Congress
OpenSecrets: Democrats’ election reform bill failed in the Senate. What’s next for campaign finance reform?
By Jimmy Cloutier
OpenSecrets has identified more than 50 bills introduced by lawmakers since Jan. 3, 2021, that, one way or another, touch on a range of money-in-politics issues, from lobbying to government enforcement of campaign finance laws…
H.R.1414, which has attracted bipartisan support, would lower the Federal Election Commission’s membership from six to five in an effort to break partisan gridlock. H.R.1516 is one of several bills that would overturn the FEC’s 2021 decision allowing foreign groups to pour money into ballot initiatives.
A number of bills, including H.R. 989, would extend transparency to online political advertising, requiring online platforms to disclose the buyers of internet ads intended to influence the outcomes of an election…
[A] GOP-backed bill, S.1777 would codify an IRS rule under former President Donald Trump exempting social welfare organizations and trade associations from donor disclosure requirements. Its sponsor, Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) argued the legislation would prevent the IRS from “doxing” donors of ideological groups…
House and Senate bills H.R.774 and S.215 would each reverse the 2020 rule. Another bill, S.750, the SUN Act, would require nonprofits that engage in political activities to disclose the names of donors who give at least $5,000 during an election cycle — and have the IRS make those disclosures readily available to the public.
The Courts
Pacific Legal Foundation: Federal judge re-affirms free speech victory, invalidating Connecticut’s unconstitutional donor privacy and fundraising registration laws
By Daniel Ortner
This week, Connecticut put the final nail in the coffin of a state law that violated the free speech of charity fundraisers…
The law forced paid solicitors to tell the state not only when they planned to speak to a potential donor, but also to provide the state with a script of exactly what they were going to say…
[The state] also demanded that the names of donors be recorded and reported on demand, even if the donor gave only $1. Anyone who went off script was subject to a $5,000 fine. Worse still, they could even face a year in prison.
In addition to the chilling effect the rules had on fundraisers, this is a violation of a donor’s right to privacy, especially in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a California regulation requiring charities to disclose the identities of major donors.
Courthouse News: Immigration judges take free speech case to Fourth Circuit
By Erika Williams
A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit heard arguments Tuesday over a Trump-era rule that immigration judges say continues to violate their freedom to speak out about government policies on their own time.
Immigration judges challenged a policy requiring a sub-agency of the U.S. Justice Department, the Executive Office of Immigration Review, to preapprove judges’ requests to express their opinions on immigration policies and other matters through published writing or speaking at public events in their personal capacities.
The National Association of Immigration Judges, a union representing nearly 500 immigration judges, filed the federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia. Seeking a preliminary injunction to block the policy, the NAIJ asserted that the policy was vague and violated the First Amendment right of immigration judges to speak publicly in their personal capacities about important issues and concerns.
NLRB
By Elizabeth Nolan Brown
Requiring Whole Foods to allow BLM messaging as part of employee uniforms would compel speech and be unconstitutional, the company argues. If the NLRB gets its way, it adds, that would force Whole Foods to act in a discriminatory manner by requiring that the company favor “certain expressions of political speech over others in its retail grocery stores.” (Alternately, it could allow any type of political messaging, but something tells me supporters of the staff wearing BLM gear wouldn’t be so happy to buy groceries from a guy in a MAGA mask…) …
Perhaps the takeaway here is that allowing the government to compel companies to host any type of political speech is a slippery slope. Letting companies decide what kinds of speech they’ll allow on their premises and platforms isn’t only the constitutional thing to do. It’s the best way to ensure that each side will get its way sometimes, and that consumers can avoid being constantly bombarded with political messages at every turn.
Free Expression
TK News by Matt Taibbi: The Folly of Pandemic Censorship
Censors have a fantasy that if they get rid of all the Berensons and Mercolas and Malones, and rein in people like Joe Rogan, that all the holdouts will suddenly rush to get vaccinated. The opposite is true. If you wipe out critics, people will immediately default to higher levels of suspicion. They will now be sure there’s something wrong with the vaccine. If you want to convince audiences, you have to allow everyone to talk, even the ones you disagree with. You have to make a better case. The Substack people, thank God, still get this, but the censor’s disease of thinking there are shortcuts to trust is spreading.
The States
WRIC: Lawmakers: Youngkin will support ban on Dominion campaign donations
By Dean Mirshahi
Republican and Democratic lawmakers confirmed Wednesday that Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s office told them the governor would sign legislation banning public utilities like Dominion Energy from giving political donations.
State Sen. Richard Stuart (R-King George) filed a bill that would prohibit any public utility from making contributions to candidates or committees. Stuart confirmed a report from the Richmond Times-Dispatch in which he said he’s been informed by the governor’s office that Youngkin supports this bill and one from state Sen. Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax City) and would sign them if they reached his desk…
There are several bills filed for the 2022 session that aim to overhaul Virginia’s campaign finance laws, but similar efforts have failed to get through the legislature for years.
The commonwealth does not have contribution limits for political action committees, corporations or individuals donating to candidates. Virginia also allows party committees to donate unlimited amounts of money to campaigns.
Sludge: Virginia Senate Panel Rejects Contribution Limits, but Other Reforms Will Be Considered
By David Moore
Last week, Virginia Senate lawmakers rejected a bill that would have capped individual donations at $20,000 per election cycle, stopping the measure that had been introduced by Democratic Sen. Chap Petersen with a bipartisan 5-10 vote in the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee. A measure from Democratic Sen. Joe Morrissey would have capped contributions at $25,000 met the same fate last Tuesday in the committee…
Last week, two Senate bills that would strengthen disclosure requirements were approved by the Privileges and Elections Committee, and this week each was passed by the Senate…The second, from Senate Democratic caucus whip Barbara Favola, would broaden disclaimer requirements for campaign advertisements to cover more electioneering communications, including those that don’t expressly advocate for or against a candidate. The bill would also require ads funded by outside groups and ads supporting or opposing referendums to include a disclaimer with the names of their sponsors’ three largest contributors, or individuals representing a contributor. It passed by a Senate vote of 23-15. However, this week its companion measure—House Bill 489 from Democratic Del. Dan Helmer—was “laid on the table,” or not advanced, in a hearing of the joint subcommittee.
Dominion Post via Yahoo: Bills could defy Constitution, flout gov’t transparency
A First Amendment violation waiting to happen. Among SB 262’s terms, the bill includes: “authorizing the Treasurer to exclude financial institutions on the list from the selection process for state banking contracts ; authorizing the Treasurer to refuse to enter into a banking contract with a financial institution on the list ; [and ] authorizing the Treasurer to require, as a term of a banking contract, an agreement by the financial institution not to engage in a boycott of energy companies.”
This comes precariously close to violating the First Amendment’s rights to free speech and protest…
If corporations have the legal right to spend as much money as they want to make a political statement, then they should also have right to withhold money. Choosing not to invest in or support fossil fuel industries—which in turn use some of that money to lobby politicians or create political advertising materials—is also a form of political speech, and therefore should be protected under the First Amendment.
