In the News  

Scranton Times-Tribune: FEC overhaul proposal flawed 

By Brad Smith

Today, the FEC is under attack from members of Congress with a misguided proposal to “reform” the agency. A bill co-sponsored by Rep. Lou Barletta (R-11, Hazleton) would shrink the agency from six commissioners to five. It may sound minor, but it has huge implications.

Republicans and Democrats now have equal influence over the commission. With six commissioners, at least one vote from each side is needed to write new rules or open investigations. In a proposed five-commissioner agency, one party would consistently trump the other.

The proposal would give the president the power to choose the pivotal fifth vote. In theory, no more than two commissioners could be from the same party, so no party would have a majority. But that would be illusory – for example, a Democratic president could appoint socialist U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders; Trump could appoint a registered independent, such as his daughter Ivanka. The president could also name a commissioner to a 10-year term as chairman, meaning that the disadvantaged party would spend a decade on the losing end, even if it managed to win the presidency in between. The result, could be a partisan agency not trusted by roughly half of Americans.

CCP

Recent Political Documentaries Have a Knee-Jerk Skepticism of Free Speech 

By Joe Albanese

It was striking how both films, despite their differing levels of emphasis, each made the same assumptions and adopted the same tone when dealing with campaign finance issues. To the filmmakers, political donations are about buying influence, not an expression of genuine support for a candidate or set of political ideals; “dark money groups” are shady purveyors of disinformation, rather than easily-identifiable groups that wish to advance the ideas of like-minded supporters while shielding those individuals from harassment; “money in politics” represents the worst of us, rather than serving as the engine for mass political discourse; and those pushing for more regulation of political speech are the only ones with unimpeachable motives…

There is no meaningful difference between spending money to make a political ad and spending money to make a political movie. If filmmakers won’t address that hypocrisy, they deserve criticism. Popular culture is an important battlefield in the war of public opinion, and these days it cannot be neatly separated from politics. Rather than thoughtlessly accepting the premise that all political spending is corrupt, filmmakers and audiences should reject restrictions on the First Amendment. 

The Courts

Pillar of Law: Illinois Attorney General Dismisses Appeal of Pillar Free Speech Victory 

By Stephen Klein

The Illinois Attorney General voluntarily dismissed appeal in the case Ball v. Madigan today, declining to pursue the case at the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appeal followed a summary judgment ruling from U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee in March, which held that a state law prohibiting political contributions from medical cannabis dispensaries and grow operations was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. Pillar of Law Institute attorneys represented the plaintiffs in the case, Claire Ball and Scott Schluter, Libertarian candidates who were prohibited from raising such contributions.

“Illinois allows corporations to contribute over $10,000 to a candidate for state office, but restricted the new medical cannabis industry from giving a penny,” said Benjamin Barr, President of Pillar and lead counsel in the case. “It was not only illogical and unfair, but unconstitutional.”

Motherboard: Oregon Man Fined for Writing ‘I Am an Engineer’ Temporarily Wins the Right to Call Himself an ‘Engineer’ 

By Jason Koebler

An electrical engineer fined by the Oregon engineering board for calling himself an “engineer” and talking about traffic lights has been granted the temporary right by a judge to both publicly call himself an “engineer” and to talk about traffic lights.

I didn’t think I’d ever write that sentence in America, but the tale of Mats Järlström is a strange one…

Last month, Järlström sued the engineering board for violating his First Amendment rights, and Tuesday a federal judge gave Järlström the temporary right to call himself an engineer, pending the results of his case…

“Under the First Amendment, you don’t need to be a licensed lawyer to write an article critical of a Supreme Court decision, you don’t need to be a licensed landscape architect to create a gardening blog, and you don’t need to be a licensed engineer to talk about traffic lights,” Sam Gedge, a lawyer at the Institute for Justice, said in a statement.

Free Speech

Daily Caller: The Left’s Campaign To Silence Opposing Views 

By Michael Thielen

The impulse to silence opposing speech doesn’t disappear at the lecture hall door. It extends into the big world of jobs and neighborhoods and even to the arena of elections and political speech, where our First Amendment rights are strongest.

In New York, for example, liberals have declared war on 501(c)(3) nonprofit charities, requiring them to disclose their donors if the organization gives donations or in-kind support to 501(c)(4) groups that are lobbying in New York. Disclosure of the 501(c)(3) organization’s donors is required even if its grant was to be used specifically for non-lobbying purposes.

The practical effect of this is to stop certain charities from donating at all to 501(c)(4) groups, even if their donations are not for politics or lobbying. The fear of exposure and negative public relations campaigns – which the left has begun to wield like a sword even if there’s been no actual wrongdoing – will halt these donors from giving. Democrat New York Governor Cuomo promoted this law as a way to shed light on so-called “dark money” in elections and lobbying. What this actually means is that Governor Cuomo wanted to limit the donations – and thus speech – of groups in opposition to him.

Trump Administration

Washington Examiner: Trump appoints first lower court judge to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals 

By Mandy Mayfield

Amul Thapar was officially appointed on Thursday by President Trump to sit on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, becoming the president’s first lower court judge appointee.

Thapar was confirmed by the Senate on May 25 by a vote of 52-44 amid Democratic concern about his past record on campaign finance issues.

Thapar previously served as a judge on the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, and according to a White House statement, Thapar was America’s first Article III judge of South Asian descent.

Trump has nominated 10 judges to lower courts, including Thapar. Thapar is Trump’s first judicial nominee to be confirmed by the Senate, apart from Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Candidates and Campaigns

Just Security: Campaign Finance Law: When “Collusion” with a Foreign Government Becomes a Crime 

By Bob Bauer

There is a fair question of what sort of involvement beyond vocalized glee would subject Americans to liability for these foreign intelligence activities. The relevant regulation suggests that something more is required: at least “substantial assistance” to the foreign spender in providing this “thing of value.” Does a presidential campaign render this substantial assistance to a foreign national engaged in influencing an election by endorsing the specific activity and confirming its strategic utility? When the Federal Election Commission (FEC) promulgated this ban on “substantial assistance,” it said little about its scope…

This is not the typical foreign national case. In recent years, after Citizens United, the FEC has been preoccupied with debates over political spending by corporations. It has pondered how expansively the regulations should treat campaign activities of the USA subsidiary of a foreign corporation, or by a corporation with a significant percentage of foreign national shareholders. The Commission could not agree on tightening the rules, and the reason, in part, was the difficulty that three of the Commissioners perceived in defining when a business could be deemed to represent “foreign” interests. These complications are not present in a case involving a foreign government.

The States

Charlotte Observer: Legislative leaders win this round in court in power struggle with governor

By Anne Blythe

The three Superior Court judges unanimously agreed to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Gov. Roy Cooper, as Senate leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore had requested…

“Today the three-judge panel swiftly rejected Roy Cooper’s latest attempt to drag his political battles into the courtroom – and instead delivered a victory to North Carolina voters, who should now expect their elections and ethics laws to be enforced fairly and with bipartisan cooperation,” Berger and Moore said in a joint statement. “We encourage the governor to accept this result and abandon his taxpayer-funded pursuit of total control of the board responsible for regulating his own ethics and campaign finance conduct.”

Before the changes, the governor picked the majority of the five-member statewide elections board, which selects who sits on local election boards in all of North Carolina’s 100 counties.

The April law divides the merged elections board and ethics commission equally among Republicans and Democrats. Cooper would select the members from lists compiled by the two parties.

Mid-Hudson News: Sweeping campaign finance reform bill proposed for Ulster County  

Ulster County Executive Michael Hein Wednesday proposed a sweeping campaign finance reform bill.

Carried in the county legislature by Kingston Democrat Peter Loughran, the proposal mandates lower contribution limits, matching funds, and independent oversight – similar to measures passed in New York City back in 1988. This would be the first campaign reform ever enacted upstate.
Hein and Loughran unveiled the proposal at a briefing where he was joined by representatives from public advocacy groups…
“Normally, people in my position don’t talk about campaign finance reform, because they are the beneficiaries in these situations. We believe there is an opportunity to focus on the future,” Hein noted. “I can’t fix the national level, but I can absolutely do something in conjunction with partners in the legislature, right here, and we can set a model.”