In the News

The Hill: Americans are smart enough to handle free speech at ballot box

By Zac Morgan

If you’ve ever scrolled through Facebook or Twitter, or taken a look at bumpers as you sat in traffic, you know Americans are expressive people. For this, we can thank the First Amendment, which protects even vulgar expression. Indeed, in 1971, the Supreme Court upheld the right of Paul Robert Cohen to wear his jacket, which urged sexual relations with the wartime draft, in a courthouse.

Today, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a less salacious, but no less important, First Amendment case. Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky asks whether Americans may be barred from wearing “political apparel” when casting a ballot. This policy led to a voter being threatened with prosecution for the “crime” of wearing a nonpartisan t-shirt inspired by the Gadsden flag, the “Don’t Tread on Me” symbol flown by patriots during the American Revolution.

Certainly, if the First Amendment protects profane apparel in a courthouse, Americans ought have the right to wear our opinions at the moment we the people decide who should govern…

At an absolute minimum, as my organization, the Institute for Free Speech, urged in our amicus brief in this case, the Supreme Court should instruct state and local governments to find the middle ground: Only apparel expressly urging a vote for or against a specific candidate on that day’s ballot may be excluded. This line, called “express advocacy,” has been applied and policed in campaign finance law for a generation.

Supreme Court

Wall Street Journal: You Can’t Talk Politics Here, This Is a Polling Place

By Ilya Shapiro

Some of the Supreme Court’s most iconic cases have upheld the right to make a silent but powerful statement with one’s apparel. Whether sporting a black armband to oppose a war (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969) or an impolite jacket to protest the draft ( Cohen v. California, 1971), what someone chooses to wear can be as expressive and meaningful as what he chooses to say.

Yet in the North Star State, a button with the peace symbol, a shirt reading “Black Lives Matter,” or a hat with the word “Capitali$m” could each be grounds for being sent home by a poll worker. Further, the statute gives election officials broad discretion to ban any materials “promoting a group with recognizable political views.” So voters can’t even feel safe wearing shirts supporting the American Civil Liberties Union or the National Rifle Association.

In 2010 several Minnesotans attempted to vote while wearing clothes supporting the tea party. A poll worker told them they were breaking the law. They challenged the apparel ban, but the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals twice upheld it. On Wednesday the Supreme Court will hear the case, Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky.

Palm Beach Post: U.S. Supreme Court chief justice calls Fane Lozman’s arrest ‘chilling’

By Jane Musgrave

“Well, regardless of what happened before or after, I found the video pretty chilling. I mean, the fellow is up there for about 15 seconds, and the next thing he knows, he’s being led off in handcuffs, speaking in a very calm voice the whole time,” Roberts said. “Now the council may not have liked what he was talking about, but that doesn’t mean they get to cuff him and lead him out.” …

“There are lots of small towns in America and there are lots of cranks in those small towns. And there are lots of relationships that go sour between officials and some members of the populous,” Kagan said. “What about, you know, finding that guy every time he doesn’t quite stop when he makes a right on red and putting them in jail for a while?” …

Outside the courthouse, Lozman said he was heartened by the justices’ comments. But he said he was dismayed more attention wasn’t given to briefs filed by more than 25 media organizations that claimed news reporters have often been arrested for covering events such as Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street rallies to silence the views of the protesters.

When the Supreme Court rules in several months, Lozman said he suspects the court will issue a narrow ruling, likely affecting only those who speak at public meetings.

Washington Post: The Supreme Court may decide what you can wear to go vote. This isn’t hard.

By George F. Will

The Supreme Court has found no constitutional infirmity in campaign-free zones, but Minnesota’s law as Cilek experienced it seems to mandate a First Amendment-free zone, which he says is unconstitutionally overbroad. Minnesota has admitted that its law also would forbid apparel bearing the logos of, for example, the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, which do indeed have “recognizable political views.” These might (to use the language of campus speech police) “trigger” in people who see them . . . what? Political thoughts perhaps tangentially related to candidates or propositions on the ballot?

A lower court upheld the law used against Cilek’s T-shirt as furthering Minnesota’s legitimate interest in polling-place “peace, order and decorum” and “the integrity of its election process” and – the nanny state never sleeps – to protect voters “from confusion and undue influence.” What is more offensive, the paternalistic condescension of the government assuming that “confusion” will somehow discombobulate voters who glimpse, say, an “American Legion” or “NAACP” sweatshirt, or the government’s hubris as censor of influence that is “undue”?

It is one thing to ban, as the court has allowed, active “solicitation of votes” in or close to a polling place. It is, however, a bit much for Minnesota to forbid passive expression of political – very broadly defined – allegiances not associated with any person or issue being voted on.

Donor Privacy

New England Cable News: ‘Dark Money’ and Privacy Rights of Donors (Video)

What do you have a right to know about money raised by groups that “electioneer” on issues such as marijuana laws, charter schools and taxes? Paul Craney, executive director of Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, gives his take.

Candidates and Campaigns 

New York Times: Trump’s 2020 Campaign Announcement Had a Very Trumpian Rollout

By Katie Rogers and Maggie Haberman

With just 980 days to go until the next presidential election, President Trump said Tuesday that he would run again in 2020, an announcement that several White House advisers said simply meant the president would step up his preferred and much-missed activity of performing for an adoring crowd.

In effect, it continues the permanent campaign of a president who, from the time he took office over a year ago, has signaled his interest to run again and has kept holding campaign-style rallies. The president officially filed for re-election with the Federal Election Commission on Jan. 20, 2017, the day of his inauguration…

The 2020 campaign announcement, as is common in Trump world, didn’t quite go off without a hitch: For starters, it initially alarmed ethics experts, who said its description of Mr. Kushner as “senior adviser and assistant to the president, and President Trump’s son-in-law,” was in violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits political activities by government employees. The announcement was later edited to remove “senior adviser.”

Wall Street Journal: Trump Picks ‘Data-Driven’ Digital Expert to Run 2020 Re-Election Campaign

By Rebecca Ballhaus and Julie Bykowicz

President Donald Trump chose the digital director of his 2016 campaign to lead Republican efforts to keep their House majority in midterm elections this year and to head Mr. Trump’s 2020 re-election effort, further advancing an unusually early campaign process…

Mr. Parscale will take the reins of a campaign that has been active in the first year of a presidential administration, a historical oddity. The campaign last year raised $43 million-four times what former President Barack Obama raised in his first two years in office, a period when he wasn’t actively fundraising.

No president who has served under modern campaign finance laws that date back to President Jimmy Carter has held a re-election fundraiser before entering his third year in office…

After the election, Mr. Parscale founded a nonprofit called America First Policies and a related political group to support Mr. Trump’s agenda. Erin Montgomery, a spokeswoman for America First, said the groups are “making necessary adjustments to comply with federal law.”

By law, campaigns and outside groups cannot share private election strategy. If Mr. Parscale’s digital firm continues contracting with America First, the work would have to be done through a part of the company “walled off” from its owner.

Internet Speech

Wall Street Journal: Twitter Faces Conservatives’ Ire After Moves to Curb Automated Accounts

By Georgia Wells

Twitter Inc. banned some kinds of automated accounts and placed restrictions on posting simultaneously from multiple accounts, curbs that drew complaints Wednesday from conservative members who claim they are being unfairly targeted by the company.

Twitter updated its rules to prohibit users who operate multiple accounts from simultaneously tweeting, retweeting, liking posts and following accounts-a practice common among bot operators trying to coordinate activity across legions of accounts…

The tumult Wednesday came a day after a prominent white nationalist sued Twitter for kicking him off the social network, the latest in a spate of legal attacks by members of the far-right claiming tech companies discriminate against their viewpoints and challenging the idea that they operate neutral platforms.

The suit by Jared Taylor, filed Tuesday in state Superior Court in San Francisco, argues that Twitter violated California law protecting free speech in public spaces when it banned Mr. Taylor in December…

Mr. Taylor’s suit follows others by right-wing groups and individuals in recent months claiming they were treated unfairly by tech companies, including Twitter and YouTube, an arm of Alphabet Inc.’s Google.

The States

U.S. News & World Report: SD House Panel Rejects Bill to Fill Campaign Finance Gap

By Associated Press

A House panel has voted down a bill aimed at requiring ballot measure campaigns to disclose their donors while supporters gather signatures to qualify for the ballot.

The House State Affairs Committee voted Wednesday to reject the measure.

Democratic Sen. Reynold Nesiba, the sponsor, argued it would close a “loophole” in South Dakota campaign finance reporting.

It would have required initiative campaigns to submit new finance reports by July 1 in odd-numbered years when supporters collect names needed to send initiatives to the voters.

Current state rules don’t require the campaigns to disclose their donors until long after they’ve submitted their signatures to the state to qualify for the ballot.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: State Elections Commission chief stepping down amid criticism from Republicans

By Jason Stein

The head of the Wisconsin Elections Commission said he would move out of his leadership role and eventually leave the agency because of opposition from Republican lawmakers.

Administrator Mike Haas announced the news in a letter this week to the commission’s bipartisan board.

Last month GOP state senators denied the confirmations for Haas and his counterpart at the Wisconsin Ethics Commission. The rejection of their confirmation stemmed from a controversial investigation of Gov. Scott Walker and other Republicans by the Government Accountability Board, the agency that preceded both commissions.

Washington Free Beacon: MSNBC Guest Defends Free Speech Rights of Giant Corporations

By Paul Crookston

[Mike] Lupica joined MSNBC’s “The Beat With Ari Melber” to talk about his column advising Delta to move its headquarters from Atlanta to New York City after Georgia Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle (R.) threatened to kill the corporation’s tax break over a dispute with the NRA…

“What about this deeper, crazy place we are in, this ridiculous place we’re in, where you’ve got people in charge of state government, trying to effectively threaten corporations, because those corporations don’t agree with their favorite political groups?” Melber asked.

Lupica replied by saying that Georgia officials, by threatening to end the tax break, are likely violating Delta’s free speech rights.

“Ari, by the way, it’s probably a violation of the First Amendment rights of Delta, even though you know we’re now living in a time in America where guys like Casey Cagle think they can take the First Amendment and fold it into a party hat,” Lupica said…

The Supreme Court ruled to liberalize corporate speech rights, including the right to political speech, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a decision Lupica has criticized in the past. In a 2011 column, Lupica described Citizens United as the Court “roll[ing] over on corporate spending in elections.”

WRAL Raleigh: New progressive groups target legislative races, test state campaign finance laws

By Travis Fain

Weisel said he took on the group, pro bono, to respond to a complaint filed with the State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement by the executive director of the state Republican Party. That complaint boils down to this: The group is operating as a political committee without filing any of the paperwork required by state law, amounting to multiple violations of North Carolina campaign finance law.

“There is no way to know who is paying for the events, collaterals or software,” Dallas Woodhouse wrote in his 14-page complaint, which is backed by images of gatherings, canvassing materials and official FLIP NC follow-up postcards to voters, all taken from the group’s website or Facebook page…

Organizers Amy Cox and Briana Brough say their group isn’t “a formal entity” – at least not yet. Weisel said Thursday that he hasn’t reviewed Woodhouse’s complaint in full, but he doesn’t believe the group has violated state election laws. FLIP NC is not collecting money, and it hasn’t been campaigning against specific candidates, he said, so organizers haven’t been required to file with the state.

The group’s problem, according to Weisel: “These guys were just too good at looking like they had this professional organization.”

“They’re competent, and they’re incredibly hard-working,” he added. “But they’re just not expending hard dollars from someone. … They’re just folks who want to do something, who are really pissed off about where the state is.”