Donor Exposure
Wall Street Journal: Shutting Down Support for the Truckers
By The Editorial Board
“Donor transparency” is a fixation of Democrats such as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and others on the left who bemoan the influence of “dark money”—not their own money but others’. Canada is now offering a preview of what that transparency would mean for political speech.
After GoFundMe shut down the crowdfunding effort for Canada’s trucker protests, and before Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked emergency powers to freeze, without court orders, bank accounts linked to the protests, supporters turned to a small website called GiveSendGo…
On Sunday GiveSendGo was hacked and shut down by political opponents, who exposed the names, emails, locations and other personal information of 92,845 donors. Public harassment followed.
National Review: Doxing Day in Canada
By David Harsanyi
At least one reporter for the Washington Post, already on the case, is allegedly contacting Americans who have contributed as little as $40 to the anti-mandate cause in Canada. How could the Post possibly know the names of donors if it wasn’t working off the list obtained through the hack? And how could it possibly care? That is, unless the goal is to Brendan Eich dissent.
Now, of course, this isn’t Canada. The government doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally seize the assets of political protesters as if it were a third-world autocracy. Yet this is what the hysterics surrounding the specter of “dark money” is all about. The fact that we aren’t obliged to publicly attach our names to all political donations is endlessly frustrating to those intent on smearing and intimidating their political opponents. Anonymous speech is as much a part of “democracy” as marching in the streets or writing a newspaper column. And in a healthy liberal media environment, reporters would be demanding answers from those abusing power, not working with them to inhibit political speech.
The Courts
Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Perhaps the S. Ct. Will Reconsider the “Actual Malice” Libel Test — but Not in Palin v. N.Y. Times
By Eugene Volokh
Sarah Palin will doubtless appeal the verdict against her, and will almost certainly lose…
In principle, of course, Palin could then petition the Supreme Court, asking it to exercise its discretion to review the case, and perhaps reconsider whether the “actual malice” test really should apply—the Supreme Court could reverse that precedent, even though the Court of Appeals can’t. (Technically, the precedent isn’t New York Times v. Sullivan, which required the actual malice test for public officials, but follow-on cases, such as Curtis Publishing v. Butts, which extended that to so-called “public figures.”)
But it seems to me extremely unlikely that the Court would agree to hear Palin’s case, because it arises under New York law—and a recent New York statute adopts the “actual malice” test as a matter of state law, whether or not it applies as a matter of First Amendment law.
New York Times: Jurors in the Sarah Palin trial said they knew of the judge’s decision to dismiss before their verdict.
By Katie Robertson
Several jurors in the defamation case brought by Sarah Palin against The New York Times said they found out about the judge’s decision to dismiss the case while they were still deliberating, the judge, Jed S. Rakoff, said in an order on Wednesday.
Candidates and Campaigns
Washington Free Beacon: How Mark Kelly Gets Around This Self-Imposed Ban
By Chuck Ross
Sen. Mark Kelly (D., Ariz.) swore off corporate PAC contributions, but money from corporations is still finding a way into his campaign coffers.
Kelly, who has called corporate money “one of the biggest problems in our politics today,” received $55,500 in contributions last quarter from the PACs of corporate trade groups and the Senate leadership committees of many of his fellow Democrats. The leadership committees have received tens of thousands of dollars from the sort of corporate PACs that Kelly decries. Trade associations like the National Football League and Internet & Television Association also contributed to Kelly’s campaign, according to his latest FEC disclosures…
[W]hile Kelly has not taken cash directly from corporate PACs, he has still benefited from their political contributions. Eleven Democratic senators have given $40,000 to Kelly’s campaign through their leadership PACs. A review of FEC records shows all of the committees took thousands of dollars in corporate PAC money.
Election Law Blog: Have Small Donors Damaged Beto O’Rourke’s Election Prospects in the TX Governor’s Race?
By Richard Pildes
Sarah Isgur has a long essay on Texas politics, at The Sweep, which is part of the The Dispatch and behind a paywall. The piece asserts that O’Rourke’s pursuit of small donors in his presidential bid led him to positions that have made him less popular in TX now than he was in his 2018 Senate bid.
The States
Seattle Times: Bill that would make it a crime for some to lie about election results dies in WA Senate
By Joseph O’Sullivan
Gov. Jay Inslee’s novel and controversial proposal to tamp down on election lies by candidates and elected officials will not move forward this year.
Senate Bill 5843 would create a gross misdemeanor penalty for elected officials or candidates who “knowingly, recklessly or maliciously” lie about results of an election if those falsehoods led to violence.
The idea drew national attention and debate over whether it would violate First Amendment protections on free speech, as well as claims that the bill would criminalize speech.
On Tuesday, Sen. David Frockt, D-Seattle, a sponsor of the legislation requested by Inslee, acknowledged the bill won’t move forward this year.
OBP: Campaign finance activists challenge Secretary of State Shemia Fagan in court
By Dirk VanderHart
On Wednesday, petitioners behind three proposed ballot measures to set limits on campaign giving in Oregon asked the court to reverse Fagan’s decision to reject their proposals. The petitioners — James Ofsink, Rebecca Gladstone and Jason Kafoury — say Fagan improperly rejected their measures, jeopardizing the state’s ability to rein in campaign spending…
The ballot proposals differ in their specifics, but each would create new limits on how much money individuals, advocacy groups, labor organizations, corporations and political parties can contribute to candidates and causes. They also include requirements that political advertisements display top donors, and that so-called “dark money” groups reveal their funding sources if they engage in campaigning.
Al.com: Alabama Democrats try to block bill changing definition of riot, penalties
By Mike Cason
Democrats in the Alabama House of Representatives are working to delay a bill that Republican supporters say is needed to strengthen laws against riots.
Democratic lawmakers say the legislation would threaten the First Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly…
Treadaway’s bill defines a riot as: “The assemblage of five or more persons resulting in conduct which creates an immediate danger of damage to property or injury to persons.”
The bill says “a person commits the crime of riot if, after receiving an order to disperse by a law enforcement officer or when in violation of a curfew, the person intentionally participates in a riot.”
The crime would be a misdemeanor that would carry a mandatory 30-day jail term.
