Tagged: Election law

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
2

FAN 103 (First Amendment News) Coming Soon: New Book by Stephen Solomon on Dissent in the Founding Era

 The book is Revolutionary Dissent: How the Founding Generation Created the Freedom of Speech (St. Martin’s Press, 368 pp.)

The author is Stephen Solomon (NYU School of Journalism)

The pub date is April 26, 2016 (Aside: It was on that same date in 1968 that Robert Cohen was arrested for wearing his infamous jacket as he walked through the Los Angeles County Courthouse.)

 His last book was Ellery’s Protest: How One Young Man Defied Tradition and Sparked the Battle over School Prayer (2009)

Abstract

51ev+5SIRsL._SX327_BO1,204,203,200_When members of the founding generation protested against British authority, debated separation, and then ratified the Constitution, they formed the American political character we know today-raucous, intemperate, and often mean-spirited. Revolutionary Dissent brings alive a world of colorful and stormy protests that included effigies, pamphlets, songs, sermons, cartoons, letters and liberty trees. Solomon explores through a series of chronological narratives how Americans of the Revolutionary period employed robust speech against the British and against each other. Uninhibited dissent provided a distinctly American meaning to the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech and press at a time when the legal doctrine inherited from England allowed prosecutions of those who criticized government.

Unknown-1

Solomon discovers the wellspring in our revolutionary past for today’s satirists like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann, and protests like flag burning and street demonstrations. From the inflammatory engravings of Paul Revere, the political theater of Alexander McDougall, the liberty tree protests of Ebenezer McIntosh and the oratory of Patrick Henry, Solomon shares the stories of the dissenters who created the American idea of the liberty of thought. This is truly a revelatory work on the history of free expression in America.

“Solomon’s compelling stories of the raucous political speech of the founding generation give us a ringside seat to the protest rallies, provocative cartoons and clever rhetoric that forever embedded freedom of expression in our national character. Revolutionary Dissent is a must-read for all who want to understand the birth of free speech and press in America and how essential it is to continue protecting these freedoms in our democracy.” ―Nadine Strossen

“Stephen Solomon has with singular creativity and command of an elusive subject crafted in Revolutionary Dissent a masterful account of how the nation’s founding generation secured constitutional protection for free speech and press. What emerges in this seminal work is a four-century account of a uniquely American doctrine of free expression, at a time when no other nation – even those as close as Canada and Australia and all other Western democracies – remotely matched the U.S. example in this regard. Solomon has distilled the remarkably varied commitment to enduring core values of free expression by those patriots who comprised the “founding generation.” A masterful “Afterword” reminds us that, despite its sharp divisions, even an otherwise contentious high Court retains such a consensus.” ―Robert O’Neil

Excerpts from the book

Note: I plan to post more about this book in a future issue of FAN.  

The Coming of the Ginsburg Court (?) & the Future of the First Amendment Read More

7

FAN 102.3 (First Amendment News) Court Denies Review in Campaign Finance Case

Today the Court issued its orders list in which the Justices declined to hear the case of Justice v. Hoseman.

The issue in the case was whether Mississippi can, consistent with the First Amendment, prohibit a small informal group of friends and neighbors from spending more than $200 on pure speech about a ballot measure unless they become a political committee, adopt the formal structure required of a political committee, register with the state, and subject themselves to the full panoply of ongoing record-keeping, reporting, and other obligations that attend status as a political committee.

The cert. petition was filed by the Institute for Justice with Paul Avelar as counsel of record for the Petitioners.

The Center for Competitive Politics (Allen Dickerson), the Cato Institute (Ilya Shapiro), and the Independence Institute filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Petitioners.

* * * *

The Court also denied review in a First Amendment related caseStackhouse v. Colorado (see below)

The Court’s 2015-2016 First Amendment Docket

Cases Decided

** Shapiro v. McManus (9-0 per Scalia, J., Dec. 8, 2015: decided on non-First Amendment grounds) (the central issue in the case relates to whether a three-judge court is or is not required when a pleading fails to state a claim, this in the context of a First Amendment challenge to the 2011 reapportionment of congressional districts) (from Petitioners’ merits brief: “Because petitioners’ First Amendment claim is not obviously frivolous, this Court should vacate the judgments of the lower courts and remand the case with instructions to refer this entire action to a district court of three judges.”) (See Rick Hasen’s commentary here)

Review Granted

  1. Heffernan v. City of Paterson (cert. petition,  amicus brief) (see blog post here)
  2. Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, et al. (all briefs here) (Lyle Denniston commentary)

Oral Arguments Schedule 

  1. January 11, 2016:  Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, et al. (transcript here)
  2. January 19, 2016:  Heffernan v. City of Paterson (see Howard Wasserman SCOTUSblog commentary here)(transcript here)

Review Denied

  1. Justice v. Hosemann 
  2. Electronic Arts, Inc. v. Davis
  3. American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 
  4. Bell v. Itawamba County School Board (see also Adam Liptak story re amicus brief)
  5. Town of Mocksville v. Hunter
  6. Miller v. Federal Election Commission
  7. Sun-Times Media, LLC v. Dahlstrom
  8. Rubin v. Padilla
  9. Hines v. Alldredge
  10. Yamada v. Snipes
  11. Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris
  12. Building Industry Association of Washington v. Utter (amicus brief)

Pending Petitions*

  1. Scholz v. Delp
  2. Cressman v. Thompson
  3. POM Wonderful, LLC v. FTC (Cato amicus brief) (D.C. Circuit opinion)

First Amendment Related Case

  • Stackhouse v. Colorado (issue: Whether a criminal defendant’s inadvertent failure to object to courtroom closure is an “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right” that affirmatively waives his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, or is instead a forfeiture, which does not wholly foreclose appellate review?)  (see Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press amicus brief raising First Amendment related claims):  Cert. denied

Freedom of Information Case

 The Court’s next Conference is on April 15, 2016.

Though these lists are not comprehensive, I try to track as many cases as possible. If you know of a cert. petition that is not on these lists, kindly inform me and I will post it.

3

FAC 6 (First Amendment Conversations) The Law & Politics of Money: A Q & A with Professor Richard Hasen – Part II

This is Part II of my interview with Professor Richard Hasen concerning his new book Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the Distortion of American Elections (Yale University Press, 2016) (cloth: $32.50, 256 pp.). Part I of my first interview appears here.

 A hyperlinked list of previous FAC interviews can be found at the end of this Q&A.

First Amendment News (FAN 100) will return next Wednesday.

____________________

Is Compromise Possible?

{99A7FD02-1A3C-40A1-888E-748696B03D3B}Img400Collins: “Any set of limits and rules” on campaign funding, you have written, “must be careful not to squelch too much political speech and competition.” To that end, in your book you propose a compromise:

“An individual or entity may contribute, spend from one’s own personal or general treasury, or both, no more $25,000 in each federal election on election-related express advocacy or electioneering communications supporting or opposing candidates for that election. Such limits shall not apply to the press, to political committees that solely spend contributions received from others, or to money contributed or spent in a voluntary government-created public finance program. An individual also cannot contribute and/or spend more than $500,000 total on all federal election activity in a two-year election cycle.”

In light of your “brief formula,” permit me to make a comment and then ask but three questions, the kind that would be raised time-and-again by election-law lawyers who make it their business to circumvent such rules:

Comment: Since you equate the spending of electoral monies with speech, your formula seems like another way of saying that the Government may dictate when a citizen may or may not speak during an election. Is that a fair statement? If so, how does it square with the command that “Congress shall make no law”?

  1. Would your proposed law apply to an “entity” that created 20 other entities, say non-profit corporations, and then gave them each $500,000 to be spent during a two-year federal election period? Presumably, the $500,000 cap would not bar this since it applies to an “individual.”
  1. Do “electioneering communications” as you understand those terms include books, including e-books?
  1. Would your proposed rule bar a Rupert Murdoch or George Soros from starting a “Save America” TV cable station, the purpose of which was to advance certain political candidates and causes? Presumably it would not bar this since your limits do “not apply to the ” True?

Hasen: I find the entire question whether “money is speech” to be an unhelpful way to think about the question. Money facilitates political speech, and we all agree that a law which would completely bar anyone from spending any money to support or oppose a candidate for office implicates the First Amendment.

Similarly, I find the use of the “Congress shall make no law” formulation also very unhelpful. Of course, it is no law abridging the freedom of speech, and we all agree that some laws which limit speech may be constitutional.

Consider, for example, a federal law that barred Canadian lawyer Benjamin Bluman from spending 50 cents at Kinkos to make flyers saying “Vote Obama” to distribute in Central Park. That’s a law some might say limits freedom of speech. Yet, as I quote in Plutocrats United, Floyd Abrams, Bradley Smith, and James Bopp (three leading First Amendment deregulationists) believe the federal ban on someone like Bluman spending a penny on election-related advertising is consistent with the First Amendment. I urge you to read the quotes on this point in the book, which show that, contrary to Citizens United, sometimes the identity of the speaker does matter for First Amendment purposes even to ardent opponents of regulation.

So let’s move beyond clichés about “no law” and “censorship” and “money is speech” and recognize that all of us believe that in certain circumstances the government has a compelling interest in limiting campaign spending. The question then is when and how.

  1. I should have stated this aspect of my proposal more clearly. We would need anti-circumvention rules that prevent the creation of shell corporations and other artificial entities for the purpose of getting around campaign limits.
  1. The term “electioneering communications” originates in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (more commonly known as McCain-Feingold), and it applies only to certain television and radio ads broadcast close to an election featuring a candidate for office. My proposal would extend to those, as well as to Internet based advertising which is like television and radio ads, not e-books. This question, for the uninitiated, echoes a question Justice Alito asked at the oral argument the first time the Court heard Citizens United v. FEC. Justice Alito asked if Congress had the power to “ban” books. I discuss this question (and the right answers) in detail in my book.
  1. Of course they could set up a TV station. Think of Rupert Murdoch owning FOX News or Sheldon Adelson recently buying the Las Vegas Review Journal. And these entities get the press exemption, so long as they are bona fide press. I offer tests for how to figure out what the press is, especially in the social media age, in my book. One example I give is NRA News, which started out as a way of pushing the boundary on what counts as press. In the end, NRA News became a bona fide press entity.

The Power of PACs? Read More

0

FAC 6 (First Amendment Conversations) The Law & Politics of Money: A Q & A with Richard Hasen – Part I

Professor Richard Hasen

Professor Richard Hasen

Richard Hasen is the Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California at Irvine. I am pleased to do FAC Q&A interview with him in connection with his new book:

Two of Professor Hasen’s previous books in this same area of study are:

  1. The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown (Yale University Press, 2013), and
  2. The Supreme Court and Election Law: Judging Equality from Baker v. Carr to Bush v. Gore (NYU Press 2003).

{99A7FD02-1A3C-40A1-888E-748696B03D3B}Img400He has been writing in this field for over two decades (see 14 Cardozo L. Rev. 1311 (1993)). Today, Professor Hasen is one of as the nation’s leading authorities on election law and is the publisher of the much-noticed and highly regarded Election Law Blog. He is also the co-author of a leading election law casebook, author of a book on statutory interpretation, and author of numerous scholarly articles, including a review essay published in the Harvard Law Review.

* * * * 

Collins: Thank you Rick for agreeing to do this interview and congratulations on the publication of your latest book, which is getting quite a lot of favorable attention, including a four-part video interview on SCOTUSblog.

Hasen: Ron, let me thank you for the opportunity to answer your questions and engage in this dialogue. It is too rare these days for there to be serious discussion on these contentious First Amendment issues. Even among academics, much of what we read on blogs etc. is little more than talking points.

NB: A hyperlinked list of previous FAC interviews can be found at the end of this Q&A.

____________________

Can the System be Fixed? / Need it Be?

UnknownCollins: Four years ago you wrote: “Fixing Washington’s money problems may have to await widespread scandal, and fixing its broader problems likely will have to await a societal shift that alleviates the partisanship currently gripping national politics.” Do you still hold to that?

Hasen: I do stand by this statement. Even though many voters—Democrats, Republicans, and independents—believe that the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC was wrong, and that more reasonable campaign finance laws are necessary, there is now a deep partisan divide on this issue among elites in Washington. More than ever, this is seen as a Democratic/Republican issue. As I argue in Plutocrats United, the John McCains of the Republican Party have gone silent on this issue, and the Mitch McConnells, who used to argue for no limits and full and instant disclosure, now argue even against effective disclosure.

I do expect that we will see continued attempts to improve campaign finance laws on the state and local levels, especially in those places with voter initiatives (which can bypass self-interested legislatures). Some of these laws may raise constitutional questions, which could lead a new progressive Supreme Court (if one arrives) to reconsider the First Amendment balancing in the campaign finance arena.

Collins: Does money translate to political power and advantage? Consider this news item (2-22-06) from the New York Times: “When Jeb Bush formally entered the presidential campaign in June, there was already more money behind him than every other Republican candidate combined. When he suspended his campaign on Saturday night in South Carolina, Mr. Bush had burned through the vast majority of that cash without winning a single state.” What do you make of this?

Hasen: I begin my book by urging progressives to reject facile campaign finance arguments such as “all politicians are corrupt” or money buys elections. A little while ago, I had a prebuttal to the Jeb Bush point in the Washington Post which pointed out that Money Can’t Buy Jeb Bush the White House, But It Still Skews Politics. I argued there:

“But this overly simplistic analysis misses the key role of money in contemporary American politics. In spite of the rhetoric of some campaign reformers, money doesn’t buy elections. Instead, it increases the odds of electoral victory and of getting one’s way on policies, tax breaks and government contracts. And the presidential race is the place we are least likely to see money’s effects. Looking to Congress and the states, though, we can see that the era of big money unleashed by the Supreme Court is hurtling us toward a plutocracy in which the people with the greatest economic power can wield great political power through campaign donations and lobbying….”

“And yet a single donor’s influence in presidential contests is tempered by other factors. With billions of dollars sloshing around on all sides, so much free media attention (especially to outlandish candidacies like Trump’s) and widespread public interest, mega-donors are only one part of a larger picture.”

“Money can matter more to the outcomes of congressional and state races because of relative scale. Millions of dollars spent in these contests can swamp the competition and help swing close elections, especially by influencing low-information voters. Merely the threat of such spending gets the attention of candidates, who worry about the next super PAC to line up against them.”

And there is more at stake here as I pointed out in my Washington Post piece:

“Even more significant, big money skews public policy in the direction of the wealthiest donors. In Illinois, a handful of the super-rich, including hedge-fund billionaire Kenneth C. Griffin, played a key role in getting Republican Bruce Rauner elected governor with an agenda to slash government spending, impose term limits and weaken employee unions. Hedge funds have used campaign to block a potential bankruptcy declaration by Puerto Rico that could help its people but hurt bondholders’ interests.”

“We’re supposed to be in a post-earmark era, yet Congress’s recent must-pass omnibus bill to fund the government was full of special interest deals backed by big spenders. The New York Times reported that “as congressional leaders were hastily braiding together a tax and spending bill of more than 2,000 pages, lobbyists swooped in to add 54 words that temporarily preserved a loophole sought by the hotel, restaurant and gambling industries, along with billionaire Wall Street investors, that allowed them to put real estate in trusts and avoid taxes.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid supported the language, and the company of one of Reid’s top donors admitted to being among those “involved in the discussions with congressional staff members.”

The Crisis of Liberalism Divided

Collins: As you well know, the campaign finance controversy has divided the liberal civil liberties community. In that regard, I understand that your aim in Plutocrats “is to start a dialogue among progressives.” Even if that dialogue might point to some common ground “among progressives,” there are still conservative Americans. What, if anything, is there in Plutocrats United for conservatives?

Hasen: There is a conservative case for campaign finance reform. I would point readers to Richard Painter’s new book, Taxation Only with Representation (2016). Painter was President George W. Bush’s ethics czar. My book has a different purpose: it is to talk among progressives and moderates about what the real problems of money in politics are and how to fix them. I say that the main problem is a system in which we allow ever increasing economic inequality to be translated into political inequalities, which distort our elections and politics. I then advocate conducting the First Amendment balance by considering not only anti-corruption arguments, but also political equality arguments, on the government interests side.

(credit: AP Photo-- J. Scott Applewhite)

(credit: AP Photo– J. Scott Applewhite)

Collins: The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has placed the entire nomination and confirmation process in bold ideological relief – and you have commented on the that very point. Mindful of that, Vice President Joseph Biden has suggested that the President nominate a “centrist.” In that regard,

  1. would you consider someone like Justice Potter Stewart or Justice Lewis Powell to be such a “centrist,”
  2. and would you support such a nomination as a compromise of sorts?

Hasen:

  1. It is hard to evaluate how the equivalent of a Justice Stewart or Powell would decide things today. The fact is that on the current Supreme Court all of the conservatives have been appointed by Republican presidents and all the liberals by Democratic ones. It is not that these Justices are deciding cases to help their party. It is that they are chosen because of how they would be likely to vote given their jurisprudential commitments on issues each of the parties cares about the most. This is not how things were even a few years ago. So what would we mean by a “centrist” today? Some conservatives consider Justice Kennedy a centrist (or a vacillator). On election-related issues, Justice Kennedy was in the majority in both Citizens United and the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder case, striking down a key portion of the Voting Rights Act. So he is no centrist on issues I care about.
  2. No, I see the Supreme Court today as essentially a political institution and the battle over confirmation essentially a political one. Why should the Left include a compromise candidate, especially when there is no reason to believe the Right would do so? The compromise I support would be to eliminate life tenure, and to move to 18-year non-renewable terms. This would ensure orderly turnover and that over time the Court reflects more of the public’s views on these issues. It is an idea supported by strong conservatives such as the Federalist Society’s Steven Calabresi.
Professor Lawrence Lessig

Professor Lawrence Lessig

Collins: Professor Lawrence Lessig took issue with you for discounting corruption (see here) as a viable reason for squelching First Amendment rights in the context of campaign financing. He writes: “I have had the pleasure of reading [Professor Hasen’s] . . . Plutocrats United, a book that will certainly mark him as the dean of this field—I think that he has presented us with a false dichotomy. It is not either corruption or equality. It is both. Our current system for funding campaigns is corrupt, but it is corrupt precisely because it violates a certain kind of equality. The violation is not an equality of speech, but an equality of citizenship. . . . We should not, as scholars, be fighting about which flaw our Republic reveals — inequality or corruption. We should be united — let us say, not citizens or plutocrats, but scholars, united—in the view that our Republic is both unequal and corrupt.”

Is Lessig right? Is there some troublesome division in the progressive ranks here? Is this a case of Progressives Disunited?

Hasen: I love the “Progressive Disunited” label! (Isn’t that always true?) I don’t think there is a large gap between Larry and me anymore. We went back and forth on what the problem is with money in politics in law reviews and blog posts, and in the end I think what is left is primarily a semantic difference. There is much value for an activist to labeling reform in anticorruption terms. Larry is an activist and wants to harness voter anger on this issue. I’m not. But in the end, we both think that the problem is that those with the greatest economic power are able to translate that power into political power, by influencing both who is taken seriously as a candidate for election, and by influencing the public policy that our elected officials pursue.

→ This FAN 6 Q&A will continue tomorrow with Part II.←  

____________________

Previous First Amendment Conversations

FAC #1: Larry Tribe on Free Expression

FAC #2Bruce Johnson on Press Access to Prisons

FAC #3Martin Redish on Free Speech, the Roberts Court, & the Liberal Academy

FAC #4Steve Shiffrin, the Dissenter at the First Amendment Table

FAC #5Madison Unplugged: A Candid Q&A with Burt Neuborne about Law, Life & His Latest Book

Other Interviews 

  1. On Legal Scholarship: Questions for Judge Harry T. Edwards (Journal of Legal Education)
  2. The Complete Posner on Posner Series
  3. Unto the Breach: An interview with the all too candid Dean Erwin Chemerinsky
  4. Ask the author: Chief Judge Katzmann on statutory interpretation*
  5. Ask the author: Garrett Epps on clashing visions on the Court*
  6. Ask the author: Three decades of Court watching – a political scientist’s take on the Court*
  7. Ask the authors: Conflict in the Court — an inside look at New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny*
  8. Ask the author: Floyd Abrams & his fighting faith*
  9. Ask the author: Marcia Coyle on the Roberts Court*
  10. Ask the author: Kathryn Watts on the workings of the Supreme Court*
  11. Ask the author: Alex Wohl on Tom and Ramsey Clark and the Constitution*
  12. Ask the author: Jeffrey Toobin on The Oath*

* Published on SCOTUSblog

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
1

FAN 98 (First Amendment News) The Roberts Court’s 5-4 First Amendment Rulings — Will They Survive?

Justice Scalia’s passing is a huge eventIlya Shapiro

America today is one Supreme Court vote away from a radical truncation of the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech. — George Will 

It might be that . . . determined campaign finance reformers like me just got the opening [we] need. — Richard Hasen

Last week I listed Justice Antonin Scalia’s First Amendment free-expression opinions — majority, concurring, and dissenting. In light of the Justice’s passing, renewed attention is certain to focus on those First Amendment rulings in which the Roberts Court was divided by a 5-4 margin and in which Justice Scalia cast the deciding vote. Below is a list of the Court’s 5-4 rulings in which Justice Scalia was in the majority:

  1. Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006)
  2. E.C. v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007)
  3. Morse et al. v. Frederick (2007)
  4. Davis v. Federal Election Commission (2008)
  5. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
  6. Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (2011)
  7. Harris v. Quinn (2014)
  8. McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014)

Hence, depending on the future makeup of the Court, the following categories of speech cases could be in doctrinal flux: government employee speech, student speech and various forms of campaign finance speech.

Though Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010) was a 6-3 ruling (with Justice Scalia in the majority), Justice Stevens joined the conservative bloc. Since then he has been replaced by Justice Elena Kagan. If Justice Kagan were to join the dissenters in the case (Justices Ginsburg, Breyer & Sotomayor), that would leave a 4-4 split. Here, too, a new Justice could tilt the outcome in a future case.

The Public Employees Union-Fee Case & the Future of Abood

And then there is Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, et al., which was argued last month. Recall the two issues raised in that case:

  1. Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment; and
  2. Whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech.
Justice Scalia

Justice Antonin Scalia

After oral arguments in the case, Adam Liptak noted that the “Supreme Court seemed poised on . . . to deliver a severe blow to organized labor. . . . [T]he court’s conservative majority seemed ready to say that forcing public workers to support unions they have declined to join violates the First Amendment. . . . The best hope for a victory for the unions had rested with Justice Antonin Scalia, who has written and said things sympathetic to their position. But he was consistently hostile” during oral arguments in Friedrichs:

Here are some of Justice Scalia’s comments from those oral arguments:

  • “Mr. Carvin, is ­­ is it okay to force somebody to contribute to a cause that he does believe in?”
  • “The problem is that everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the political sphere, almost by definition.”
  • “Why do you think that the union would survive without these ­­ these fees charged to nonmembers of the union? Federal employee unions do not charge agency fees to nonmembers, and they to survive; indeed, they prosper. Why ­­ why is California different?”

In light of the likely 4-4 divide on the Court following Justice Scalia’s death, Friedrichs may either be summarily affirmed on rescheduled for oral argument at some unknown date.

The Future of the Roberts Court’s Campaign Finance Rulings

Professor Richard Hasen

Professor Richard Hasen

Writing in Politico, Professor Richard Hasen noted that “[a] lmost all of the important campaign finance decisions for a generation have been decided by a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court. In some periods, the Court has been narrowly in favor of limits. More recently, the pendulum has swung to an absolutist view of the First Amendment, which sees most limits on money in politics as obstructions of free speech and thus unconstitutional.”

“His opposition to limits began in 1990,”Hasen continued,” when Scalia dissented from a Supreme Court decisionAustin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, allowing limits on how corporations can spend money in elections. He called the decision requiring corporations to use a political action committee for election ads “Orwellian,” and for the next 25 years he dissented and fought against Supreme Court decisions that allowed sensible limits on money in politics. Scalia finally got his way in the 2010 Citizens United case, which overturned Austin in a 5-4 decision and ushered in our current era . . .”

→ In another post, Professor Hasen also notes that “[o]ne of the first ways that Justice Scalia’s absence will be felt in Court decisions is on emergency motions and stay request which make its way to the Supreme Court on an expedited basis, what Prof. Will Baude calls the Supreme court’s ‘shadow docket.‘”

Student Speech After Morse v. Frederick

Greg Lukianoff

Greg Lukianoff

Shortly after the Court handed down its 5-4 ruling in Morse v. Frederick (2007), FIRE’s Greg Lukianoff wrote: “Even days after the opinion was handed down, it is difficult to know where to begin in dissecting the potential harm of the Morse v. Frederick opinion. One thing is clear to me, however: there is a word missing from the opinion that could have helped re-focus and clarify the case and might have helped convince the Court to avoid its risky adventure into new viewpoint-based restrictions on speech. That word is ‘joke.'” (June 29, 2017)

In light of Justice Scalia’s passing, Lukianoff has now “come to believe that even if it were decided last week, ​Fredrick would have prevailed on his free speech claim (not the QI claim, though) if only because of Robert’s evolution on freedom of speech. But now with Justice Scalia gone, I tend to think a future Court would simply ignore the opinion and if a case like it came up again they would be inclined to take the strong free speech position. But that, of course, depends on who replaces Scalia.”

Quote of the Month: Jeb Bush on Citizens United  

Despite being backed by the monumental Right to Rise super PAC, Jeb Bush said Monday he would “eliminate” the Supreme Court decision that paved the way for super PACs.”If I could do it all again I’d eliminate the Supreme Court ruling” Citizens United, Bush told CNN’s Dana Bash. “This is a ridiculous system we have now where you have campaigns that struggle to raise money directly and they can’t be held accountable for the spending of the super PAC that’s their affiliate.” — CNN, Feb. 8, 2016

Two Bills Introduced in N.H. to Protect Academic Freedom & Whistleblowers   Read More

0

FAN 94.2 (First Amendment News) Buckley v. Valeo: 40th Anniversary — Cato & Center for Competitive Politics to Host Event

United States Supreme Court

BUCKLEY v. VALEO (1976)

No. 75-436

Argued: November 10, 1975    Decided: January 30, 1976

The event is titled “The Past and Future of Buckley v. Valeo” and is being presented by the Cato Institute and the Center for Competitive Politics. It will take place on Tuesday, January 26th at Hayek Auditorium at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. (1000 Massachusetts Ave, NW).

Should Buckley be considered a First Amendment failure? Or did it embrace inevitable compromises that were both worse and better than everyone desired? How does Buckley affect the law and American politics and campaigning today? Does the decision have a future?” Those and related questions will be discussed at the upcoming event.

Introduction (9:00 a.m.)

Bradley Smith, Center for Competitive Politics

The Impact of Buckley on Campaigns and Elections (9:15-10:15)

Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri
Jay Goodliffe, Brigham Young University
Interviewer: Wendy KaminerThe Atlantic

Why the Buckley Decision Matters (10:15-11:15)

Bradley Smith, Center for Competitive Politics
Floyd Abrams, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
Interviewer: Matea GoldWashington Post

What is Living and What Is Dead in Buckley v. Valeo? (11:30-12:30) 

John Samples, Cato Institute
Jan Baran, Wiley Rein LLP
James Bopp, The Bopp Law Firm
Interviewer: David SavageLos Angeles Times

Lunch

To register to attend this event, click here and then submit the form on the page that opens, or e-mail events@cato.org, fax (202) 371-0841, or call (202) 789-5229 by 9:00AM on Monday, January 25, 2016.

Audio of oral arguments in Buckley here.

0

FAN 83.2 (First Amendment News) Court Declines to Hear Compelled Disclosure Case

This morning the Supreme Court declined to hear Center for Competitive Politics v. HarrisThe issues in the case were twofold:

  1. Whether a state official’s demand for all significant donors to a nonprofit organization, as a precondition to engaging in constitutionally-protected speech, constitutes a First Amendment injury; and
  2. whether the “exacting scrutiny” standard applied in compelled disclosure cases permits state officials to demand donor information based upon generalized “law enforcement” interests, without making any specific showing of need.

UnknownThe case involved a California law that requires tax-exempt charitable organizations to file reports with the state Registry of Charitable Trusts. Pursuant to that law, California Attorney General Pamela Harris required such charities to submit a list of the names and addresses of its major donors. Thus, all charities soliciting donations in California must provide the state A.G. with a copy of their IRS 990 form, which contains such donor information. That information is not made public but is used by the state A.G. to ensure compliance with the law and to safeguard against fraud and illegality.

The California law was challenged by the Center for Competitive Politics (a 501(c)(3) that works on election law). Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Center sought to enjoin the California Attorney General from requiring it to disclose the names and contributions of its “significant donors.”

A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the Center’s claims that such compelled disclosure violated its First Amendment associational rights.

Today the Supreme Court denied the Center’s petition for a writ of certiorari, which had been filed by the Center’s legal director Allen Dickerson.

Amicus briefs in support of the Petitioner were filed by the Cato Institute (Ilya Shapiro), American TargetAdvertising, Inc. and 57 Nonprofit and Other Organizations (Mark Fitzgibbons), Institute for Justice (Diana K. Simpson), Pacific Legal Foundation (Timothy Sandefur), Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (John. C. Eastman), The Philanthropy Roundtable (Allyson N. Ho), and the States of Arizona, Michigan, and South Carolina (John R. Lopez, IV).

Commentaries

  1. George Will, “The Supreme Court’s opportunity to tackle sinister trends,” Washington Post, November 4, 2015 (urging review)
  2. Editorial, “Show Us Your Donors,” Wall Street Journal, November 4, 2015 (urging review)
  3. Lyle Denniston, “Group seeks privacy for donor list,” SCOTUSblog, May 15, 2015
  4. Edward Pettersson, “Koch Group Gets to Keep Donors Secret in California Lawsuit,” Bloomberg Business, February 17, 2015 (discussing District Court ruling by Judge Manuel Real in favor of Petitioners).
1

FAN 74.1 (First Amendment News) First Amendment Salon goes to L.A. — Chemerinsky & Volokh discuss Roberts Court & First Amendment . . . & more!

It was a remarkable late-afternoon program yesterday as the First Amendment Salon went on the road for the first time with an event held at the Los Angeles office of Davis Wright Tremaine. There was a live video feed to DWT’s offices in New York City and Washington, D.C. Those participating in the Salon (the sixth) were UC Irvine Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh with DWT lawyer Kelli Sager moderating the exchange between the two. The Salons are conducted in association with the law firm of Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz and the Floyd Abrams Institute for Free Expression at Yale Law School. (Chemerinsky and Volokh are on the Salon’s advisory board). Lee Levine introduced the program. The topic of discussion for the 90-minute exchange, replete with questions from the audience, was “The Roberts Court and the First Amendment.”

Eugene Volokh, Erwin Chemerinsky & Kelli Sager

                        Eugene Volokh, Erwin Chemerinsky & Kelli Sager

The Chemerinsky-Volokh exchange was nuanced and esoteric yet always insightful, informative, and engaging. Ms.Sager ably navigated the discussion through a variety of topics including:

  • First Amendment law in the context of the government acting as sovereign vs the government acting in a managerial capacity
  • the reach of the government speech doctrine after Walker
  •  the future of “strict scrutiny” analysis after Williams-Yulee
  • whether in light of Williams-Yulee (and the idea that judicial elections are different) independent expenditures might be regulated notwithstanding the holding in Buckley
  • the impact of Reed on the “secondary effects” doctrine
  • the likelihood that the trio of Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan will be able to persuade a majority of the Court to abandon strict scrutiny in content-discrimination cases
  • whether in the Friedrichs case the Court will overrule Abood (reference was made to Catherine Fisk’s SCOTUSblog post “The Friedrichs petition should be dismissed“)
  • what important First Amendment issues are not before the Court but which need to be
  • whether the Court is likely to grant cert. in a “right to publicity” case (see Law360 Aug. 14, 2015 news story here)
  • and how the Court has yet to give any serious consideration, post Reno and Ashcroft, as to how the Internet impacts First Amendment law.
Judge Alex Kozinski

Judge Alex Kozinski

And there was more, much more, including a variety of questions from the audience consisting of First Amendment lawyers and law professors, journalists, and free-speech activists.

BTW: Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski was in the audience and asked the two professors to comment on the following statement: “The big threat to free speech in the next twenty years is from foreign countries” trying to enforce “right to be forgotten” laws against the likes of Google and ordering them to remove certain items from all of their posts in all nations, including the United States. “The right to be forgotten,” he added, “is just the first of what may be many laws that are more speech restrictive than those of the U.S., e.g. defamation, privacy, and moral rights.” [See Mike Masnick, “Google Disappears Techdirt Article About Right To Be Forgotten Due To Right To Be Forgotten Request,” Infowars.com, Aug. 25, 2015)]

Shout out to the fine folks at Davis Wright Tremaine for hosting the Los Angeles Salon.

The L.A. Salon event was video-recored and I hope to post a link to it soon.

Go here for video of fifth Salon: “Is the First Amendment Being Misused as a Deregulatory Tool?”  The exchange, held at the Abrams Institute at Yale Law School, was between Professors Jack Balkin and Martin Redish with Floyd Abrams moderating.

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
15

FAN 72 (First Amendment News) Megyn Kelly — Bold Defender of Free Speech Freedoms

In America we stand for liberty, and freedom to offend, to provoke, to persuade, and to defy. — Megyn Kelly

Megyn Kelly

Megyn Kelly

Though she is a news anchor, she is very much in the news these days. She is the object of a national discussion about women. And it all stemmed from a pointed, polite, and entirely appropriate  question she posed to the most outspoken candidate currently seeking to be President of the United States.

She is, of course, Fox’s Megyn Kelly, the one who has a TV following of 2.8 million followers. Before entering the world of journalism, Ms. Kelly held her able own at the Jones Day law firm.

Her calling card: Feisty, informed, incredulous, and quick-witted. Make of her what you will — too conservative, too blond, or maybe too tough on the likes of Karl RoveDick Cheney and Donald Trump. As for the Trump flap, Ms. Kelly stood her free-press ground: ““I certainly will not apologize for doing good journalism, so I’ll continue doing my job without fear or favor,” she told viewers of The Kelly File. By the same journalistic measure, recall Ms. Kelly’s skepticism, which proved to be founded, concerning Duke University’s alleged sexual assault incident.

However you cast her, there is also this: Megyn Kelly is bullish on the First Amendment. While we still need to hear more from her on any variety of free-speech issues, what we do know at this point is that she is a woman who yields no ground when it come to our First Freedom.

[N]o matter how abhorrent one might find another’s words, in this country, we defend their right to say them. Standing up for that principle is not an endorsement of the controversial speech. It is promoting a value at the very core of who we are.  Megyn Kelly

There’s a spark of Nat Hentoff in her steadfast commitment to free speech. Just consider her response to a claim made by TV critic Howard Kurtz: “There’s a reason free speech is in Amendment number one. It goes to the core of our principles as Americans and what we stand for. You can hate the message, you can hate everything they’re saying … that is allowed in the United States of America, because, as the Supreme Court once put it, the answer to speech you do not like is not less speech. It’s more speech,”

Mr. Kelly & Mr. O'Reilly

Ms. Kelly & Mr. O’Reilly

When it comes to free speech, the TV news anchor and commentator is willing to go toe-to-toe with  anyone, even if that someone is Bill O’Reilly: “The relevnt question is not [whether] those under attack say something offensive, the relevnt question is what we do about a group that wants to kill us for exercising our contitutional rights.” (See also here)

Before the recent Trump flap, she gave the blustery billionaire a civics lesson: “What do we stand for as Americans if not freedom of speech and the ability to express yourself?”

Not surprisingly, some in the First Amendment community are taking note of Ms. Kelly and her views on free speech.

Alan Dershowitz: “Megyn Kelly has demonstrated how the First Amendment can be used to expose the real views of candidates. She provokes, and she succeeds. Keep it up.” (see also here)

Nadine Strossen: “As a law professor, I join Prof. Alan Dershowitz in awarding Megyn Kelly an A for her solid understanding of core First Amendment principles that Justices across the ideological spectrum have consistently upheld.  As a civil libertarian, I award her an A+ for her fearless, impassioned, and eloquent defense of those principles when too many others – also across the ideological spectrum – seek to trim back our First Amendment rights in response to what the Supreme Court has called “the heckler’s veto,” but what Megyn has correctly referred to as “the assassin’s veto.”

Robert Corn-Revere: “Megyn Kelly provides a clear and consistent reminder that the right to free expression includes the right to offend, and, in fact, that right cannot exist when some assert a right not to be offended.  Ms. Kelly recognizes that the role of some people in the marketplace of ideas may be mainly to serve as bad examples – but that is the only way the system can work effectively.  Everyone should have their say, and people will choose what ideas to accept or to reject.”

“Kelly speaks in a jazz-improv progression of italics, all-caps and boldface.” That is how Jim Rutenberg portrayed her in a recent and lengthy New York Times magazine profile titled “The Megyn Kelly Moment.” There is truth there provided one adds the word informed.

Ms. Kelly & Richard Fowler

Ms. Kelly & Richard Fowler

When it comes to free speech, her passion tracks her informed grasp of her subject. Simply consider her exchange with Richard Fowler when they were discussing the “Draw Muhammad” cartoon contest: “The more offensive speech is, Richard, the more protection it needs. That’s how the First Amendment works. We can defend the First Amendment right to say it without aligning ourselves with the message.” She took exception, strong exception, to notion that Americans should be squeamish or apologetic about their exercise of their First Amendment rights. She took even strainer exception to those who counseled otherwise.

In much the same vein, she took the Catholic League’s President, Bill Donohue, to task over his criticism of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. With finger pointed and eyes scanning, she quoted approvingly from Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s 1988 majority opinion in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell: “[T]he freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.” [quoting Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. (1984)]

Ms. Kelly & Professor Eugene Volokh

Ms. Kelly & Professor Eugene Volokh

In a May 7, 2015 program, Kelly found a First Amendment ally in UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh. At the outset of that program she was emphatic: “The terrorist point was to shut us up, not just the organizers of the [Draw Muhammed Cartoon Contest] but also any American who danes to disagree with their  way of life or thinking. . . . In this country we have every right to say what we want to say about Muhammed or about anyone else for that matter.” Volokh agreed: “People are free to engage in much more offensive speech than that.” He went on to explain how the contours of modern free speech law were consistent with Ms. Kelly’s views and how such speech had value as “a reaffirmation of our free speech rights . . . “

Will her commitment continue? Will she vacillate when other tough First Amendment issues are presented to her? Who knows?  That said, it seems likely that Ms. Kelly will become an even grander figure in the world of free speech in the days and months ahead.

 See here for a listing of Ms. Kelly’s various comments concerning the First Amendment.

Opinion in Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. U.S. Food & Drug Adminstration Read More

28

FAN 68.1 (First Amendment News) Wisconsin high court strikes down campaign finance laws in Walker dispute

As reported in the New York Times: “The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a criminal investigation into coordination between conservative groups and Gov. Scott Walker’s 2012 campaign cannot continue. The decision of the court ends the specter of a criminal investigation as Mr. Walker pursues the Republican nomination for president. Mr. Walker, who has won three elections for governor over the last five years including a recall challenge in 2012, officially announced his bid on Monday.”

Today the Wisconsin Supreme Court handed down in ruling in Wisconsin v. Peterson, et alJustice Michael Gableman wrote the lead opinion. Justice David T. Prosser wrote a long concurring opinion in which Chief Justice Patience Drake Roggensack joined as to Sections IV and V of the opinion, and Justices Annette Kingsland Ziegler and Michael Gableman joined as to Section IV of the opinion. Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote an opinion concurring and dissenting in part. Justice Patrick Crooks likewise wrote an opinion concurring and dissenting in part. All tolled the various opinions came to 634 paragraphs. (Justice Ann Walsh Bradley did not participate).

The case concerned charges that Governor Scott Walker’s campaign team violated certain campaign finance laws during the 2012 recall elections by working in conjunction with dark money groups.

In relevant part, the Court declared:

To be clear, this conclusion ends the John Doe investigation because the special prosecutor’s legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law.  Consequently, the investigation is closed.  Consistent with our decision and the order entered by Reserve Judge Peterson, we order that the special prosecutor and the district attorneys involved in this investigation must cease all activities related to the investigation, return all property seized in the investigation from any individual or organization, and permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation.  All Unnamed Movants are relieved of any duty to cooperate further with the investigation.

It also added:

Our lengthy discussion of these three cases can be distilled into a few simple, but important, points.  It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing.   In other words, the special prosecutor was the instigator of a “perfect storm” of wrongs that was visited upon the innocent Unnamed Movants and those who dared to associate with them.  It is fortunate, indeed, for every other citizen of this great State who is interested in the protection of fundamental liberties that the special prosecutor chose as his targets innocent citizens who had both the will and the means to fight the unlimited resources of an unjust prosecution.  Further, these brave individuals played a crucial role in presenting this court with an opportunity to re-endorse its commitment to upholding the fundamental right of each and every citizen to engage in lawful political activity and to do so free from the fear of the tyrannical retribution of arbitrary or capricious governmental prosecution. Let one point be clear: our conclusion today ends this unconstitutional John Doe investigation.

Over at the Election Law Blog, Professor Richard Hasen noted:

Today’s lengthy and contentious 4-2 ruling dividing the Court on partisan/ideological lines, from the Wisconsin Supreme Court ending the so-called “John Doe” probe is significant for three reasons: (1) it removes a cloud from the Scott Walker presidential campaign; (2) it guts, perhaps for years, the effectiveness of the state of Wisconsin’s campaign finance laws, and (3) it reenforces conservative beliefs that they are the victims of frightening harassment, a belief which is likely to lead conservative judges to strike more campaign laws.  The case also raises significant questions about judicial recusal which go unanswered, and provide one of two potential bases to seek U.S. Supreme Court review in this case. Still, high court review seems unlikely.

Check with the Election Law Blog as Professor Hasen has additional substantive comments on the case.