In the News
Urban Family Talk: Stacy on the Right (Audio)
Institute for Free Speech Attorney Zac Morgan discusses the Fist Amendment implications of the Supreme Court case Carpenter v. United States (beginning at 19:00).
New from the Institute for Free Speech
Letter in Support of Repeal of the Internal Revenue Service’s Form 990, Schedule B
By David Keating
The Institute for Free Speech writes in support of repeal of the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Form 990, Schedule B requirement. Eliminating this mandate is a sensible and much-needed policy that would end the statutory requirement that the IRS collect sensitive information on nonprofit tax returns, detailing the names and addresses of significant donors to every charity in the country. Repealing this requirement would also prohibit the agency from collecting similar data from all nonprofit groups, save for narrowly-tailored exceptions.
In the 114th Congress, the House of Representatives passed legislation sponsored by Representative Peter Roskam (R-IL), H.R. 5053, the “Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act,” that would have permanently repealed this requirement. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) sponsored identical legislation under S. 3057 in the Senate. The Institute for Free Speech strongly supported those efforts and urges Congress to again consider repeal of this invasive, speech-chilling, and unnecessary measure.
More specifically, repealing the Form 990, Schedule B would eliminate an outdated and ineffective portion of the tax code that serves no legitimate function as a regulatory tool for the agency, puts the privacy of American citizens at risk, and heightens the odds of politically motivated abuse by government officials.
No, “Big Donors” Aren’t the Only Ones Who Want Tax Reform
By Joe Albanese
A perennial tactic in political debates is to oppose legislation not just in terms of ideology or policy soundness, but also to attribute the worst intentions to your rivals. The simplest way to do so is to call the other side “corrupt.” When you are so certain that your worldview is self-evidently correct, surely nobody could have honest disagreements with it.
This was the narrative after repeated congressional efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. GOP politicians fretted about how their failures would impact fundraising, which some took to mean that Republicans’ only motivation in health care reform was to do the bidding of “big donors.”
The same narrative has resurfaced with a vengeance for tax reform. The accusations of donor-driven corruption came not just from the usual suspects among progressive advocacy groups, but even from mainstream media institutions. The New York Times’ Editorial Board minced no words by calling the Senate version of the tax bill a “giant gift to [Republican] donors.” They point to statements by lawmakers like Rep. Chris Collins and Sen. Lindsey Graham, describing potential backlash from donors if they failed to deliver on this issue.
These arguments fit in with the worldview of campaign finance restrictionists who think that money rules politics above all else. But just like with health care reform, the truth is far more complicated than the simplistic narrative they paint.
Political Contributions are Speech: Jeff Flake Edition
By Scott Blackburn
Arizona Republican Senator Jeff Flake recently made a $100 contribution to Alabama’s Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, Doug Jones…
Why’d Flake do this? To make a political statement. From Flake’s perspective, the message is: I am willing to put aside partisan interests and support an alternative to Republican candidate Roy Moore, whom Flake has called onto drop out of the race amid multiple sexual assault allegations. As Flake put it in the memo line of the check, “Country over Party.” …
Flake’s contribution was his speech, his form of advocacy, and his public disassociation from Roy Moore…
Astute readers may also notice that Flake redacted his address on the picture of his donation check. Flake, presumably like many Americans, was willing to make his political statement, but not willing to do so if it invaded his privacy. He might have felt that his controversial statement could lead to harassment and threats to his family. But if Flake had given just $200 to Doug Jones, he wouldn’t have had this luxury. He would be legally required to report his address to make the donation, which would be published in a searchable government database of all political donations. Would Flake have used a political donation to express his opinion under those circumstances? I suspect probably not.
Supreme Court
Chicago Sun-Times: Illinois Democrats ask U.S. Supreme Court to hear Blagojevich’s appeal
By Mitchell Armentrout
A group of high-profile Illinois Democrats have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s case.
In an amicus brief filed Monday, the who’s who list of current and former Illinois Democratic congressional delegation members emphasized that they take “no position on Mr. Blagojevich’s innocence or guilt on any of the counts of conviction.”
Instead, they wrote that the nation’s highest court should hear his appeal to “distinguish the lawful solicitation and donation of campaign contributions from criminal violations of federal extortion, bribery, and fraud laws.” …
The petitioners in Monday’s brief wrote that current laws create “confusion” over “the necessary, legitimate solicitation of campaign contributions, on the one hand, and unlawful extortion, bribery, and fraud, on the other.”
Politico: Trump administration opposes unions in key Supreme Court case
By Ian Kullgren
In a brief submitted in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the Office of Solicitor General sided with a child-support specialist for the state of Illinois who’s challenging AFSCME’s legal right to collect so-called “fair-share fees” from union nonmembers. Unions say such fees are necessary to cover collective bargaining costs for union nonmembers, whom they’re required by law to represent. But plaintiff Mark Janus is arguing that the mandatory fee violates his protected speech under the First Amendment…
In its Janus brief, the Office of Solicitor General embraced the plaintiff’s argument that fair share fees violated his right to free speech. “In the public sector,” the brief said, “speech in collective bargaining is necessarily speech about public issues,” and “virtually every matter at stake in a public-sector labor agreement affects the public.”
“Compelling employees to subsidize speech on politics and public policy imposes a severe burden that even highly restrictive prohibitions on speech in the workplace do not,” the brief said.
The Courts
Reason: Hillbilly Hotties Win First Round in Bikini-Barista Battle
By Elizabeth Nolan Brown
In a pair of August ordinances, Everett banned skimpy clothing at all quick-service food and drink venues…
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman issued a preliminary injunction on enforcement of the new rules, finding that they are likely too vague to pass constitutional muster…
The Court also found that the dress code “likely violates Plaintiffs’ right to free expression.”
“Choice of clothing is communicative,” wrote Pechman. “While some customers view the bikinis as ‘sexualized,’ to others they convey particularized values, beliefs, ideas and opinions; namely, body confidence and freedom of choice. Moreover, in certain scenarios, bikinis can convey the very type of political speech that lies at the core of the First Amendment.”
Wisconsin John Doe
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Attorney General Brad Schimel wants sanctions and contempt proceedings over Gov. Scott Walker John Doe leak
By Patrick Marley and Jason Stein
In a 91-page report made public Wednesday, the Republican attorney general sharply criticized the probe’s leaders for engaging in an overly broad investigation and failing to secure the vast amounts of evidence seized. He contended contempt proceedings should be initiated against special prosecutor Francis Schmitz and the team he led for how they handled seized material after courts told them they could not review it further or had to get rid of it.
Schimel also wants to seek professional sanctions against Shane Falk, who served as an attorney for the now-defunct Government Accountability Board, as part of his investigation into the leak of secret John Doe material to the Guardian U.S. …
Jefferson Circuit Court Judge William Hue made Schimel’s report public Wednesday. Hue, who is overseeing the wrap-up of the Doe investigation, wrote in a brief order that he would consider Schimel’s request for contempt proceedings…
In an interview Monday, Schimel said he did not investigate whether Eric O’Keefe, the head of Wisconsin Club for Growth and a target of Chisholm’s probe, had leaked information because “he has a right as a citizen to say whatever he wants” about the raids of the homes of those who worked with him.
“It would smack frankly of authoritarian countries” if someone were barred from saying his or her home had been raided, Schimel said.
U.S. News & World Report: No Criminal Charges Following John Doe Leak Investigation
By Scott Bauer, AP
The report also discloses that Justice Department investigators discovered a previously unknown secret investigation “into a broad range of Wisconsin Republicans” related to illegal campaigning on state government time. The GAB, which was disbanded in late 2015, held thousands of private emails from Wisconsin Republicans in several folders on their servers marked “Opposition Research,” the report said.
Investigators received chat logs or emails from Walker; U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson; U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy; Assembly Speaker Robin Vos; and Reince Priebus, the former Wisconsin Republican Party chairman who went on to head the Republican National Committee and serve briefly as President Donald Trump’s chief of staff.
Many of the emails obtained were personal and “completely unrelated to campaigns” and DOJ was unable to determine why investigators had them, Schimel said in the report.
Republican state senator and U.S. Senate candidate Leah Vukmir, who had emails discussing personal health issues with her daughter seized, called the revelation “upsetting,” ”appalling” and “sickening.”
Congress
Roll Call: Politicking by Churches Fight Mixes With Tax, Spending Debates
By Kate Ackley
Jim Bopp Jr., a proponent of a full repeal of the Johnson Amendment, said the provision in the House tax bill does not go far enough.
“I think there have been exaggerations on both sides,” Bopp said. “The supporters of this provision think it’s very important, and the opponents are saying this means billions of dollars could be funneled to not-for-profits to affect elections. Regrettably, both of them are wrong.”
Bopp, a leading conservative who has challenged campaign finance laws, said lawmakers should scrap the Johnson Amendment entirely because it muzzles religious leaders’ freedom to express their views on moral and political matters without running afoul of IRS guidelines he sees as vague.
“I think most not-for-profits would be perfectly happy not to endorse candidates if they simply knew they could discuss moral issues, the environment, climate change,” without fear of an IRS probe, Bopp said…
[Sarah Levin] added that supporters of the Johnson Amendment are also raising the issue that churches, unlike other tax-exempt groups, do not have to file a detailed IRS Form 990 that lists receipts, expenses and top salaries…
“This could really open a can of worms they didn’t expect,” she said, adding that her group is making the case that a campaign for new disclosures from churches and other nonprofits could heat up if lawmakers roll back the amendment.
