In the News
Cowboy State Daily: Federal Judge Sides With Wyoming Gun Owners In Campaign Ad Lawsuit
By Jim Angell and Ellen Fike
A federal judge has ruled that the state cannot force a Second Amendment advocacy group to share the names of its donors.
Judge Scott Skavdahl ruled Monday in favor of the group Wyoming Gun Owners, finding that the Wyoming law requiring the the group to share a list of people who helped pay for a campaign ad is unconstitutional…
The lawsuit stems from a radio ad paid for by WyGO in 2020 comparing state Senate candidates Anthony Bouchard and Erin Johnson. The ad portrayed Bouchard as a Second Amendment champion and Johnson as a “self-described, country-club, chamber of commerce moderate.”
Instapundit: Amici Briefs Filed In Key Web-Censorship Case
By Glenn Reynolds
The battle against censorship in America is taking place in the 5th Circuit in Netchoice v. Paxton, and amici for free speech have just filed their briefs. The case will decide the constitutionality of the Texas social media statute, which is the most promising response to Big Tech manipulation of the nation’s political, religious, cultural, and scientific debates…
Unlike Florida’s hastily drafted law, this social media statute was carefully framed to avoid constitutional difficulties. And unlike the Florida law, it has attracted strong support from a surprising coalition of amici. They include some small conservative think tanks (Center for Renewing America, Claremont Institute, Heartland Institute, and American Principles Project); a prominent constitutional law scholar, Philip Hamburger; Dr. Donald W. Landry—a Columbia University medical school professor and one of the country’s foremost nephrologists; the libertarian Institute for Free Speech; a group of students against censorship; and the renowned dramatist, David Mamet.
You can see the briefs here.
Congress
RealClearPolitics: White House: Outside Groups ‘Not A Factor’ in Jackson Nomination
By Philip Wegmann
The GOP hammered Jackson and the administration over their alleged connections to “dark money” groups like Demand Justice, who they say unduly influenced the nomination process…
[T]he White House didn’t make much of those attacks, telling RealClearPolitics that “no spending on the part of any organization or individual was a factor in this decision.” …
Before a single Republicans spoke, the Judiciary chairman told Jackson that there were some who would “allege that you’re before us today as a product of the campaign of dark money groups.” The idea that shadowy influence had been improperly involved, however, was nonsense. “Your record and the process that led to this nomination,” the chairman continued, “belie that claim.”
Then, one after the other, Republicans promised in their opening statements that they would get to the bottom of just what kind of role progressive dark money groups had played in the Jackson nomination…
The entire debate has the White House in a bit of an unusual position. Though they were the top recipients of dark money in 2020, it is Democrats, not Republicans, who have called for a more aggressive policing of that kind of spending in politics. For his part, Biden has backed HR1, which proponents say would end dark money in politics.
Politico (Influence): Republicans hammer at dark money groups in opening statements
By Caitlin Oprysko
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who frequently rails against the influence of dark money in politics and the courts — even as such money increasingly pours in from the left — maintained that Jackson “is before us on the basis of her own merit, not the recommendation of a secretive right-wing donor operation, hiding behind anonymous multimillion-dollar donations and aimed at capturing the United States Supreme Court as if it were some 19th-century railroad commission.”
National Review: Words Mean Things, Senator Klobuchar
By Kevin D. Williamson
I know that it’s just a dumb convention for politicians to talk this way, but Senator Amy Klobuchar’s invocation of “unprecedented attacks” on journalists and freedom of the press (during the Ketanji Brown Jackson hearings today) in the United States is irritating.
The senator could bother to learn about, among other things, the hideous history of the political party to which she belongs.
Woodrow Wilson not only engaged in stern repression of critics in the press, he publicly described his own favored policy as one of “stern repression.” Thousands of dissidents and antiwar campaigners were indicted under the Espionage Act. Wilson went as far as to ask Congress for formal powers of censorship; Congress, happily, declined.
Franklin Roosevelt abused federal law-enforcement powers to try to destroy the Chicago Tribune. He also used economic regulation, using wartime quotas to deprive the Tribune of newsprint while ensuring that its competitors were well-supplied.
And this isn’t all ancient history, either — Democratic activists have been campaigning for years to get the FCC to drive Fox News out of business.
So, no, not “unprecedented.” Far from it.
The Courts
Associated Press: Stacey Abrams sues to get unlimited fundraising committee
By Jeff Amy
Democrat Stacey Abrams filed suit Monday asking a federal judge to give a committee associated with her campaign for governor the immediate right to begin raising and spending unlimited sums under Georgia law.
Abrams is challenging as unconstitutional a new kind of fundraising committee created by Georgia lawmakers last year. Called a leadership committee, it allows certain people and groups to accept unlimited contributions. Giving to direct candidate committees is limited to $7,600 apiece for the primary and general elections and $4,500 for any runoff election.
Under the law, the governor and lieutenant governor, opposing major party nominees, and both party caucuses in the state House and Senate can form the committees. The committees can coordinate with candidate campaigns, unlike most other political action committees.
Politico: Project Veritas says feds secretly accessed its emails
By Josh Gerstein
A group that has singled out journalists and Democrats in undercover operations contends that prosecutors misled a federal court and sought unwarranted gag orders during a federal investigation of the group’s ties to the alleged theft of a diary belonging to President Joe Biden’s daughter Ashley…
[I]n a letter Tuesday to a federal judge overseeing aspects of the probe, Project Veritas’ attorneys said they recently learned that that for nearly a year before last November’s raids prosecutors used gag orders to keep quiet other steps taken in the diary probe, including grand jury subpoenas and court-ordered seizures of all of the emails O’Keefe and several colleagues kept in particular accounts over a three-month span in 2020.
Independent Groups
Daily Beast: Ted Cruz’s Latest Troll? Turning His Campaign Into a Super PAC
By Roger Sollenberger
Federal law says candidates can only give other candidates $2,000 per election. But Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)—in classic Cruz fashion—may have found a loophole..
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Trevor Potter: Future of self-government depends on campaign finance amendment
By Trevor Potter
[T]hose of us who have been fighting to stem the corrupt influence of money in politics have been met with a series of Supreme Court decisions that stand in the way of effective self-government. Can we set limits on election-related expenditures? The Court says no. Can we differentiate between human beings and corporate entities when it comes to campaign finance? No again. Can we limit the amount one wealthy individual can give? I think you can see the pattern here…
The time is ripe for the American people to press for a 21st-century amendment that, as with eight previous amendments, corrects course after disastrous Supreme Court mistakes.
Such an amendment should enable reasonable and effective regulation and limits on how money is raised and deployed in state and federal elections. This amendment would attest to and reset our shared commitment to the American project of representative self-government. It would help prevent our country from sliding further into one where ordinary voices are drowned out, and too many Americans check out in hopelessness — or turn to extremism and conspiracy theories.
Free Expression
TK News by Matt Taibbi: World’s Dullest Editorial Launches Panic
The New York Times ran a tepid house editorial in favor of free speech last week. A sober reaction [from Tom Watson]: “Arguably the worst day in the history of the New York Times.” …
Pundits, academics, and politicians across the cultural mainstream seemed to agree with Watson, plunging into a days-long freakout over a meh editorial that shows little sign of abating.
“Appalling,” barked J-school professor Jeff Jarvis. “By the time the Times finally realizes what side it’s on, it may be too late,” screeched Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch. “The board should retract and resign,” said journalist and former Planet Money of NPR fame founder Adam Davidson. “Toxic, brain-deadening bothsidesism,” railed Dan Froomkin of Press Watch, who went on to demand a retraction and a “mass resignation.” The aforementioned Watson agreed, saying “the NYT should retract this insanity, and replace the entire editorial board.” Not terribly relevant, but amusing still, was the reaction of actor George Takei, who said, “It’s like Bill Maher is now on the New York Times Editorial board.”
The Popehat Report: Our Fundamental Right To Shame And Shun The New York Times
By Ken White
We should have a thoughtful conversation about whether modern American culture encourages us to react excessively and even cruelly to speech we don’t like, how that impacts people, and what we should do about it.
The New York Times’ Editorial Board did not offer such a thoughtful conversation in its piece “America Has a Free Speech Problem,” which discusses oft-invoked “cancel culture.” It’s vexingly unserious.
The States
Washington Post: The looming influence of state supreme courts
By Katrina vanden Heuvel
In 38 states, supreme court judges are either elected or face reelection after appointment — and like virtually every other competitive election in the United States, big money has an enormous influence in these races. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, rich donors and interest groups (often funded by corporate cash) donated close to $100 million to state judicial elections in the 2019-2020 election cycle, the most since the center began tracking these numbers in 2000.
Who, exactly, is spending all that money? Often, we just don’t know…
Protecting these courts will require, in the short term, channeling as many resources as possible into these races to counter mass corporate spending. And in the long term, it will require passing tough campaign finance reform to stop races from getting bloated with dark money.
Many such reforms would not even require the Supreme Court to overturn Citizens United.
