by treating professors as partners, not problems.
People who care about the institutional health of our universities should be skeptical of such bills. But they need to accompany that skepticism with full-throated support of civil-society efforts to ensure our universities remain places where reason and open inquiry can seek the truth, aided by the give-and-take and mutual strengthening that comes from civil disagreement.
Washington Post: Push to ban personal use of campaign funds unlikely to pass
By Alan Suderman, AP
A Senate panel dispatched one version of the legislation Tuesday, sending it on for further study and signaling that there aren’t likely enough votes to pass the measure into law.
“It’s something we ran on, I was disappointed to see that,” said Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat who won election in November.
The new governor, who has also called for an overhaul of campaign finance laws aimed at limiting corporate influence, said he’ll continue to press the issue in future years.
Virginia has one of the least regulated campaign finance systems in the country, with lawmakers only barred from using campaign funds for personal use when closing accounts…
Several lawmakers, including some who rarely face serious opposition, raise virtually all of their money from businesses or special interests that lobby the General Assembly. There is no limit on much donors can give in Virginia…
House versions of the legislation are still alive and sponsors are hopeful it can at least get out of the lower chamber – something that’s not happened in past years.
Fargo Inforum: Proposed ballot measure seeks ND ethics commission, other anti-corruption policies in state constitution
By John Hageman
The proposed measure would also require the Legislature to enact laws to disclose money spent to influence elections and “state government action,” but Sen. Jonathan Casper, R-Fargo, noted legislators passed a new law last year that boosts campaign finance reporting. Casper was the primary sponsor of the bill, which included a prohibition on using campaign funds for personal use.
As for the ethics commission, Casper worried that complaints would be used as a “political play” rather than to improve government. He also noted that the measure would require an annual $750,000 transfer from the Bank of North Dakota to support the commission’s work.
“I think that we have an ethics commission in every coffee shop and every public gathering place across the state of North Dakota, that the more information voters have, they can exercise their right to vote every four years,” Casper said. “That’s the best place for those decisions to be made.”
House Minority Leader Corey Mock, D-Grand Forks, said Democrats have introduced legislation to form an ethics commission every session since 2011. He said it’s a good idea to turn to voters if the Republican-controlled Legislature won’t approve it.
Just for Fun
