Following the Senate’s confirmation of former Representative Tom Price as the Secretary of Health and Human Services in early February 2017, all eyes have been on Georgia’s 6th congressional district. After Democrat Jon Ossoff narrowly failed to meet the 50%-plus-one vote threshold, which would have given him the seat outright, a runoff with Republican nominee […]
By Joshua Rich
Elizabeth Arias graduated from UCLA School of Law in May and immediately turned her attention to the first major test of her legal career…
On June 16, Arias delivered oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in French v. Jones, a First Amendment case with potentially far-reaching implications for election-related speech.
Seizing an exceedingly rare opportunity for someone just a few weeks out of law school, Arias represented the Center for Competitive Politics, a nonprofit for which UCLA Law professor Eugene Volokh and the students in his Scott and Cyan Banister First Amendment Clinic researched and drafted an amicus curiae brief. That document supported Mark French, a 2014 candidate for justice of the peace in Sanders County, Montana, who was barred by state law from saying that the Republican Party had endorsed him. French lost that race, but his challenge to the statute has lived on.
“The case is about whether judges can associate with a political party and whether the Montana law unfairly burdens judicial speech,” said Arias, who argued that the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s protections of free speech and association.
Filed Under: In the News
More evidence money doesn’t buy elections Alexandria, VA – Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) President David Keating today criticized comments made by losing congressional candidate Jon Ossoff complaining about the role of money in politics in his race. Ossoff told NPR that “The role of money in politics is a major problem …. There have been super PACs in […]
By Alex Baiocco
It is heartening to see that Whitehouse is now encouraging citizens (and corporations) to engage in political speech instead of yet again attempting to silence opposing viewpoints.
His statement demonstrates that he does indeed understand the value of First Amendment-protected advocacy. However, the statement is also an example of the far too common tendency among many politicians to view only friendly advocacy as legitimate.
The First Amendment protects the right of every American to privately support an environmental group. It also supports the right of every corporation to speak in opposition to the president’s actions regarding climate policy.
But Whitehouse must realize that the First Amendment also protects the right of citizens, nonprofit groups, and corporations to engage in political speech he opposes. In the end, his anti-speech objectives will harm the First Amendment rights of his allies as much as his opponents.
On Tuesday, The Washington Post hosted a series of First Amendment panels at its offices in an event called “Free to State: A New Era for the First Amendment.” The panels touched on several different topics related to free speech and freedom of religion and were moderated by Post writers. The Post’s Publisher and Chief […]
Filed Under: Blog, ACLU, Ann Coulter, Campus Speech, Christina Paxson, Digital Speech, Floyd Abrams, free speech, Nadine Strossen, Offensive Speech, Religious Liberty, Robert Zimmer, The Washington Post
By Tyler O’Neil
As if the 2016 presidential primaries and general election were not enough, the Georgia 6 special election underscored that money does not win elections. This special election was the most expensive House election in U.S. history, and the candidate who spent the most lost.
Ossoff’s campaign raised and spent $24 million, while Handel’s campaign only raised and spent $4.5 million. Handel did receive more support from outside groups ($18.2 million supporting her or attacking Ossoff) than Ossoff did (just under $8 million supporting him or attacking Handel). But Ossoff still received $10 million more in support than Handel…
Money does not win elections, votes do. “Campaign spending facilitates speech, and ads can only persuade voters who support the candidate’s message,” David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, told PJ Media.
You know that feeling when you read an op-ed on a pertinent issue and all of a sudden you realize there is no author listed? Your heart starts beating out of your chest. Your palms get sweaty. Pupils dilate. You have just been exposed to the immense danger of ANONYMOUS POLITICAL SPEECH. No, of course, […]
By Aurora Barnes
The petition of the day is:
Patriotic Veterans, Inc. v. Hill
Issues: (1) Whether Indiana’s Automatic Dialing Machine Statute creates a content-based restriction that cannot survive strict scrutiny under Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona; and (2) whether the ADMS is a valid time, place and manner restriction.
CCP amicus brief: voters, not government, evaluate appropriateness of candidate expression Alexandria, VA – The Mississippi Supreme Court last week dismissed with prejudice an attempt to discipline a judge over constitutionally protected speech. The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP), represented by the UCLA Scott & Cyan Banister First Amendment Clinic, filed a brief in the case […]
Filed Under: Blog, Newsroom, Press Releases, Eugene Volokh, Judge Gay Polk-Payton, Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Judge Gay Polk-Payton, UCLA Scott & Cyan Banister First Amendment Clinic, Mississippi
By Luke Wachob
Missouri Governor Eric Greitens believes that individuals should be able to support causes they believe in privately. Missourians who donate to nonprofit groups such as the National Rifle Association, he says, should not be forced to have their name, address, occupation and employer appear in a public and searchable government database…
Governor Greitens should be commended for bucking the trend of politicians, like Schumer and McCaskill, who attempt to silence their critics. In supporting privacy and free speech, the governor protects both his supporters and detractors from retaliation.
Policymakers should seek balance between transparency and privacy. We have a right to know what our government is doing, but the government has no right to monitor our political affiliations or beliefs. Requiring candidates and parties to disclose their donors, while protecting privacy for nonprofit advocacy groups, is a compromise everyone should get behind.