Center for Competitive Politics

“No such committees existed.”

“The institute's audit committee reviews a draft of the 990 prior to filing. A copy of the form 990 is also provided to the institute's governing body before it is filed.”

“Every year both the board of directors and every officer reviews the conflict of interest policy and must disclose any conflicts. The board of directors reviews the policy at or around its final meeting of the year and each member provides written acknowledgment. Every employee also receives an electronic copy of the policy. Any conflicts or potential conflicts are resolved by the president or otherwise reported by the president and reviewed and resolved by the board of directors. In reviewing any conflict or potential conflict, any member of the board of directors who may have a conflict is recused from resolving the conflict or potential conflict.”

“The president's compensation is negotiated with the chairman, and approved by the board. Compensation for employees is approved by the president.”

“The institute's form 990 is available on its website and is available to the public upon request. The audited financial statements are available on its website.”

“Professional fees: program service expenses 147,502. Management and general expenses 6,972. Fundraising expenses 43,357. Total expenses 197,831.”

“The process did not change from the prior year. The board of directors is responsible for the selection of the independent auditors and oversight of the independent audit.”

“Calzone v. Missouri ethics commission can a state government fine you simply for talking to state legislators? That is the question at the center of calzone v. Missouri ethics commission (mec). In august 2016, institute for free speech (ifs) took the case of ron calzone, a citizen activist in the state of missouri. Some legislators and lobbyists in the state are attempting to silence mr. Calzone, who has for many years advocated for individual liberty, free markets, and constitutionally limited government. Unfortunately, as mr. Calzone says, "my activism has made some powerful enemies-maybe high-paid lobbyists don't like having to explain to their clients why average citizens, using nothing more than facts, reason and speech, beat them at their own game time and again." calzone says he has "angered powerful legislators by opposing them when they were trying to advance unconstitutional bills or ignore constitutional limits on their power." mr. Calzone's difficulties with state regulators began on election day in 2014, when the society of government consultants, a lobbyist guild in missouri, filed a complaint with the missouri ethics commission. The complaint claimed that, when mr. Calzone spoke with legislators during his advocacy, he was acting as a paid lobbyist - and that his failure to register as a lobbyist with the state was against the law, subjecting him to fines and possibly even jail time. Ifs's legal team has stepped in to defend mr. Calzone against these charges, representing calzone when his case came before the missouri ethics commission. The ethics commission has argued that because mr. Calzone has publicly mentioned his involvement with missouri first - a nonprofit organization with no financial resources - he must register as a lobbyist and list missouri first as the organization for which he is speaking. Registered lobbyists must pay a registration fee and regularly submit reports detailing all of the ways in which they have attempted to influence legislation. Not only does the registration requirement put an impermissible condition on a citizen's constitutionally-protected freedom of speech, it also puts speakers at risk of huge fines - and potential criminal penalties - if the required reports are deemed incomplete. We believe that the missouri ethics commission's claim is thankfully not the law in missouri, and would be unconstitutional if it were. Neither missouri first nor any other organization has ever designated mr. Calzone as a lobbyist, or paid him at all for the communication at issue in this case. We are confident that the courts will vindicate mr. Calzone's clear constitutional right to engage in uncompensated conversation with officials concerning the laws that will govern this state. On april 19, 2016, the nineteenth judicial circuit court of missouri issued a preliminary order of prohibition and ordered the state to cease all action in the matter. On september 23, 2016, the order was made permanent. The state has appealed. On october 21, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the u.s. District court for the western district of missouri. To prevent continued violations of calzone's first amendment right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances," the suit asks the federal court to permanently order the mec to stop its "enforcement of an unconstitutional law." the filing with the federal court notes that "an untold number of americans exercise this right every day, whether by writing letters to members of the state and federal legislature, calling or emailing a representative, appearing in-person or in a group in a legislative office, testifying before legislative committees, or even asking a question at a town hall meeting to persuade elected officials concerning public policy and provide them with information." "nevertheless, by applying the law against persons that merely talk to members of the general assembly, without receiving any compensation and without expending any money on members”

“Coalition for secular government v. Williams this case asked for declaratory and injunctive relief under the first and fourteenth amendments concerning colorado's regulation of a nonprofit organization and its distribution of a public policy paper. Colorado resident diana hsieh, a doctor of philosophy, organized the nonprofit coalition for secular government (csg) 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 found it nearly impossible to carry out the activities of a small nonprofit group without fear of running afoul of complex colorado campaign finance laws. This litigation sought to protect small issue-focused organizations like csg from being laden with the burdens of campaign finance disclosure that serves no legitimate purpose, and challenged the constitutionality of colorado's "issue committee" definition and regulations. The coalition won their challenge in district court, with the judge writing that "any 'informational interest' the government has in mandating contribution and expenditure disclosures [is] so minimal as to be nonexistent [in this case], and certainly insufficient to justify the burdens compliance imposes on members' constitutional free speech and association rights." the ruling provisionally awarded attorney's fees as the prevailing party under 42 u.s.c. 1983 and 1988. The ruling was affirmed by the tenth circuit court of appeals. The state petitioned the u.s. Supreme court for review of the decision, but the petition was denied on october 3, 2016. The case was formally closed on april 7, 2017 after colorado paid $220,000 in attorney's fees. After the lower court rulings, the state passed a new law to fix the defect identified by the courts. Now groups like csg only need to file one short form until they spend more than $5,000. Success in this case protected the general public's first amendment right to free speech.”

“Federal election commission v. Jeremy johnson and john swallow attorneys from the institute for free speech asked a federal judge on october 23, 2017 to dismiss the federal election commission's (fec) case against former utah attorney general john swallow. The filing said swallow broke no law and that the regulation cited in the fec complaint is itself illegal and violates the first amendment. The case stems from a 2015 fec complaint against businessman jeremy johnson, who is alleged to have engaged in an illegal straw-donor scheme. The institute for free speech is representing only mr. Swallow in the case. The fec does not claim that mr. Swallow participated in the allegedly unlawful behavior. There was no evidence that swallow made illegal contributions or provided funds for straw contributions by others. Rather, the fec alleges that mr. Swallow gave advice that may have helped mr. Johnson. However, congress never enacted secondary liability - punishing someone for helping another - for this kind of offense. Swallow also denies the fec's allegations, though the involvement of the institute's attorneys is limited to litigating against the illegally adopted regulation that violates the first amendment. "the fec's pursuit of mr. Swallow is a clear overreach of the agency's constitutional authority, made especially dangerous by the fact that it concerns his speech rather than his actions," said institute for free speech legal director allen dickerson in a press statement. "only congress may create liability, and it spoke clearly: the only people liable for a prohibited contribution in the name of another are the person making the contribution and his or her knowing conduits." among other deficiencies, the regulation "fails review under the administrative procedure act and fails constitutional scrutiny. The supreme court has unambiguously held that administrative agencies may not simply read secondary civil liability into a statute, and that the power to create secondary civil liability lies with congress alone," the institute for free speech's brief explains. In protecting constitutional rights, courts have long prevented agencies from acting outside of the law. If congress would like to create secondary liability for contributions made in the name of another, it can do so. The fec cannot. In addition to being outside granted authority, the fec's regulation is itself unconstitutional under the first amendment. It would chill a wide range of protected speech about candidates beyond the specifics of the case against swallow. Such restrictions must survive "strict scrutiny," the most stringent standard of review used by courts. This regulation fails that test. "the innocent activity the fec would chill," the brief notes, "includes advising others about which candidate will best represent their interests, and notifying fundraisers that supporters with whom they were working had fallen through with their promises. Against this obvious first amendment harm, the fec can only suggest that by muzzling mr. Swallow, mr. Johnson would not have gone forward with an unlawful scheme. That connection is too attenuated, and the balance of harms too severe." the institute for free speech consistently holds administrative agencies accountable for regulatory overreach that harms first amendment freedoms. The institute's brief asks the court to immediately dismiss the complaint against mr. Swallow and strike the fec's unlawful regulation. On april 6, 2018, u.s. District court judge dee benson ruled that the fec "exceed[ed] its authority to write regulations and improperly intrud[ed] into the realm of law making that is the exclusive province of congress." the ruling effectively ends the fec's litigation against swallow. "the federal election commission's brazen attempt to supplant congress was rightly rejected by the court. Unelected commissioners cannot act outside of the law to punish conduct they deem inappropriate," said institute for free speec”

“Holmes et al. V. Federal election commission this case raised an as-applied first amendment challenge to a law that often allows congressional incumbents to raise twice as much from contributors to spend on their general election campaigns as compared to challengers. Federal campaign finance laws limit campaign contributions to candidates to $2,700 for the primary election and $2,700 for the general election. However, donations of $5,400 are permitted through the day of the primary, though only half that amount can be spent on the primary race. Incumbents, who rarely face a competitive primary, can raise up to $5,400 in a single contribution over a much longer time period than most challengers and often spend it all on the general election. A challenger, on the other hand, will usually have to defeat opponents in the primary election and have scant primary funds left to spend on the november contest. The day after the primary, challengers are hamstrung to raising just $2,700 per donor for the general election, effectively half the amount raised from many donors by incumbents for use in a general election campaign. Success in this case will protect the general public's first amendment right to free speech. On april 26, 2016, the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit ruled that our constitutional challenge must be heard by the united states court of appeals sitting en banc. The institute for free speech's brief was filed august 15, 2016. Oral argument was held march 29, 2017. On november 28, 2017, the appeals court upheld the law. A petition for review was filed with the u.s. Supreme court in february 2018, but it was denied. Success in this case would have protected the first amendment right to association, the fifth amendment right to equal protection, or both.”

“Howard jarvis taxpayers association v. Brown can state legislators overturn the will of the people in order to institute tax-financed campaigns? Under california law, the institute for free speech believes the answer is clearly no. On behalf of the howard jarvis taxpayers association and retired state senator and judge quentin l. Kopp, the institute for free speech joins the center for constitutional jurisprudence and bell, mcandrews, and hiltachk, llp in a suit against california for enacting a law that would do just that, in violation of the state's constitution and law. In 1974, voters passed the political reform act of 1974 via the state's robust initiative process. In 1988, that initiative was amended, again by voters, with the passage of proposition 73, which prohibited tax dollars to be used for the purpose of funding politicians' campaigns. In 2000, again by initiative, voters reaffirmed the ban on tax-financed campaigns by passing proposition 34. In order to protect state legislators from tampering with the law, this initiative also revoked the ability of the legislature to amend any part of the political reform initiative without voter approval. Californians spoke clearly - any changes to the ban on tax-financed campaigns need to be approved by the voters, and not just with the passage of a bill by the legislature. But in 2016, california legislators ignored the voters of their state. They passed, and governor jerry brown signed, s.b. 1107. That bill amended the political reform act of 1974 to allow tax-financed campaigns at the state and local level, in direct contravention of the law, the california constitution, and the clearly established desire of voters. A sacramento county superior court judge struck down the law on august 24, 2017. The court ruled the legislature's attempt to bypass a vote of the people prohibiting such legislation was a violation of the california constitution and the 1974 political reform act as amended. In his ruling, judge timothy m. Frawley noted that "the purpose of [proposition 73] is straightforward: to ban taxpayer financing of political campaigns for elective office. [s.b. 1107] conflicts with the purposes of the political reform act because it violates this specific mandate." judge frawley wrote that "the issue in this case is not whether the legislature's reversal on the ban on public financing of political campaigns is a good idea, it is only whether the amendment [by the legislature] furthers the purposes of the act. [t]he court concludes it does not." the state appealed the decision january 9, 2018. Its opening brief is due august 31, 2018. Success in this case will help protect the initiative process in california and ensure that tax-financed campaigns can become law only with approval by the voters.”

“Independence institute v. Federal election commission the independence institute wished to run an ad asking colorado senators mark udall and michael bennet to support a federal sentencing reform bill. The mccain-feingold law effectively prevented the group from raising money for the ads. Federal law treats speech about public issues as campaign speech whenever a candidate is mentioned in a broadcast ad within 60 days of the general election. Groups must either file public reports with personal details about donors who have provided funds for the ads, or refrain from speaking. The result is what first amendment advocates call a "chilling" effect on advocacy, depriving the public of important speech about issues of public importance. Donors and speakers have many reasons to protect their privacy. Some fear retaliation from government officials who disagree with them. Others fear physical harm or threats to themselves and their families, vandalism to their property, loss of employment, or boycotts of their business if they support unpopular views. Some just value their privacy, or don't want their contributions to spur numerous requests for assistance from other groups discussing other issues. Nonetheless, federal law transforms issue speech into campaign speech whenever a candidate for office is mentioned within two months of the general election. As a result, many groups choose silence over advocacy. This case presented an as-applied first and fifth amendment challenge to the bipartisan campaign reform act's provisions requiring a nonprofit airing an advertisement mentioning a candidate before an election, but neither supporting nor opposing that candidate, to register with the federal government and report its donors. The institute sought to vindicate the public's right to seek official government action from officeholders without opening its books to public disclosure. Success in this case would have increased protections for the public's first amendment right to free speech. It would have also helped protect the privacy of donors to causes, which encourages the public to give generously to support efforts to promote sound public policies. On march 1, 2016, the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit ruled that our constitutional challenge to federal electioneering communications disclosure requirements must be heard by a three-judge district court. This decision didn't reach the merits of our case - it ordered the lower court to give our clients the three-judge panel provided for by the law. As such, it was a key procedural victory and it set an important precedent in the d.c. Circuit, where nearly all federal campaign finance law challenges are brought. In a sign of this case's importance, bob bauer, a former white house counsel who runs an influential blog on campaign finance law, wrote that this lawsuit "could prove to be highly significant. To date, the [supreme] court has not been confronted with well-argued as-applied challenges that force its engagement with the harder questions [on disclosure issues] that a suit like independence institute raises." on november 3, 2016, the three-judge panel upheld the law. An appeal of the decision was filed with the u.s. Supreme court on december 5, 2016. U.s. Senator majority leader mitch mcconnell, the u.s. Chamber of commerce, the philanthropy roundtable, the state policy network and 24 affiliated state think tanks, and the institute for justice and the cato institute, among others, filed amicus briefs urging the supreme court to fully consider the case. Ten first amendment scholars also filed a joint brief. On february 27, 2017, the u.s. Supreme court affirmed without comment the lower court's ruling. The court's order reflected agreement with the lower court's result, but not necessarily its reasoning. The order does not indicate how any of the justices voted or why.”

“Institute for free speech v. Becerra as in most other states, charities soliciting contributions in california are required to register with the state. Each year, registered charities are required to file a copy of their irs form 990 tax returns with the california attorney general's office as a condition for maintaining their constitutionally protected legal ability to solicit contributions in the state. On schedule b of the form 990, charities are required to report to the irs the names, addresses, and amounts of all donors who have given either at least $5,000 or more than 2% of the organization's total revenue during the year. The schedule b is submitted to the irs on a confidential basis and, under federal law, the agency is prohibited from releasing this information to anyone - including state officials. Similar privacy protections do not exist under california's and many other state's laws. Historically, the california attorney general has not required registered charities to file a copy of their confidential, unredacted form 990 schedule b donor lists with the state. The attorney general only began demanding this information in recent years, and the sudden demands did not arise from any changes in, and are not specifically authorized by, the state's laws and regulations. The attorney general also has not cited any recent change in circumstances warranting these demands. Because the attorney general is not legally entitled to this information and has no good reason for having it, the institute for free speech (ifs) filed suit to stop this practice. We argue that the california attorney general's demands for our donor information is an infringement of ifs and its donors' first amendment rights to free speech and association. Donors who may not necessarily wish to speak on their own about an issue may choose to exercise their right to speak by giving to an organization to speak on their behalf. This is particularly true for unpopular or controversial issues - precisely the type of speech for which the first amendment's protections are most important. Donors to an organization also associate with each other for the purpose of making their voices louder and more effective. Donors must be free to give to any lawful cause of their choosing without government intrusion. If government officials are looking over donors' shoulders and reviewing which groups they give to, that will create a chilling effect and reduce donors' willingness to give to certain groups, thereby reducing their ability to speak and to associate freely. The attorney general also claims that the default rule should be for individual charities opposing demands for their donor information to demonstrate that they will face particularized harm from turning the data over to the government. In effect, this creates a catch-22, in which organizations and their donors can claim an exemption to harm only after they have already suffered harm or threats, but organizations and donors would have no protection against unforeseeable future harms. The first amendment case law does not support such a rule that only looks backward. Success in this case will protect the general public's first amendment right to free speech. It will also protect the privacy of donors to charitable organizations, which will encourage the public to give generously to support the charitable missions of a wide variety of organizations.”

“Joe markley and rob sampson v. State elections enforcement commission. For voters, what information about legislative candidates could be more important than knowing their views on the governor's key policies? Yet the state of connecticut has fined two general assembly members simply for mentioning the governor in their campaign ads. Now they are suing the state elections enforcement commission (seec) for violating their first amendment rights, with the help of the institute for free speech. Just as candidates for congress must be able to discuss the president, candidates for state legislature must be able to discuss the governor. Yet connecticut law prevents candidates for the general assembly from criticizing the governor's policies in ads unless they first secure the approval and funding of one of the governor's opponents. This policy effectively bans candidates from speaking to voters about one of the most important responsibilities of the office they seek to hold - checking the power of the executive. Joe markley, a state senator, and rob sampson, a state representative, were ensnared by the law after they decided to split the costs on a series of standard campaign mailers highlighting their achievements in office. The mailers promoted markley and sampson as opponents of governor dannel malloy's policies on taxes and government spending. Two additional ads by sampson also mentioned malloy's policies. Legislative candidates commonly campaign as supporters or opponents of their state's governor, whose policies and record are better known by voters. However, sampson's opponent in the election filed a complaint with the state elections enforcement commission alleging that these ads violated state campaign finance laws. The seec agreed. By criticizing the governor's record, the seec argued that markley and sampson made an illegal expenditure on behalf of the governor's opponent. The seec ordered sampson to pay a $5,000 fine and ordered markley to pay a $2,000 fine. In order for the ads to be legal, the seec believes the governor's opponent would have had to approve and share the costs of the ads. Markley and sampson are represented by the institute for free speech and connecticut attorney michael cronin. They are asking a connecticut court to dismiss the fines and declare the law unconstitutional. Requiring legislative candidates to get permission and funding from a gubernatorial candidate in order to discuss the governor in campaign ads violates the first amendment. If left intact, the law "will harm future candidates by restricting or chilling free political speech, and association," the institute's brief notes. On august 2, 2018, the connecticut superior court for the judicial district of new britain dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The decision is expected to be appealed.”

“Patriotic veterans v. Indiana this case posed an as-applied first amendment challenge to an indiana statute prohibiting pre-recorded telephone messages bearing political content. Pre-recorded phone calls are one of the most cost-effective ways a low-budget campaign can reach voters. This case is not about reasonable restrictions on the hours that such calls may be made or the ability of citizens to opt out. Placing an outright ban on political speech deprives indiana residents of political information that many want to receive. Indiana's law does not limit phone calls, or even the hours they may be made - it merely makes them more expensive. The law allows other messages not containing political content. On september 27, 2011, the united states district court for the southern district of indiana ruled in favor of our client, saying that the federal telephone consumer protection act preempted the indiana law. The state appealed, and on november 21, 2013, the seventh circuit court of appeals reversed the decision and remanded the district court to consider the first amendment arguments. On april 7, 2016, the district court ruled against the first amendment claims in the litigation. That decision was affirmed by the seventh circuit court of appeals on january 3, 2017. A petition for review was filed with the u.s. Supreme court on april 3, 2017. The petition was denied on june 26, 2017. Success in this case would have increased the protections for the public's first amendment right to free political speech. Keeping such a means of communications available would have been especially important for small organizations that do not have the resources to buy television and radio advertising.”

“The november team, et al. V. Joint commission on public ethics the new york state joint commission on public ethics (jcope) issued a final advisory opinion in january 2016 that would expand the definition of "lobbying." that opinion required all public relations firms to register as lobbyists if they communicate with the media in relation to any public policy issue or attempt to place an editorial that would help to spread a client's message on public policy. Such registration is a clear violation of both individual and press rights under the first amendment. The institute for free speech represents the plaintiffs in the case, which include some of new york's most prominent public relations firms of all ideological persuasions and sizes: the november team, inc., anat gerstein inc., berlinrosen public affairs, ltd., risa heller communications llc, and mercury llc. The filings in the case include sworn declarations from three leading public relations trade associations: the public relations society of america, pr council, and arthur w. Page society. As the opening brief clearly states, "[this complaint] raises the simple question whether a state agency can, consistent with the first amendment, declare that private communications with the press constitute 'lobbying, and then mandate persons who so communicate to submit to a burdensome regulatory regime that exposes them to criminal prosecution or fines for non-compliance. The answer, emphatically, is 'no.'" the case was filed on march 8, 2016 in u.s. District court for the southern district of new york. On august 24, 2016, governor andrew cuomo signed a bill into law that exempted some of the communications from the jcope opinion. After the new law took effect, the judge ordered additional briefs. On january 11, 2017, judge lorna schofield ruled that her court would abstain "in this case, but retains jurisdiction pending a determination by a state court as to the meaning of the challenged state regulation." she noted that the law and jcope regulations and opinions were "unclear and "subject to multiple, contradictory interpretations and even "internally inconsistent." after an appeal was filed with the u.s. Court of appeals for the second circuit, jcope agreed in principle to change its regulations that required public relations professionals to register as lobbyists. In response, the parties in the litigation agreed to withdraw the lawsuit. The appeals court accepted the withdrawal without prejudice. That means we could reopen the case against jcope if the agency fails to revise the challenged regulations to comply with the first amendment. Jcope did revise its regulations. Success in this case protected the first amendment rights to free speech and freedom of the press.”

“Thomas v. Schroer the institute for free speech is representing william h. Thomas jr. In the state's appeal of a ruling that tennessee's sign rules are unconstitutional. In march 2017, a federal judge ruled for thomas, saying tennessee law violated the first amendment by creating "an unconstitutional, content-based regulation of speech." mr. Thomas owns several roadside signs. This appeal concerns one such sign, which mr. Thomas has used to express various non-commercial messages and opinions, such as cheering on u.s. Athletes during the olympics and celebrating "the glory of the season" during the holidays. Tennessee has sought to tear down mr. Thomas's sign, but crucially, it would not attempt to do so had it advertised on-site commercial activity or the sale of his property. Such ads are exempt under the law governing billboards in tennessee. So if a nearby auto body shop wanted to advertise its sale on tires with the same-sized billboard, it could do so. As a result of this exemption, the state must look to a sign's content to determine whether it should be regulated. This creates a major first amendment problem. A law that permits a sign that says "cheap cigarettes here" but prohibits an identical sized sign that reads "cut the property tax or "pass the clean water act" is a content-based restriction on speech. Such restrictions must survive strict scrutiny. Tennessee appealed the lower court's ruling in october 2017. The institute for free speech is representing thomas during the appeal but was not involved in the case previously. The case, known as thomas v. Schroer, is currently before the sixth circuit court of appeals. John schroer, commissioner of the tennessee department of transportation (tdot), is a defendant in his official capacity only. Institute for free speech attorneys filed the appellee's brief on april 4, 2018. Oral argument has been scheduled for october 2, 2018. Success in this case would protect the rights to free speech and a free press.”