Supreme Court

Forbes: Cutting Through The Rhetoric About Compelled Union Dues

By Brian Miller

The Supreme Court has long held that you can’t compel people to speak the state’s message. Even in contexts where the state acts in a managerial role (like as an employer) it can restrict some speech in the name of regulating the workplace, but it still can’t compel workers to speak a political message they disagree with. For instance, the Court has said that public employees can’t be made to donate to a political party, or be made to disavow communism, or to affirm that they will respect the national flag.

Despite this history, the Supreme Court has also held since 1977 that the state can compel workers to pay fees to public sector unions. Since union bargaining influences a wide range of political issues about which they are many differing views, it’s hard to answer why the Supreme Court allows states to compel financial support for unions. Indeed, Justice Alito famously said it is an anomaly that the Court allows the practice of compelled unionism to continue in light of other established First Amendment doctrine…

If the court grants a victory for Janus and workers like him across the country, unions will still be free to work and spread their message. The only difference will be that, just like any other political advocacy group, they will only be able to collect donations by asking for them.

The Courts

Washington Post: Oregon punished an engineer for criticizing red-light cameras. He fought back and won.

By Derek Hawkins

A nearly two-year investigation by the board found he had violated a state law that says only state-licensed engineers can speak publicly about technical matters. Järlström, in turn, filed a federal lawsuit alleging violations of his First Amendment rights…

On Monday, Oregon’s attorney general conceded that the engineering board had trampled on his free speech rights, the Oregonian reported…

Oregon wants the lawsuit thrown out, but Järlström and his attorneys from the Institute for Justice want the law itself declared unconstitutional. They say others have been improperly investigated and fined for protected speech…

In one case cited by Järlström’s attorneys, a Portland City Commissioner Dan Saltzman was investigated after a voter’s pamphlet described his background as an “environmental engineer.” Like Järlström, he had studied engineering but lacked state-issued bona fides. In another case, the state board used the law to fine a local activist $1,000 for criticizing a proposed new power plant, as Reason reported.

U.S. News & World Report: ACLU Sues Over Arizona Law Targeting Anti-Israel Boycotts

By Associated Press

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit Thursday for an attorney challenging an Arizona law prohibiting state contractors from supporting boycotts against Israel, saying it violates his right to free expression.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Sedona attorney Mikkel Jordahl, who provides legal advice to Coconino County inmates. It is asking the court to declare the law, which mandates contractors sign a statement promising not to boycott Israel, unconstitutional.

“The government has no business telling people what causes they can or can’t support,” Kathy Brody, ACLU of Arizona legal director, said in a statement. “The bottom line is that political boycotts are a legitimate form of non-violent protest, and they are protected by the First Amendment.” …

The ACLU in October filed a lawsuit to overturn a similar law in Kansas. A federal judge is considering whether to block enforcement of the 5-month-old law while the lawsuit proceeds. The suit was brought on behalf of a Wichita educator who was told she couldn’t be paid by the state to train teachers because she refused to sign a statement that she wasn’t boycotting Israel.

Wisconsin John Doe

MacIver Institute: Make No Mistake, Crimes Were Committed In John Doe Leak, Schimel Says

By M.D. Kittle

What many in the mainstream media took away from the state Department of Justice’s extensive and troubling report on illegal leaks of John Doe investigation documents is that the DOJ will file no charges because it found no evidence of wrongdoing by government agents.

“That’s dead wrong. They didn’t read the report,” Attorney General Brad Schimel told MacIver News Service…

“We plainly said crimes did occur. Unfortunately, the problem is because of the terrible record-keeping and security process at the Government Accountability Board, we can’t say which one of them did it,” Schimel added.

By “them” he means staff members at the GAB, which the Legislature disbanded after previous allegations of rampant misconduct at the campaign finance and ethics regulator. The Department of Justice report, detailing a litany of abuses by the GAB and prosecutors, finds the unconstitutional investigation was even more abusive and politically manipulative than first suspected.

Congress

BillMoyers.com: GOP Angles for More Campaign Cash, Less Disclosure

By Arn Pearson

One Senate appropriations rider prohibits the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from developing rules that would require corporations to disclose their political spending to shareholders…

Yet another rider closes the door on any moves by the IRS to develop rules to deal with the rampant misuse of nonprofit “social welfare” groups since Citizens United to pour hundreds of millions into election spending while hiding donors’ identities.

Meanwhile, the GOP’s Senate appropriations bill would let loose a new torrent of soft money and create an end-run around the McCain-Feingold campaign reforms passed in 2002. A rider tucked away in the measure would gut existing rules and allow political parties to spend unlimited funds on campaign ads coordinated with candidates, just so long as the candidates don’t control or direct those efforts.

Combine that with the radical repeal of the long-standing prohibition on electioneering by churches and charities hidden in the House tax overhaul bill and we have all the makings of a major escalation in the political spending arms race come 2018.

Washington Post: A to-do list for the new congressional reform caucus

By Jennifer Rubin

A good-government group, Issue One, announced on Wednesday that “19 bipartisan lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives launched the Congressional Reformers Caucus, the first organization of its kind on Capitol Hill to focus exclusively on discussing political reform ideas and legislation. Co-chaired by Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-NY) and Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), the Caucus aims to address ethics and accountability issues in Congress, as well as the roots of dysfunction in the current political system.” …

The group’s agenda includes promoting transparency and disclosure; increasing participation in elections; reducing pay-to-play; strengthening enforcement of existing laws; and improving government integrity and accountability.

Free Speech

Reason: The Logan Act Is Awful, and No, It’s Not Going to Take Down Trump’s Administration

By Scott Shackford

It’s a law for the expressed purpose of punishing political speech. Whenever it has been invoked it has been for exactly that reason. Logan Act accusations have always had strong stench of political opportunism behind them and very frequently (but not always) in response to peace-seeking activism. President Ronald Reagan invoked it against Jesse Jackson for traveling to Cuba and Nicaragua. GOP Rep. Steve King later tried to invoke it against Rep. Nancy Pelosi for communicating with the Syrian government. And it was invoked again toward the end of President Barack Obama’s administration as Republican senators signed onto an open letter warning Iran that their deal with Obama could be undone by the next president…

Proving corruption is a lot harder than proving Logan Act violations (or lying to the FBI), and that may well be what’s motivating these op-eds. People want to get rid of Trump. Corruption investigations take a long time. Catching Trump and his staff on the Logan Act would be much faster.

Nobody, however, should be charged with violations of a terrible, unconstitutional law. Only two people have ever been indicted for violating it and nobody has ever been prosecuted.

Citizens United

Mother Jones: Is Citizens United to Blame for the Disastrous GOP Tax Bill?

By Andy Kroll

What explains the Republican Party’s reckless rush to pass this bill?

It boils down to two words: Citizens United.

Citizens United is of course the 2010 Supreme Court decision that said it was unconstitutional to ban corporations and labor unions from spending unlimited amounts of money in elections. That decision and several subsequent court rulings have unleashed a tidal wave of campaign spending by outside players like super-PACs and dark-money nonprofits. When I say that Citizens United explains the GOP’s tax-bill frenzy, I really mean the big-money political climate that Citizens United helped create and, broadly speaking, embodies.

The States

Idaho Falls Post Register: City attorney rules on campaign finance violations

By Bryan Clark

The most recent opinion from the office found that Businesses for Growth Facts, a Facebook page set up to oppose the Businesses for Growth political action committee that targeted incumbent Mayor Rebecca Casper, violated campaign finance law by not filing as a political committee.

“Idaho’s election law requires all campaign contributions, including in-kind contributions, to be reported,” Assistant City Attorney Mike Kirkham wrote in an opinion released Tuesday. “Even if (Businesses for Growth Facts) does not receive any contributions or does not (make) any expenditures, (the group) must still file as a political committee and submit a report to that effect.”…

Idaho Code defines a political committee, among other ways, as “any person specifically designated to support or oppose any candidate or measure.” …

So would a single individual who is an outspoken supporter of a political candidate, who regularly makes social media posts in support of that candidate, need to file paperwork registering as a political committee in order to legally engage in political speech? Under what conditions does a social media group need to file?

Kirkham said he was simply applying the written definition in the state’s Sunshine Law.

“I think the definition is broad, and maybe it’s too broad,” Kirkham said.

Pacific Legal Foundation: PLF appeals in speech case against Seattle

By Ethan W. Blevins

Here’s how the program works: each Seattle resident gets four $25 vouchers. They then use that money to make a political donation to a local campaign of their choice. But that money comes from a special property tax levied just to fund the vouchers. That means property owners are forced to sponsor campaign contributions to candidates they don’t want to support. The manner in which this program played out in the recent election attests to its justice: two candidates with staunchly anti-landlord platforms received most of the democracy vouchers. This means that landlords and other property owners were forced essentially to serve as the largest donors to the candidates most hostile to their own interests. That hardly sounds like “democracy.”

Unfortunately, the King County Superior Court dismissed our clients’ claim, holding that the program satisfied the First Amendment because the vouchers are “viewpoint-neutral.” With the appeal officially under way, PLF will press forward in upholding our clients’ right not to sponsor view they oppose.

Fort Wayne News-Sentinel: Fort Wayne Mayor Tom Henry declines to sign City Council’s campaign finance ordinance, citing legality concerns

Mayor Tom Henry sent a letter to Fort Wayne City Council members Thursday saying he is declining to sign their recently passed campaign finance ordinance because he believes it violates state and federal law…

In his letter, Henry said the ordinance “seems to be flawed in several specific areas”:

“It sets campaign finance limits as a condition for contracting eligibility that do not exist in state law.”

“It sets contribution limits for contract eligibility on business entities that state law does not limit.”

“It restricts campaign finance activities in ways state law does not.”

“It imposes campaign finance reporting requirements inconsistent with state law.”

“It is a violation of the free speech and association rights of candidates and donors, especially for spouses and children of business owners who are not themselves seeking office.” …

A legal challenge could force the city to pay for its own defense, and possibly pay damages and attorney’s fees to the person or organization filing the lawsuit if the city lost the case in federal court, the letter said.