webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

inst for free sp ctr com pol

---

SEE LEO

MONTANA PLAN // COC HAWAII 10 26

8 22 declared main, but see other nodes

NO MERRI

CNP cleta

see bradley smith pow

SEE LESSIG SUPERPAC MAINE SUIT 10 25

see ~ ESG SEC 1st amend compelled sp BS

---

-=-=

mta 10 26

Signed into law on May 14, 2026, Act 11 uses the state’s authority over corporations and other artificial entities to remove their power to spend money influencing elections and ballot measures. The law is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2027. It targets corporate political spending rather than eliminating all money from elections.

For Move to Amend, this fight raises a fundamental question: Who governs—the people, or the artificial entities our laws create?

What Hawaiʻi’s law does

The approach begins with a straightforward principle: corporations exist because laws create them. Those laws grant privileges, including limited liability, and define the powers corporations may exercise.

Hawaiʻi’s legislature asserts that those powers should not include spending money to support or oppose candidates, political parties, political committees, or ballot measures. The legislation distinguishes the powers granted to artificial entities from the speech, petition, and association rights of human beings. It also includes exceptions for bona fide news coverage, commentary, and editorials, and provisions allowing qualifying political committees to operate.

Known as the Corporate Power Reset, this strategy seeks to address corporate election spending through the laws that define corporations themselves. Its supporters argue that states can withdraw political spending powers without directly overturning Citizens United. Whether courts accept that distinction is now being tested.

Who is challenging it?

The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, represented by the Institute for Free Speech, filed its challenge in June. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a separate lawsuit on September 24. Both seek to block the law.

The Chamber argues that Act 11 violates First Amendment protections for corporations and other organizations and conflicts with Supreme Court precedent. Hawaiʻi’s defense centers on its authority to define corporate powers.

At an October 13 hearing, U.S. District Judge Leslie Kobayashi expressed skepticism toward the state’s arguments and indicated that she viewed the law as restricting political speech. She did not issue a ruling at the hearing, taking the competing motions under advisement. The law has not been struck down by that hearing.

Why this matters beyond Hawaiʻi

Move to Amend supports efforts to challenge corporate political power at the state level. Organizing around corporate powers can educate communities, build coalitions, and put a basic democratic principle into practice: the people should determine the privileges of the entities their laws create.

But the lawsuits also expose the constitutional obstacle confronting that work. When corporations invoke constitutional rights to resist public control, communities must defend their decisions within a legal framework that grants artificial entities protections intended for people.

That is why state action and constitutional change belong together.

Overturning Citizens United alone is not enough. Move to Amend’s goal reaches beyond one decision: ending corporate constitutional rights and the treatment of money spent influencing elections as protected speech....

-=-=

latest-filings-campaign-finance-court-battle-argue-maine-has-legal-right-regulate-super

The next piece of the puzzle for the group hoping to get the U.S. Supreme Court to establish greater regulations on money in elections was laid on Wednesday.

Two appeals were filed in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston after a federal district court in July ruled that a 2024 Maine law overwhelmingly passed by voters was unconstitutional. The law placed limits on contributions to political action committees that independently spend money to try to support or defeat candidates, commonly referred to as super PACs.

One of the briefs is from Attorney General Aaron Frey on behalf of the state of Maine. The other is from the committee behind the referendum and the non-profit Equal Citizens, spearheaded by legal scholar Lawrence Lessig, who has been attempting to bring this issue to the high court for years.

Both make the case that the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission actually allows for super PACs to be regulated.

The brief from the interveners incorporates a second originalism argument, which is notable since the party that instigated the lawsuit is made up of conservative political action committees.

Charles Miller of the Institute for Free Speech and Joshua Dunlap of Pierce Atwood (now nominee for the First Circuit) filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Maine in 2024 on behalf of Dinner Table Action, which was founded by state Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn) and activist Alex Titcomb, and For Our Future, which is run by Titcomb. They argue that the law restricts free speech.

These dueling arguments have been known, but in an interview ahead of the filing Wednesday Lessig told Maine Morning Star that the intervener’s brief also argues that a component of the recent district court opinion rejects the reasoning that served as the foundation for super PACs in the first place, aiding their case.

After reviewing the filing on Wednesday, Miller said he doesn’t think that’s novel. He’ll be issuing his full rebuttal on behalf of the plaintiffs next month.

Before then, friend of the court briefs are expected next week and could add additional layers to the argument.

After oral arguments in early 2026, a ruling could come before the summer.

If the court decides in favor of the law, the issue could be in the Supreme Court by the fall of 2026. If the First Circuit rules otherwise, the path to the high court would become more difficult.

How the district court opinion plays in

Since Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, the Supreme Court has allowed contributions to be regulated when there is a risk of “quid pro quo” corruption, essentially a favor for a favor. In the case of elections, if there is a risk someone could be making a donation to a candidate in exchange for a favor, then Congress can regulate that contribution. In 2010, the Supreme Court extended this reasoning to corporations and unions in Citizens United,ruling that those entities can otherwise spend unlimited amounts of money on elections because they have free speech rights under the First Amendment.

Three months later, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in SpeechNow.org v. FEC that contributions to PACs cannot be regulated either, as long as the PAC is “independent” of the campaign.

The state of Maine and interveners argue SpeechNow misinterpreted Citizens United.

The ruling was never reviewed by the Supreme Court, though other lower federal and state courts agreed. In each one of those cases, the courts ruled that contributions to independent political action committees created no risk of “quid pro quo” corruption, so they couldn’t be regulated.

But in U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf’s opinion in the district court in July, she essentially conceded that there is a risk of corruption. “Contributions to independent expenditure PACs can serve as the quid in a quid pro quo arrangement,” she wrote.

Lessig said that finding makes it “the most extreme opinion of any federal court in the history of this jurisprudence.”

However, Frink Wolf went on to write, “I am not persuaded that the Defendants’ arguments on this point can be squared with Citizens United.”

That’s where she and those backing Maine’s law diverge.

“The district court further erred by adopting the reasoning of out-of-jurisdiction decisions striking down similar contribution limits,” the brief filed by Frey reads. “Those cases did not bind the district court, just as they do not bind this Court.”

Maine sued over new campaign finance law, but that was supporters’ plan all along

What the state of Maine and the interveners are seeking is not to change the limits on expenditures in Citizens United. They think the question the Maine referendum raises — whether contributions to a committee that makes independent expenditures can be limited — is not answered in Citizens United.

“Nothing in Citizens United or in any subsequent Supreme Court case disturbs the longstanding precedent securing to the people the power to prevent quid pro quo corruption or its appearance by limiting the size of contributions,” the brief filed by the interveners reads.

Under the logic of Citizens United, independent expenditures are uncoordinated and create no risk of quid pro quo corruption, but donations to a committee that makes independent expenditures may or may not be coordinated. Therefore, they argue, they create the risk of quid pro quo corruption and can be regulated by Congress.

Further, Frey’s brief adds that “the district court should have recognized that the changed campaign landscape in Maine and the United States unleashed by SpeechNow supports Maine’s important interest in imposing modest limits.”

Republican-turned-independent state Sen. Rick Bennett, who is running for governor in 2026 and was on the ballot question committee, told Maine Morning Star, that the case in Maine “gives the courts a chance to correct a 15-year mistake, return power to the people, and begin restoring trust in our democracy.”

The state of Maine is giving the Supreme Court a gift. You're saying to John Roberts, here's a case where you could decide this case and the whole country will say, ‘Huzzah.’

– Lawrence Lessig

Another member of the ballot committee, Cara McCormick, said in defending Maine’s new law, “we go to court not in anger but in faith that our democracy will listen to its people and grow even stronger through them.”

Miller, the plaintiff’s lead counsel, disagrees with their interpretation.

“They’re trying to focus on the fact that, theoretically, a candidate could solicit a donation for independent expenditure, but the law doesn’t target that,” Miller said. “It targets any contribution for independent expenditure.”

As an example, Miller said someone could corrupt a politican by giving money to his daughter, “but there’s no reporting requirements on donations to daughters of senators.” In that regard, he added, “there are lots of things that can be corrupted, a donation to a presidential library arguably can be corrupted.”

An originalism argument

The overarching point the interveners are making is that the original meaning of the First Amendment would not have blocked state legislatures or the people from limiting the size of contributions to political action committees.

“The Supreme Court has never considered the question of what the original meaning of the First Amendment means in the context of campaign finance jurisprudence,” Lessig said.

The originalist argument they’re making is typically a conservative one, so Lessig believes it would fare well with the current conservative-leaning Supreme Court. He also believes that’s why the plaintiffs want to prevent that argument from advancing beyond the First Circuit.

“That’s what gave us the new Second Amendment, that’s what overturned Roe versus Wade — it’s originalism,” Lessig said. “But here, it goes against their politics.”

Last week, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the group’s appeal.

Ultimately, Lessig views the issue of regulating super PACs as a nonpartisan one. Both Republicans and Democrats benefited from hundreds of millions of dollars from super PAC spending last election, Democrats more so than Republicans.

“The state of Maine is giving the Supreme Court a gift,” Lessig said. “You’re saying to John Roberts, here’s a case where you could decide this case and the whole country will say, ‘Huzzah.’”

---

FEDSOC

Sep102025

Topics:

Free Speech & Election Law

Sponsors:

Free Speech Practice Group• Election Law Practice Group

Event Video

IFrame Content

Listen & Download

-44:24

InDinner Table Action v. Schneider, pending in the First Circuit, Maine is appealing a permanent injunction barring the enforcement of a ballot initiative passed in 2024 that would have capped contributions for independent expenditures at $5,000. The initiative, formulated and supported by the anti-super PAC group, Equal Citizens, was designed to challenge the case that “created” super PACs, SpeechNow.orgv. FEC, a unanimous en banc D.C. Circuit decision, which held that no limits can be placed on contributions for independent expenditures, and has since been reaffirmed by several federal circuit courts. If the First Circuit were to remove the injunction, it would create a circuit split, and open up the possibility of revisiting SpeechNow.orgv. FEC.

The Dinner Table ActionDistrict Court also ruled that mandatory disclosure of donors starting at $0 unconstitutionally burdens Free Speech by not affording any possibility for anonymous speech. As such, this case sits at an interesting intersection between free speech and election law. Join us for a litigation update where we will discuss the developments to date in this case, its potential impacts, and where it may be headed.

Featuring:

---

COC

KAREN FRINK WOLF MAGISTR JUDGE JUL 15 2025

Opinion-Dinner-Table-Action-v.-Schneider-D.-Me

---

https://www.congress.gov/event/116th-congress/house-event/LC65581/text?s=1&r=2

  CITIZENS UNITED AT 10: THE CONSEQUENCES FOR DEMOCRACY AND POTENTIAL 
						RESPONSES BY CONGRESS

\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\\==

								HEARING

							   BEFORE THE

				   SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION,
					CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL JUSTICE

								OF THE

					   COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
						HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

					ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

							SECOND SESSION

							   \_________\_

							FEBRUARY 6, 2020

WITNESSES

The Honorable Ted Deutch, Member of Congress

Oral Testimony............................................... 9

Prepared Testimony........................................... 34

The Honorable Pramila Jayapal, Member of Congress

Oral Testimony............................................... 39

Prepared Testimony........................................... 41

Ellen L. Weintraub, Commissioner, Federal Election Commission

Oral Testimony............................................... 45

Prepared Testimony........................................... 48

Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen

Oral Testimony............................................... 53

Prepared Testimony........................................... 55

Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault

Professor of Law, Capital University Law School

Oral Testimony............................................... 56

Prepared Testimony........................................... 58

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Professor of Law, Stetson University

College of Law

Oral Testimony............................................... 71

Prepared Testimony........................................... 73

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

Statement by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, submitted by the

Honorable Steve Cohen, Chairman, Subcommittee on the

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties................ 6

Items for the record submitted by the Honorable Ted Deutch,

Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 10

Items for the record submitted by the Mary Gay Scanlon, Committee

on the Judiciary............................................... 92

Items for the record submitted by the Steve Cohen, Committee on

the Judiciary.................................................. 106

...

Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Weissman.

Our next witness is Mr. Bradley Smith. Rarely is a witness

thanked for coming and complimented by the other side, so you

are special.

Bradley Smith holds the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M.

Nault Professor of Law position at Capital University Law

School. He is one of the nation's leading authorities on

election law and campaign finance, and co-author of ``Voting

Rights and Election Law,'' a leading casebook in the field. He

previously served for five years as a member of the FEC and

Chair of the Commission in 2004.

He received his J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School.

Do any of you ever get accepted at another school?

[Laughter.]

And his B.A. from Kalamazoo College.

Professor, you are recognized.

TESTIMONY OF BRADLEY SMITH

Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee.

I guess I would begin simply by saying that repeatedly

calling a decision a disaster doesn't really make it so, and we

haven't really heard much evidence that actually ties the idea

that people can't enact their preferences to anything that has

come about from Citizens United.

In fact, Citizens United has had a number of beneficial

effects on American society. We were told that it would lead to

an oligarchy, an entrenched group of people who would strangle

American democracy. And yet instead, in the years since

Citizens United, politics in America has been more fluid.

Congressional incumbent reelection rates have declined. That

may not be good news for all of you, but it cuts against

certainly the argument that has been made against Citizens

United.

We have seen that either Congress or the presidency has

changed hands in four of the five election cycles since

Citizens United. There are more newcomers in Congress by about

40 percent each time around. That may be good news for some of

you who are among those newcomers.

Outsiders such as the President himself, such as at least a

contender to the President in the general election, Senator

Sanders, people such as Representative Ocasio-Cortez or former

Representative Braut have been complete outsiders who have

dramatically shaken up the system and defeated entrenched

insiders, typically by spending far less money.

We find that the trend of more women being elected to

office has continued, and there are other things that are just

kind of interesting. For example, the rate of spending increase

in American politics has actually declined considerably since

Citizens United. I don't think that is because of Citizens

United, but it certainly cuts against the notion that this is

some disaster leading to this massive explosion in spending. It

is just not really so.

We find that most money in politics, dramatically so, still

comes from individuals in amounts limited under the law. The

vast majority still comes in limited individual contributions.

But corporate contributions, which make up at most--I don't

know how we want to calculate it and what we do with this small

percentage of money, about 2 or 3 percent that is so-called

``dark money,'' how much we think that might be corporate

money. If we take the worst case, so to speak, the highest case

scenario, we are talking about 5 percent of spending, maybe 6

percent coming from for-profit corporations. That is hardly

drowning anybody out. And, in fact, it is a good thing. The

American people have a right to hear those voices, they should

hear those voices, and polling data shows that they actually

want to hear those voices and believe that business has a right

to comment on issues of concern.

Finally, it is important to remember what the case was all

about. It was the position of the United States Government that

it could censor a book or a movie if that book or movie was at

any stage produced or distributed with corporate funds, like

every other book or movie you have ever bought on Amazon or in

a book store or seen in a theater or seen on cable or streaming

television. That was the position of the government, that you

could censor this. In that respect, the position that four

members of the Supreme Court actually endorsed that is the

truly radical view that we saw in Citizens United.

We have heard a lot in both the opening panel and from my

colleagues here about all these policy initiatives that have

been blocked, and it is curious to me that they all happen to

be policy preferences of the American political left. There is

nothing wrong with the political left having policy

preferences, but the idea that you are not able to enact your

policy preferences unless you can kneecap people who oppose

those is hardly something that the First Amendment endorses.

Indeed, that is why we have a First Amendment, so you can't

kneecap your opponents in order to shut them up so that you can

pass whatever policies you want.

I find it interesting. We had the NRA used as an example.

The NRA has 3 to 5 million members. These are U.S. citizens,

people who are out there, and they care intensely about these

issues. They talk to their neighbors and they work on these

issues, and that is why these things sometimes don't come

through.

I remind you, it is not impossible to pass legislation.

Medicare, Social Security, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil

Rights Act, these things all passed when contributions even

from individuals were unlimited and almost never reported

because there was no enforcement mechanism even on reporting.

So I think when we look at things more rationally, we see

that while the American people certainly don't like Citizens

United when they are asked specific questions like ``Do you

think corporations should be able to speak in elections?'',

when we ask ``Do you think Citizens United should have been

able to show its movie?'', we find that majorities, in some

cases substantial majorities, do, in fact, favor those

positions.

So again, I would say Citizens United has been good for the

United States, but mostly it is really good for the First

Amendment precisely because it does what the First Amendment is

supposed to do. It is a check.

Thank you.

[The statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.

Finally, our last witness is Ms. Ciara Spelliscy. She is a

Professor of Law at Stetson College of Law in Florida. She

teaches election law, corporate governance, business entities,

and constitutional law. Prior to joining Stetson's faculty she

was Counsel to the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for

Justice at NYU School of Law, where she provided guidance on

the issue of money in politics. She was a staffer for Richard

Durbin up here on the Hill.

She received her J.D. from Columbia University and her A.B.

from Harvard.

Professor, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

TESTIMONY OF CIARA TORRES-SPELLISCY

Ms. Torres-Spelliscy. Thank you. Good morning. My name is

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy. I live in a swing district in the swing

state of Florida. My law students are Republicans, Democrats,

and Independents, and I am here to tell you that American

voters are worried about the state of our elections after the

attacks on our democracy in 2016.

What American voters see from Congress and from the Federal

Election Commission is not reassuring. It looks like they

cannot get out of their own way to protect the integrity of

American elections. This was true before 2016, but after 2016

it is nothing short of excruciating to watch Congress and the

FEC not act in the face of eager enemies.

Now without a quorum, the FEC is more powerless than ever

at a time when the 2020 election already has candidate debates,

large-scale rallies, primary votes, and big political

fundraising to the tune of over $2 billion already.

Nearly a decade ago, I told Congress right after Citizens

United that I could predict two problems with inviting

corporate money into our democracy: a lack of shareholder

consent, and a lack of transparency. And I wish my prediction

had not come true, but it did.

Today I will focus on the lack of transparency, which is

better known as the dark money problem. Dark money has

blanketed our elections since 2008. To date, over a billion

dollars in dark money has been spent in Federal elections

alone. With dark money you can see the public dance, but you

can't see the puppeteer. And after the 2016 election, Americans

really deserve to know whether any of those puppeteers were

foreign nationals or foreign governments.

As I note in my book, Political Brands, we know from the

redacted Mueller Report, as well as indictments of Russians by

the Special Counsel's Office, that Russians were trying to

influence the 2016 election, including by purchasing political

ads on Facebook with rubles. In nearly any other area of the

law, what happens with dark money would be akin to money

laundering. But in election law, most dark money is actually

legal.

The FEC is the primary regulator with the ability to stop

dark money, and instead they have basically done nothing. The

FEC could have started rulemakings to end dark money even

before Citizens United, because the problem appeared before

  1. The typical way that dark money is created is by spending

through an opaque non-profit, like a 501(c)(4) or a 501(c)(6),

and the porous rules at the FEC have allowed donors to remain

anonymous. The only change that has come was at the order of a

Federal court in CREW v. FEC.

One thing American voters still do not know is whether dark

money is hiding illegal foreign money. And because the FEC has

largely been stuck in deadlocks, even investigations or

punishment for foreign spending has largely been lacking.

As I discussed in my first book, Corporate Citizen, in a

particularly colorful episode, a foreign pornographer spent in

a Los Angeles election in 2012. This spending violated

longstanding bans on foreign money in American elections,

whether they are Federal, state, or local. But the FEC would

not enforce the law against the foreign pornographer. If the

FEC is not going to stand up to a foreign pornographer, it begs

the question who would they stand up against?

This general lack of enforcement against foreign spending

has sent a terrible message to anyone who was paying attention.

The message is that campaign finance laws are basically not

being enforced at the Federal level by the FEC, and as American

voters face 2020, the Department of Justice is the only cop

left on the beat. But DOJ can only enforce willful and

egregious violations of law. This leaves a vast wasteland of

unenforced campaign finance laws where cheating and corner-

cutting is all but invited.

And this happens as American voters are asked to choose the

next president, all of the members of the House, a third of the

Senate, 11 governors, and 45 state legislatures.

Given the experience of 2016 with Russians breaking

American election laws with abandon, the lesson for North

Korea, China, Iran, or any other hostile nation is that

interference in our elections can be done with little

consequence.

So the FEC needs a full complement of commissioners so that

they can at least act. And if you are serious about reform, you

need to add an additional seat to the FEC so that, like every

other Federal agency, they have an odd number of commissioners

so that they can enforce the law instead of ending in a

deadlock.

And you can improve disclosure by either changing election

laws or changing securities laws, or possibly both. And, of

course, you could expand what Congress can constitutionally

regulate if the Constitution is amended to address Citizens

United and other campaign finance cases like Buckley.

But in our constitutional system, the fate of the nation is

in your hands. Thank you.

[The statement of Ms. Torres-Spelliscy follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

... Mr. Raskin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Welcome to all of our distinguished witnesses today, and

all of the natural persons who have come to participate in

today's proceeding.

The first thing that I want to point out is that Citizens

United did not enlarge the free speech rights of any citizen in

the United States, not even CEOs or corporate executives who

could spend already whatever they wanted as independent

expenditures under Buckley v. Valeo. All that Citizens United

did was to transform every corporate treasury in America into a

potential political slush fund and thereby authorize and

empower the CEOs of the corporations to spend whatever they

wanted of other people's money in the corporate treasuries in

political campaigns.

This declaration did transform, to my understanding, two

centuries of jurisprudential understanding of what a

corporation is. You can go back to Chief Justice John

Marshall's opinion in 1819 in the Dartmouth College v. Woodward

case, where he said that a corporation is an artificial entity,

invisible, intangible, existing only in contemplation of law,

possessing only the rights conferred upon it by the state

legislature and not the constitutional rights of the people.

And yet the Roberts court in Citizens United endowed private

corporations, these invisible, intangible, artificial entities,

with the political rights of the people, essentially arming the

CEOs with the power to spend other people's money, as Justice

Brandeis termed it, in political campaigns. And for all of the

reasons stated by the witnesses, that has occasioned a dramatic

change in the character and the quality of American politics.

Now, I favor a constitutional amendment for the same reason

that I support all the constitutional amendments that have

reversed reactionary jurisprudence by the Supreme Court. That

is how we got women's suffrage in the 19th Amendment which

toppled the Supreme Court's decision in Minor v. Happersett,

saying that women did not get the right under the 14th or 15th

Amendment. The 14th Amendment, and the 15th and 13th, of

course, reversed the Supreme Court's reactionary decision in

the Dred Scott case before the Civil War. It is how we got the

26th Amendment. It is how we got the 24th Amendment. Most of

our amendments have been democracy-deepening, suffrage-

enlarging, democracy-perfecting amendments where the people

have to overturn pinched and reactionary understandings of the

Supreme Court.

But until we get there, I wanted to take up an issue that

comes out of Citizens United, because Justice Kennedy's conceit

in his majority opinion is that the corporations are speaking

for the shareholders, the corporations derive their First

Amendment political rights from the First Amendment rights of

the human beings who actually own stock in the corporation. But

there is a problem, which is that the corporations are spending

all of this money and putting money into political campaigns

and dark money channels and so on without ever consulting the

shareholders themselves; and, in fact, in most cases not even

notifying the shareholders. And they have been doing everything

in their power to fight in both the SEC and the FEC efforts to

get just notice to people of how their money in the corporation

is being spent.

I introduced a measure which became part of H.R. 1 which I

call Shareholders United. Shareholders United says that no

corporation shall be allowed to spend any money in politics

until you have first notified the shareholders of the proposal

and they are authorized in advance by majority vote that their

money be spent in a political campaign.

I am wondering if each of you, if you could go quickly--and

forgive us because we have our 5-minute stricture here. But

would you agree that as long as we are living under the regime

of Citizens United, that the shareholders should have the right

to be apprised of proposed political spending by corporations

of their money, and they should have the right to vote on it? I

know there is an argument that there should have to be a 100

percent vote, but at the very least there should be a majority

vote before the corporation goes ahead and spends their money.

And I could start with you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Weintraub. Yes.

Mr. Weissman. Absolutely. And as you know, more than a

million people have requested the SEC to issue a rule to do

exactly what you are suggesting.

Mr. Raskin. Professor Smith, do you agree?

Mr. Smith. No. This is a complex question of corporate

governance and there are many things corporations do, including

things that affect politics, that they don't require

shareholder approval for.

Mr. Raskin. Okay. And Professor Spelliscy?

Ms. Torres-Spelliscy. I wholeheartedly endorse your bill. I

think shareholders should have the right to consent to

corporate political spending, and that would bring American law

in line with the U.K., where shareholders in U.K. companies do

have the right to pre-approve corporate political spending.

Mr. Raskin. Okay.

Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Raskin.

Mr. Raskin. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cline, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, appreciate it.

I would note that one of the things that we have that the

U.K. doesn't have is the First Amendment.

The majority in Citizens United maintain that political

speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true

because the speech comes from a corporation. The majority also

held that the BCRA's disclosure requirements as applied to the

movie were constitutional, reasoning that disclosure is

justified by a governmental interest in providing the

electorate with information about election-related spending

resources.

The Court also upheld the disclosure requirements for

political advertising sponsors and upheld the ban on direct

contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

What it did not do is overturn centuries of law. Rather, it

overturned portions of McCain-Feingold which had become law in

2002, another law that went into effect in the 1940s, and two

Supreme Court decisions in whole or in part, Austin v. Michigan

Chamber of Commerce from 1990 and McConnell v. FEC from 2003.

So I would ask Professor Smith, in your prepared testimony

you quote part of the oral argument in Citizens United in which

the government argues that as a matter of constitutional law it

can ban books or movies if corporate resources are used in

their production or distribution. Is that correct?

Mr. Smith. Yes.

Mr. Cline. And can we talk about whether this is really a

danger?

Mr. Smith. Yes. Citizens United was rescheduled after that

first oral argument, and in the second oral argument then-

Solicitor General Kagan argued, well, we would never actually

do that. But, in fact, the FEC from time to time has done that.

In a little-noticed 1987 advisory opinion, the FEC informed

U.S. News and World Report that their publication of a book

would not be exempt under the press exemption because it was

not a periodical, that it would therefore be potentially

illegal to distribute a book.

Now, maybe that wasn't noticed so much because in the end

U.S. News wasn't really going to do that. It was dismissed on

other grounds. But the FEC made that point.

Just in the last decade, in 5642, the FEC spent almost two

years investigating publication and distribution of a book, one

that was written by George Soros, and it was eventually

dismissed. But it should be noted that the General Counsel in

that case recommended that the FEC find a violation due to

distribution of a book about policy, a book called The Bubble

of American Supremacy, because it included such radical

statements as ``It is not enough to defeat President Bush at

the polls,'' and ``We can regain the moral high ground only by

rejecting President Bush when he stands for reelection,'' and

that was considered enough that that book could have been

potentially banned.

So I do think it is a real issue.

I would also note that when Justice Kagan, or now-Justice

Kagan, then-Solicitor General Kagan, was asked what about

pamphlets, she said pamphlets we ban, we definitely go in for

pamphlets.

I have here a copy of Common Sense, the great revolutionary

tract by Thomas Paine. It is 54, 58 pages. That includes a

couple of cover pages here. Is this a book or a pamphlet? I

will ask you all to vote for it because you are the legislators

who will get to decide whether or not this can be published or

whether or not this can be banned as a pamphlet.

Mr. Cline. Thank you.

Some of our Democratic colleagues in the Senate have

previously introduced a constitutional amendment to undo or

overturn Citizens United. The amendment would allow Congress to

regulate the giving and spending of money on political advocacy

but explicitly carves out the press. Do you have any views on

that approach?

Mr. Smith. Well again, if I may, Mr. Cline, I want to

briefly address something that my old colleague--we were law

professors going back. You got your J.D. from Harvard, too; is

that right?

I think, Mr. Chairman, that we should probably note that

again.

But in any case, one thing I did want to comment, though,

is that who has benefitted--...we haven't seen this torrent of money from Fortune 100 companies. The corporations that have

benefitted are small corporations, and most of those

corporations can't afford to operate a PAC, they can't afford

to have a lobbyist here, and those are the corporations that

are really benefitting from this, and those are closely held

corporations where I think we can usually find the shareholder

benefits.

8 22

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Free_Speech

Institute for Free Speech (IFS), formerly the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP), promotes the deregulation of U.S. elections, being against the McCain-Feingold act, the Disclose Act, the Fairness Doctrine, and being in favor of the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allows corporations to spend money to promote or oppose candidates in elections. It is a 501(c)(3) non-profit which states on its website that its mission is "to educate the public on the actual effects of money in politics, and the results of a more free and competitive electoral process." 

The Center was founded in 2005 by Bradley A. Smith, former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. Stephen Hoersting, formerly Smith's Legal Counsel at the Election Commission, served as the Center's first Director. The current President of IFS is David Keating.[1] [2] [3] [4]

(Smith was a Republican appointed to the FEC by President Clinton in 2000 as part of the statutory requirement no more than three of the FEC's six commissioners come from any one political party. His nomination was promoted by Republican Senators, but was opposed by Vice President Al Gore and others because Smith opposed campaign finance regulations and thus they considered him "unfit" to regulate those campaign finance practices.[5] He was confirmed as part of a package deal to secure the confirmation of other nominees. In 2004, Smith was elected Chairman of the FEC. (Unlike most federal agencies, the FEC Chairman is not designated by the President. Rather, by law each year the FEC Commissioners elect one of the six Commissioners to serve as Chairman for a one year term. By custom, the Chairmanship of the Agency rotates between Republicans and Democrats; by law, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman must be from different parties.))

The Institute for Free Speech is an "associate" member of the State Policy Network, a web of right-wing “think tanks” in every state across the country.[6]

The Center for Competitive Politics changed their name to the Institute for Free Speech in October of 2017.[7]

News and Controversies

Report Calls IFS a "Front Group" of Libertarian Activist Howie Rich

Lee Fang, writing at the blog "Think Progress," has claimed that Center is a "front group" of libertarian activist Howie Rich, which the Center has denied.[8] The Center for Competitive Politics, along with groups such as the Cato Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, worked in favor of the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The groups filed amicus briefs to the Court.[9]

Opposing the Disclose Act

The DISCLOSE Act would require corporations to publicly disclose contributions to organizations and trade associations that might make expenditures for campaign ads. The bill was introduced in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case allowing corporate spending in campaigns. Advocates of stricter campaign finance laws say that the public has a right to know exactly who is funding political ads.[10]

The Center for Competitive Politics and other groups including Americans for Tax Reform, The American Conservative Union, CatholicVote.org, and Citizens Against Government Waste argue that provisions in the DISCLOSE ACT go beyond disclosure to actually prohibit speech, and sent a letter to Congress calling the bill "an unequivocal ban on free speech, masquerading as an exercise in accountability."[11]

Questionable Research Methods

The CCP releases regular research studies on the role of money in US elections. This research has been criticized by groups such as the Brennan Center for Justice, which generally takes the opposite side from the CCP on questions of campaign finance and corporate speech. The Brennan Center argues that the CCP's research is plagued by methodological flaws and inappropriate conclusions drawn from undisclosed data points.[12] CCP's original research reports, as well as copies of legal briefs, legislative testimony, and commentary published by the organization, are available through the organization's website.

Background on Founding of IFS

In August 2008, Jeanne Cummings of Politico wrote, 'Encouraged by the U.S. Supreme Court, conservatives are launching a wholesale legal assault on campaign finance laws. And among the leaders is a man once charged with enforcing those laws:former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith. His goals are big. He doesn't want to just scale back the laws; he wants to pretty much wipe them out.'

Bradley Smith opened the Center for Competitive Politics to build a case against the regulatory system that limits individual donations to candidates, reins in the role of outside groups, and bans union and corporate contributions to political parties. With financial support that came largely from individuals he declines to name, Smith opened the Center for Competitive Politics a year later to begin challenging the current campaign finance system in both federal court and the court of public opinion. "What the Center for Competitive Politics can do and is trying to do is to bring the right kind of cases before the court," Hasen said,so Chief Justice John Roberts and his new coalition of conservatives can "knock them out of the park."'[13]

Ties to the Council for National Policy

As of February 2022, IFS founder and chairman Bradley Smith is a Gold Circle member of the Council for National Policy.

Council for National Policy

The Council for National Policy (CNP) is a secretive, Christian Right organization of funders and activists founded in 1981 by activist Morton Blackwell, commentator Paul Weyrich, direct-mail pioneer Richard Viguerie, right-wing activist Phyllis Schlafly and Left Behind author Tim LaHaye. Anne Nelson's book about CNP, Shadow Network: Media, Money, and the Secret Hub of the Radical Right, describes how the organization connects "the manpower and media of the Christian right with the finances of Western plutocrats and the strategy of right-wing Republican political operatives.”

CNP membership as of September 2020 is available here.

Ties to the State Policy Network

IFS is an associate member of SPN. SPN is a web of right-wing “think tanks” and tax-exempt organizations in 50 states, Washington, D.C., Canada, and the United Kingdom. As of January 2022, SPN's membership totals 166. Today's SPN is the tip of the spear of far-right, nationally funded policy agenda in the states that undergirds extremists in the Republican Party. SPN Executive Director Tracie Sharp told the Wall Street Journal in 2017 that the revenue of the combined groups was some $80 million, but a 2019 analysis of SPN's main members IRS filings by the Center for Media and Democracy shows that the combined revenue is over $120 million.[14] Although SPN's member organizations claim to be nonpartisan and independent, the Center for Media and Democracy's in-depth investigation, "EXPOSED: The State Policy Network -- The Powerful Right-Wing Network Helping to Hijack State Politics and Government," reveals that SPN and its member think tanks are major drivers of the right-wing, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)-backed corporate agenda in state houses nationwide, with deep ties to the Koch brothers and the national right-wing network of funders.[15]

In response to CMD's report, SPN Executive Director Tracie Sharp told national and statehouse reporters that SPN affiliates are "fiercely independent." Later the same week, however, The New Yorker's Jane Mayer caught Sharp in a contradiction. In her article, "Is IKEA the New Model for the Conservative Movement?," the Pulitzer-nominated reporter revealed that, in a recent meeting behind closed doors with the heads of SPN affiliates around the country, Sharp "compared the organization’s model to that of the giant global chain IKEA." She reportedly said that SPN "would provide 'the raw materials,' along with the 'services' needed to assemble the products. Rather than acting like passive customers who buy finished products, she wanted each state group to show the enterprise and creativity needed to assemble the parts in their home states. 'Pick what you need,' she said, 'and customize it for what works best for you.'" Not only that, but Sharp "also acknowledged privately to the members that the organization's often anonymous donors frequently shape the agenda. 'The grants are driven by donor intent,' she told the gathered think-tank heads. She added that, often, 'the donors have a very specific idea of what they want to happen.'"[16]

A set of coordinated fundraising proposals obtained and released by The Guardian in early December 2013 confirm many of these SPN members' intent to change state laws and policies, referring to "advancing model legislation" and "candidate briefings." These activities "arguably cross the line into lobbying," The Guardian notes.[17]

Ties to the Koch Brothers

Between 2012 and 2015 the Center for Competitive Politics received $57,237 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, the Institute for Free Speech, “like Cato and the Institute for Justice ... has Koch connections [and] has also received funding from the Charles Koch Foundation.”[18]

Koch Wiki
Charles Koch is the right-wing billionaire owner of Koch Industries. As one of the richest people in the world, he is a key funder of the right-wing infrastructure, including the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the State Policy Network (SPN). In SourceWatch, key articles on Charles Koch and his late brother David include: Koch Brothers, Americans for Prosperity, Stand Together Chamber of Commerce, Stand Together, Koch Family Foundations, Koch Universities, and I360.

Ties to the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation

Between 2008 and 2016 the Center for Competitive Politics received $640,000 from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

In 2010, Bradley A. Smith, founder of the Institute of Free Speech/Center for Competitive Politics, was a winner of the “Bradley Prize,” which “honor scholars and practitioners whose accomplishments reflect the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation mission to restore, strengthen and protect the principles and institutions of American exceptionalism.”

Bradley detailed the most recent grants in internal documents examined by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). Below are the descriptions prepared by CMD. The quoted text was written by Bradley staff.

2016: $125,000 to support general operations (litigation, research and public education activities). The grant will be used by CCP to fight those calling for greater disclosure rules “to chill speech,” part of a national effort to allow campaign finance donors to hide their identities.

2015: $100,000 to support general operations.

2014: $75,000 to support general operations. Key factors in CCP’s selection of cases, in addition to the existence of a favorable plaintiff, are as follows: “the probabilities of winning and anticipated cost and resource allocation; the impact of victory on the legal landscape and campaign finance law generally; opportunities to publicize favorably deregulation through litigation; and the potential of a favorable decision to impact positively legislature incentives to deregulate… Litigation in 2014 and beyond focuses on draconian disclosure laws to harass groups through the reporting process resulting from the Citizens United decision. Recent enactment of disclosure laws in Delaware and Utah present strong vehicles for constitutional challenges. CCP will also be studying options to seek judicial review of current IRS practices regarding political activity by nonprofits… CCP increased attention to the increasingly worrisome donor disclosure legislative initiatives across the country especially aimed at non profits, will be at most a timely and valuable contribution to ensuring the protection of free speech.”

Bradley Files

In 2017, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), publishers of SourceWatch, launched a series of articles on the Milwaukee-based Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, exposing the inner-workings of one of America's largest right-wing foundations. 56,000 previously undisclosed documents laid bare the Bradley Foundation's highly politicized agenda. CMD detailed Bradley's efforts to map and measure right wing infrastructure nationwide, including by dismantling and defunding unions to impact state elections; bankrolling discredited spin doctor Richard Berman and his many front groups; and more.

Find the series here at ExposedbyCMD.org.

Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

IFS's Matt Nese attended ALEC's 2020 States and Nation Policy Summit.

Former CCP President Sean Parnell served on the Public Safety and Elections Task Force of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). At the 2011 ALEC Annual Meeting, he introduced the "Resolution in Support of Appropriate Disclosure Requirements" model policy for adoption by the Public Safety and Elections Task Force.[19] On July 20, 2011, Parnell published an article in The Daily Caller (conservative/Republican news organization founded by conservative reporter Tucker Carlson and former Dick Cheney aide Neil Patel) criticizing Common Cause for requesting that the Internal Revenue Service look into claims that ALEC, in violation of the laws governing 501(c)(3) organizations, has engaged in lobbying.[20] According to an August 2013 ALEC board document obtained by The Guardian, CCP terminated its ALEC membership on March 19, 2013 because the Justice Policy Project (JPP), which replaced the Public Safety and Elections Task Force at ALEC, "no longer works on issue."[21]

About ALEC
ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our ExposedbyCMD.org site.

Litigation

The Institute for Free Speech characterizes their previous legislative battles in the following way on their website:

‘’’Carey v. FEC Carey et al v. FEC, asks the FEC to acknowledge what the courts have already decided: that any political action committee may make contributions to federal candidates using limited funds while also engaging in independent expenditures using segregated funds raised for that purpose. The FEC has demanded that grassroots organizations jump through burdensome regulatory hoops just to speak out about candidates running for office.

Center for Competitive Politics v. Federal Election Commission

The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) seeking a controversial agency document denied to CCP despite a Freedom of Information Act request. That document relates to a complaint against Crossroads GPS that was dismissed by the FEC last December.

Coalition for Secular Government v. Williams

Colorado resident Diana Hsieh, a doctor of philosophy, organized the non-profit Coalition for Secular Government with her friend Ari Armstrong in order to promote a secular understanding of individual rights, including freedom of conscience and the separation of church and state. Because of unconstitutionally vague state laws, confusion as to what constitutes political speech and what is covered under a press exemption, and a refusal by the state to abide by a federal court order, Hsieh and CSG have found it nearly impossible to carry out the activities of a small non-profit group without fear of running afoul of complex Colorado campaign finance laws. With CCP’s Help, the Coalition for Secular Government was victorious in court. The Colorado law was ruled unconstitutional in this case.

Corsi v. OEC

Supreme Court rulings over the past four decades have limited the scope of federal committee status to groups that are “under the control of a candidate or the major purpose of which is the nomination or election of a candidate.” Ohio purports to incorporate the major purpose test required by the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling. But the OEC’s interpretation, upheld by the state courts, interpreted the statute to require an organization to register as a PAC even where political advocacy does not comprise a majority—or even a substantial portion—of its activity or expenditures.

Delaware Strong Families v. Denn

Should the state have the power to regulate groups that publish nonpartisan voter guides in the same way that it regulates candidate committees, political parties and PACs? That’s the issue at stake in Delaware Strong Families v. Attorney General of the State of Delaware, a case challenging a new Delaware law that violates the First Amendment by placing unconstitutional burdens on groups publishing nonpartisan voter guides.

Emineth v. Jaeger

The Center for Competitive Politics filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, challenging a state ban on “electioneering on election day.” The complaint states that the ban, which prohibits all election-day attempts to “induce or persuade” any North Dakota resident to vote a particular way, is a prior restraint on speech and unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Holmes v. FEC

Can Congress impede political participation and association by forcing an individual to split her political donations between primary and general elections? Federal law forces individuals to split their campaign contributions on a per-election basis. Thus, in 2014, a donor was forced to split her donation into $2,600 for the primary election and $2,600 for the general. This rule impedes the political participation of a donor who only wants to support her party nominee—and avoid wasting her donation on the intra-party squabbles of a primary election. IFS filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Florida couple who are challenging this law, saying that the per-election requirement mandated by Congress force them to either potentially waste $2,600 on a candidate for the party nomination or give up exercising their constitutional rights to the full extent allowed by law.

James v. FEC

The case stems from the efforts of Virginia James, a private citizen, who seeks to give contributions directly to candidates up to the biennial aggregate limit of $117,000. However, federal law allows only $46,200 of that amount, in aggregate, to be given directly to candidates; the rest must be contributed to PACs and party committees. James is not challenging the overall limit, but rather wishes to give the entirety of her contributions to candidates directly, instead of being forced to act through PACs and other political organizations.

Independence Institute v. FEC

Can a think tank run ads advocating for public policy without first registering with the federal government and disclosing its donors? That is the question at the core of Independence Institute v. FEC. The Independence Institute, a Colorado think tank, wants to run genuine issue ads that happen to mention a name of a political candidate. Campaign finance law currently requires that the Independence Institute register with the government and report certain donors to the FEC in order to be able to run the issue ads. While speech related directly to campaigns may require disclosure, genuine issue speech does not fall under this category. In this case, CCP is defending the right to speak on public policy issues without first reporting its activities in a government database and disclosing donors who give to causes they believe in.

Independence Institute v. Williams

Can a think tank run ads advocating for public policy without first registering with the federal government and disclosing its donors? That is the question at the core of Independence Institute v. Williams. The Independence Institute, a Colorado think tank, wants to run genuine issue ads that happen to mention a name of a political candidate. Campaign finance law currently requires that the Independence Institute register with the government and report certain donors in order to be able to run the issue ads. While speech related directly to campaigns may require disclosure, genuine issue speech does not fall under this category. In this case, CCP is defending the right to speak on public policy issues without first reporting its activities in a government database and disclosing donors who give to causes they believe in.

Lake Travis Citizens Council v. Ashley

This case challenges the definition of a political committee under Texas state law. There are two key issues. First, the law itself is unconstitutionally vague because it defines a campaign expenditure as speech made “in connection with a campaign for an elective office or on a measure.” Second, the Texas Ethics Commission has defined principal purpose, a term used to determine if a group is a political committee, as expenditures on electoral advocacy constituting 25% or more of a group’s calendar year spending. The Lake Travis Citizens Council wishes to run a series of Facebook ads on issues facing the community, but because of Texas’s overbroad definitions regarding the regulation of campaign ads, the Council reasonably fears that the Texas Ethics Commission will attempt to regulate the organization and its communications as political speech.

Libertarian National Committee v. FEC

The case was filed in 2011 and concerned the estate of Raymond Groves Burrington of Knox County, Tennessee, who left the Libertarian Party $217,734 in his will. Because that amount exceeded the annual limit on contributions to national party committees, the LNC was forced to place funds in escrow, withdrawing only the amount permitted by the FEC. The LNC seeks the full amount of the bequest, as well as the ability to implement a planned giving program that would solicit bequests exceeding the annual contribution limit.

Patriotic Veterans v. Indiana

Can a group of veterans be prohibited from advocating for public policy, because they wish to use robocalls?That is the question at the heart of Patriotic Veterans v. Indiana.

Patriotic Veterans, a small advocacy organization, is challenging an Indiana law that bans automated phone calls containing a political message. Political groups with limited resources use automated phone calls to inexpensively spread their message and gain support, but Indiana regulations have effectively targeted political calls. This infringes on Patriotic Veterans First Amendment rights, limiting their ability to advocate for causes they believe in. Groups with more resources can afford live operator calls and other communication methods that are unaffected by the ban. By imposing more costs on smaller politically active groups like Patriotic Veterans, while exempting other kinds of speakers, Indiana has unconstitutionally limited their ability to speak out about issues and campaigns.

Rubin v. Theobald

David Rubin is a resident of the Town of Manlius, New York. He wishes to exercise his First Amendment right to engage in political speech by posting yard signs in support of his favorite political candidates on his private property. The Town of Manlius, however, prohibited individuals from displaying political yard signs except during the thirty days before and seven days after an election. Even when citizens are allowed to display such signs, they were first required to obtain a permit. The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) legal team, representing Dr. Rubin, filed a lawsuit challenging the town’s unconstitutional restrictions on political yard signs. In early September, the Town of Manlius repealed the code and agreed to not enact further unconstitutional restrictions on yard signs. The case was voluntarily dismissed.

Utah Taxpayers Association, et al. v. Cox, et al.

When a state decides to regulate the speech of citizen groups, it must specify in an understandable way what speech triggers regulation and detailed reporting to the government. Even if a state does this correctly, does it have the power to force groups that spend only a small portion of their funding advocating for or against ballot initiatives to file reports in the same manner as it regulates candidate committees, political parties, and PACs? On behalf of the Utah Taxpayers Association, Utah Taxpayers Legal Foundation, and Libertas Institute, the Center challenged this dangerous and expansive new donor disclosure law. On July 14, 2016, Utah conceded that the law in question did indeed violate the First Amendment, and the state signed a consent decree acknowledging that it would not enforce the unconstitutional statute.’’’

Funding

IFS does not disclose its funders and it is not required to by law. On its website only writes, "In order to maintain its independence, the Institute for Free Speech accepts no government funding. We receive funding from individuals and foundations. Approximately five percent of the Institute’s funding comes from for-profit corporations."[22]

However, major foundation supporters can be found through their IRS filings. Here are some known contributors:

Core Financials

2020 [23]

2019 [24]

2018 [25]

2017 [26]

2016 [27]

2015 [28]

2014 [28]

2013 [28]

2012 [28]

2011 [28]

Personnel

Staff

As of May 2022:[29]

Former Staff

Board of Directors

As of May 4, 2022:[30]

Board of Academic Advisors

As of May 2022:[31]

Contact Details

Institute for Speech

124 S. West Street, Suite 201

Alexandria, VA 22314

Tel: (703) 894-6800

Fax: (703) 894-6811

Website: http://www.campaignfreedom.org

Blog: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/centerforcompetitivepolitics

Twitter: https://twitter.com/campaignfreedom

Employment Identification Number (EIN): 20-3676886

Articles and Resources

[irs 990]

https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2018/07/11/democrats-reintroduce-disclose-act-combat-dark-money-poison/

On June 27, Democrats in both chambers of Congress reintroduced the DISCLOSE Act to provide what the lead Senate sponsor, Sheldon Whitehouse (RI-D), calls “a commonsense solution to restore transparency and accountability in our political system.”

The DISCLOSE Act of 2018 is the most recent iteration of a bill that Democrats have pushed since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which eliminated a century-old federal ban on political spending by corporations.

The “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act” (DISCLOSE) was first introduced in 2010 by Representative Chris Van Hollen and Senator Chuck Schumer. DISCLOSE passed in the House that year but a Republican filibuster threat doomed it in the Senate, despite support from 59 senators.

DISCLOSE ACT WOULD SHINE A LIGHT ON DARK MONEY

The 2018 Senate bill comes out of the gate with all Senate Democrats and both Independents supporting it. The companion legislation in the House, introduced by Congressman David Cicilline (D-RI), already has 159 cosponsors.

As things stand today, corporations and wealthy donors can make unlimited expenditures to support or oppose political candidates through super PACs, independent expenditures, and dark money groups, with much of it hidden from the public. The result is a system where billionaires and large corporations dominate the political landscape with little or no accountability. As two Princeton political scientists put it in a recent study of influence in American politics, “economic elites and organized interest groups play a substantial part in affecting public policy, but the general public has little or no independent influence.”

The Brennan Center for Justice released a report in 2016 that found that “dark money sources often hold direct economic interests in the election outcome.” In the absence of effective disclosure laws, special interests are able to launch campaigns on policy issues and influence how people vote while hiding their stake in the outcome. “When viewers learn more about an ad’s sponsor — for instance, that it’s an out-of-state group or a group that does not report its donors — they may become not only more skeptical about the ad’s message but also more critical of the ad’s intended beneficiary,” the report concluded.

In a recent interview, Rep. Cicilline and Sen. Whitehouse spoke about the importance of the DISCLOSE Act in restoring the integrity of our democracy. “Eight out of ten” Americans do not have faith in our democratic institutions due to the influence of money-in-politics, Whitehouse said. He emphasized that Americans want to have a government that “works for the benefit of the many.”

According to Sen. Whitehouse, dark money “has been poisonous to the American democracy we cherish.” Whitehouse believes that increased transparency would encourage congressional debate about the “merits of clearing dark money out of our political system.”

“The cockroaches are everywhere. I say let’s turn on the lights,” Whitehouse said.

Common Cause, a leading nonpartisan group fighting for campaign reform, praised the proposed law as “grounded in the principle expressed by the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis that ‘sunshine is the best disinfectant.'”

The DISCLOSE Act of 2018 would mandate that organizations spending money in elections —including super PACs and tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups — must promptly disclose their donors who have given $10,000 or more during an election cycle, and report expenditures of $10,000 or more on election ads within 24 hours. In addition, the bill includes provisions to prevent complex money webs from shielding the identities of donors.

Like the 2017 version of the bill, the 2018 DISCLOSE Act would also “ban campaign contributions and expenditures by corporations that are controlled, influenced, or owned by foreign nationals.”

In a new provision, the bill would repeal controversial riders the Republicans forced through on spending bills that prevent the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) from requiring public companies to disclose their political spending to shareholders, bar the IRS from developing post-Citizens United regulations on political spending by 501(c)(4) organizations, and block the government from requiring federal contractors to disclose their political donations.

Lastly, the bill contains a “Stand by Your Ad” provision, authored by Sen. Wyden (D-OR), requiring corporations, unions, and other organizations paying for political ads to disclose their top five funders. A similar proposal earned the support of 59 senators in 2010 but was filibustered by the Republicans.

The 2018 DISCLOSE Act is supported by numerous reform groups, including Americans for Campaign Reform, Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Common Cause, Democracy 21, Demos, League of Women Voters, People For the American Way, Public Citizen, and the Sunlight Foundation.

VIGOROUS OPPOSITION FROM THE RIGHT

Opponents of the DISCLOSE Act include the Institute for Free Speech (formerly known as the Center for Competitive Politics), The Heritage Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, The American Conservative Union, CatholicVote.org, and Citizens Against Government Waste.

These groups argue that the act violates the First Amendment, but a Brennan Center analysis found that “there can be no credible doubt” that a similar 2012 version of the DISCLOSE Act was fully constitutional. As Common Cause points out, “the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected any arguments that disclosure requirements silence speech” and has continually upheld their constitutionality on the grounds that the public has a right to know who is influencing an election. Even the late Justice Antonin Scalia supported disclosure, writing in Doe v. Reed that “[r]equiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren said in an April speech that the DISCLOSE Act would expose the “billionaires [who] have been pouring unlimited, secret money into the hands of carefully picked candidates who will do their bidding.”

Those billionaires fund many of the organizations that oppose the DISCLOSE Act. The Institute for Free Speech (IFS), for example, is funded by conservative donors — such as Richard Uihlein and the Koch brothers — who support Republican candidates and may not want their donations made public.

In 2016, The Bradley Foundation gave IFS $125,000 to fight those calling for greater disclosure rules, something the Bradley Foundation claims will “chill speech,”according to documents acquired by the Center for Media and Democracy.

Rep. Cicilline argues that the lack of disclosure after Citizens United has led to more business-friendly legislation and that dark money in politics leads to “bad public policy.” “The DISCLOSE Act will bring a new level of transparency to our elections. It will ensure the American people know who is really fighting for them. It will restore public faith in our government. It will mark a major step towards fixing what’s broken in Washington,” Cicilline said.

The DISCLOSE Act is part of the Democrats’ broader plan, called “A Better Deal for Our Democracy,” aimed at fixing the federal campaign finance system, improving elections, and strengthening ethics laws.

exxon ~ ESG, chevron cono ~ SEC/ESG:

all big CTT ~ Comments to SEC on ESG rule: comments from CHEVRONacc chem, AEI, AFP, API, cato, cei heartland etc CTT, CoC, co2 coalition, conoco phillips, enbridge, inst for free speech,

Gensler: On behalf of the Institute for Free Speech,1 I respectfully submit the following comments climate change disclosures that Acting Chair Allison Herren Lee discussed in her March 15, 2021, public statement.2 .

p. 153 1 occurrence

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Ryan Morrison Ryan Morrison, Attorney INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH 14 NAM II, 800 F.3d at 526 (quoting Edenfield v. heritage, nam, NMA, noia, lifepowered TPPF, WEA western energy? US oil and gas

june 2022

https://www.vox.com/23058987/sec-climate-finance-disclosure

as drought spreads and sea levels rise, the economic impacts of climate change will run in the trillions of dollars. The insurance firm Swiss Re projects climate disasters would cost the world as much as $23 trillion by 2050, bigger than the impact from the pandemic and the Great Recession of 2009 combined.

It’s reasonable business planning to account for all this foreseeable risk — just like planning for cyberattacks or business disruptions from a pandemic. Last year, for instance, the US had to spend $145 billion dealing with floods, fires, and other climate-related disasters.

Yet somehow, climate change has fallen through the cracks of US financial regulation. Publicly traded companies are required to disclose information about “material” risks that affect their company regardless of their cause, from sanctions to supply chain chaos. But there are no uniform standards for disclosing how much fossil fuel pollution they generate or the impact that climate change could have on their future growth. Instead, companies have been left free to inflate their environmental progress, all with little scrutiny from the public.

This kind of information is, in theory, essential to a functioning free market, so investors can make decisions based on complete information. But fossil fuel interests, conservative ideologues, and corporate trade groups are striving to keep shareholders in the dark on climate risks.

The Biden administration is trying to make companies more publicly accountable for the risk of the climate crisis. A linchpin of Biden’s plan is a draft rule theSecurities and Exchange Commission (SEC)proposed in March. Over 500 pages, the SEC rule proposes that publicly traded companies disclose how climate change affects their business outlook and identify a board member or board committee to focus on climate-related risks.

Once the rule is finalized, companies will have to disclose how their operations are affected by extreme weather events and the impact of climate change on the short- and medium-term business outlook. They’ll also have to report the emissions both from their company’s operations and from how their products are used. This is particularly bad news for fossil fuel companies with business models predicated on selling pollution. Until this rule, they haven’t had to fully account for the environmental impact from things like selling gas that’s burned by consumers’ cars.

This is a rule, in other words, that helps the free market act like the free market, giving investors exactly the information they need to make the decisions,” Emory University business law expert George Georgiev said.

As the draft rule’s comment period came to a close, it’s clear any regulation on climate change faces serious headwinds. The loudest protests have come from right-wing groups and corporate-aligned nonprofits that have flooded the public comments with previews of the argument they’ll take to courts.

Plenty of businesses in the financial sector stand to benefit from this rule, like the investing giant BlackRock, which has pledged to align its assets with climate goals. But some could be hurt. The companies that benefit from greenwashing their climate commitments are doing everything they can to protect the chaotic status quo.

Financial transparency on climate change is hardly a radical idea

The SEC has required and standardized public company disclosures since 1933. In recent decades, the SEC has issued nonbinding guidance on how publicly traded companies should consider Covid-19 disruptions, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and even a feared “Y2K” meltdown at the turn of the 21st century, so the companies would meet their fiduciary duty.

But the SEC has been painfully slow on climate change. Right now, businesses disclose the risks and costs of their business on the climate on a voluntary, patchy basis with no clear standardization.

A 2020 Government Accountability Office surveyed 32 midsize and large publicly traded companies and found little consistency. Airlines, for example, used years anywhere between 1990 and 2017 as the baseline for calculating their climate footprint. Water companies have used completely different measurements for reporting water extraction. Some companies would just report carbon emissions, while others would report total greenhouse gas emissions (including sources like methane).

The proposed SEC rule cites other evidence of companies not paying attention to this risk, like an internal survey of climate-related keywords in companies’ 10-Ks between June 2019 and December 2020. They found only 31 percent mentioned climate change at all.

This information is not just to benefit climate change efforts; it is also useful to investors. It makes clearer, for instance, that a retail company’s warehouses might be threatened by increased flooding, that an airline company might have to ground more flights because of rising heat waves, or that a bank’s backing of major fossil fuel expansion has the strong chance of backfiring in a world that transitions to renewables. Without any regulation and standardization, companies will just continue to try to outshine one another on their environmental and social commitments without hard data to back it. This mismatch will become an existential risk to financial instability if, for example, extreme weather pummels a business that did not prepare accordingly.

Environmental activists have pushed for more from companies by proposing shareholder resolutions at annual meetings that ask for more transparency, but have met with mixed success in shareholder votes that don’t bind the company to taking action.

In this regulatory vacuum, voluntary global affiliations have cropped up, including the Net Zero Assets Managers Initiative, representing some $43 trillion in assets, and Climate Action 100+, representing more than $60 trillion. Another of these groups is run out of the Financial Stability Board as a Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), a voluntary system that has grown to more than 3,000 companies. The task force’s recommendations tell companies to consider the short-, medium-, and long-term climate impacts, emissions that result from investment decisions, and their operations’ pollution, and account for the changing climate’s consequences for the business. The hundreds of companies that voluntarily comply with these standards aren’t necessarily green or good for the environment, but it’s an extra gold star for their sustainability transparency.

Eight countries, including the UK, have passed laws that will mirror the TFCD’s recommendations, but the US would remain an outlier without the SEC rule. “Investors put their money where they think there’s a good opportunity and good information,” said Steven Rothstein, managing director of the Ceres Accelerator for Sustainable Capital Markets. “If we don’t have good information, we run the risk of falling behind internationally.”

The SEC’s rule is basically the US playing catch-up, based on standards the mainstream corporate community aligned with TFCD have already backed.

Initially, companies will have to spend extra to comply with the rule — up to $530,000 a year for larger companies by the SEC’s estimate, but it will vary depending on how much companies are doing already on climate disclosure. Typically, the costs of rules shrink over time. Otherwise, the rule itself is quite modest. The SEC is “not saying you should or shouldn’t invest in climate products,” Rothstein said. “They’re just saying, tell investors what you’re doing and do it in a consistent way.”

Environmentalists and some Democratic lawmakers argue the SEC could be doing even more. The SEC does not change how companies disclose climate-related activities like PR campaigns and political influence, the kind of activities that tend to be outsourced to nonprofits that shield their activities from the public. In March, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) called it a “failure of nerve that shies away from a perfectly legal, necessary response to the climate danger we face” because political efforts remain “the single most material disclosures a company could make to achieve climate safety.”

Right-wing groups claim financial transparency is an attack on free speech

Unsurprisingly, the SEC is facing immense pressure to withdraw this rule because of the same shadowy political spending that companies don’t have to disclose in the first place. Groups like the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, Americans for Prosperity, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute have flooded the SEC with comments that argue company free speech would be violated.

Trade groups and right-wing think tanks have argued that requiring companies to report these emissions is akin to violating their First Amendment rights of free speech, pointing to a court case that ruled a regulation requiring the disclosure of conflict-zone minerals would amount to :{“:(style="background-color:#ff9900;"):}::{compelled speech”:(style="background-color:#ff6600;"):}: and violated the companies’ rights.

The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry lobby, has argued the rule “could raise serious First Amendment issues under recent applying strict scrutiny to content-based laws compelling speech.”

The argument has found purchase with conservative lawmakers, like West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey,who picked up the argument in his 2021 letter to Treasury last year. In Congress, 19 Republican senators argued in their submitted comments that the rule is “not within the SEC’s mission to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation.” Another 40 Republican representatives wrote that the rule will act to “undermine and shame public companies,” while Republican attorneys general describes the rule as a “total reordering of [the SEC’s] present disclosure regime.”

The attack on regulation under the guise of First Amendment rights has become more familiar in recent years. “Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has been steadily giving corporations more and more leeway, more and more rights,” said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a corporate law expert who has published several books on corporate speech.

The court also opened the door to more of these lawsuits, striking down a California law that required nonprofits to disclose their donors, siding with the Americans for Prosperity Foundation’s argument against disclosing their donors and providing IRS 990 forms to the state. Other legal challenges to campaign finance laws and unions have used the First Amendment.

Legal experts supportive of the SEC rule consider the argument a long shot in courts. “I think that argument is really far-fetched,” Emory’s Georgiev said.

But it’s still worrisome. If it succeeds, whether in courts or as a scare tactic to get the SEC to backtrack, it sets a dangerous precedent for the financial system at large. “If this climate rule is violating the First Amendment, it’s been all nine decades [the SEC has been] violating the First Amendment,” Georgiev said. “They will definitely try it out in courts. At the end of the day, a lot of far-fetched arguments succeed in courts.”

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20892344-comments-to-sec-on-esg-rule#document/p33/a2075289

comments from acc chem, AEI, AFP, API, cato, cei heartland etc CTT, CoC, co2 coalition, conoco phillips, enbridge, inst for free speech, heritage, nam, NMA, noia, lifepoerwed TPPF, WEA western energy? US oil and gas

Comments to SEC on ESG rule

Ryan Morrison, Attorney

Ryan joined the Institute for Free Speech as an Attorney in December 2018. He began his career as a prosecutor at the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. through the Attorney General's Honors Program.

IFS Staff - Institute For Free Speech

https://www.ifs.org › ifs-staff

Institute for Free Speech Welcomes Attorney Ryan Morrison

https://www.ifs.org › news › institute-for-free-speech-w...

Dec 3, 2018 — “Ryan is an experienced trial attorney with a pedigree of distinguished legal service,” said Institute for Free Speech Legal Director Allen ...

https://www.ifs.org › news › ifs-attorney-ryan-morrison...

Feb 6, 2020 — “The proposed rule will help protect free speech. The IRS should not warehouse sensitive personal information it doesn't need,” said IFS ...

Ryan Morrison - Attorney - The Institute for Free Speech

https://www.linkedin.com › ryan-morrison-aa50187

Successful attorney that can manage an office, organize, delegate, and react to events decisively and effectively. Record of delivering exceptional results ...

Ryan Morrison - The Dispatch

https://thedispatch.com › 11708498-ryan-morrison

Jun 16, 2020 — Ryan Morrison is an attorney at the Institute for Free Speech in Washington, D.C..

https://thedispatch.com › a-victory-for-free-speech-at-the

The IRS is not often a friend to free speech. But on this occasion, we should commend it. Ryan Morrison is an attorney at the Institute for Free Speech in ...

Request for Comments on Climate Change Disclosure

https://www.sec.gov › cll12-8904255-243679

PDF

Jun 10, 2021 — On behalf of the Institute for Free Speech,1 I respectfully submit the following comments ... Ryan Morrison, Attorney. INSTITUTE FOR FREE ...

3 pages

Institute for Free Speech - SourceWatch

https://www.sourcewatch.org › index.php › Institute_for_...

May 4, 2022 — Ryan Morrison, Attorney; Alex Baiocco, Policy Analyst; Susan Bradley, Office Manager; Tiffany Donnelly, Media Manager; Glynis Gilio, First ...