Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech June 2, 2025 Click here to subscribe to the Daily Media Update. This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected]. In the News Connecticut Inside Investigator: Acting Blue: evidence of fraudulent political donations targeting retirees By Katherine Revello .....Plaintiff Tony McDonald serves as the Tarrant County Republican Party and, according to the lawsuit, is concerned that donations he makes in his personal capacity could impact his position in the party and public perception of the party’s stances. According to the lawsuit, McDonald sometimes gives to candidates not necessarily because he supports their campaigns or positions, but to help their campaigns do things like qualify for debates. In June 2019, McDonald donated $1 to Marianne Williamson’s presidential campaign in order to help her qualify for the presidential debates. He did know that the donation was processed by ActBlue and would be publicly reported. McDonald is also concerned that reporting of some of his giving could be construed as support from the Tarrant County Republican Party. “If McDonald’s small donations are revealed, he fears repercussions for himself and the Tarrant County Republican Party, in the form of demands for similar donations from other candidates, confusion over the Tarrant County Republican Party’s stance in primary races, and misunderstandings regarding the intent and implications of McDonald’s donations.” the lawsuit states. While McDonald wants to continue to donate, according to the lawsuit he is afraid to because his donations might be disclosed if they go through conduit sites. “Thus, McDonald is chilled in his ability to express his political views through donations to his chosen political candidates. McDonald is forced to choose between freely voicing support for candidates and policy through monetary donations and maintaining his privacy.” the suit claims. The Courts Bloomberg Law: GOP, With Trump Backing, Seeks to Overturn Campaign Finance Law By Eric Heisig .....House and Senate Republican entities on Friday again urged the US Supreme Court to take up a case that aims to strike limits on coordinated spending between political parties and federal candidates, a position now bolstered by President Donald Trump’s Justice Department. The limits spelled out in federal law for coordinated party expenditures “flout the First Amendment” by adversely affecting political speech by parties and candidates and go farther than just seeking to prevent corruption, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee argued in a brief. Ed. note: Also see Election Law Blog's post, "Democratic Party, in Marc Elias Brief, Seeks to Intervene in NRSC Case at Supreme Court to Defend Limits on Coordinated Spending by Parties", here. Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): No First Amendment Right to Wear Graduation Stole Displaying Star of David, Israeli Flag, U.S. Army Insignia By Eugene Volokh .....From Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle in Thursday's Bar-Levy v. Cruze: Bloomberg Law: Musk’s SpaceX Political Bias Suit on Launches Poised to Advance By Maia Spoto .....Space Exploration Technologies Corp.'s evidence that a California agency targeted the company with regulation over Elon Musk’s political views is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss but isn’t necessarily “compelling,” a federal judge said Friday. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. of the US District Court for the Central District of California said he’d tentatively allow to survive part of the complaint against the California Coastal Commission, which voted against more SpaceX launches from the Vandenberg Space Force Base in October allegedly based on “overt political bias.” FEC Campaigns & Elections: Watchdog Challenges Relaxed FEC Rules on Coordination By Max Greenwood .....A new complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission is testing the agency’s rules allowing campaigns to coordinate their canvassing efforts with outside groups without disclosing the donors who fund the efforts. The complaint, filed by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington on behalf of two voters in Wisconsin, alleges that President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign took advantage of an FEC advisory opinion ruling that coordinated canvassing expenditures are exempt from federal campaign finance reporting requirements. That advisory opinion, the complaint argues, is legally dubious and conflicts with long-established laws and regulations dictating that campaigns report the source of funds used to pay for canvassing. It claims that the coordinated canvassing efforts likely amounted to “multiple millions of dollars in expenditures” from donors whose identities weren’t reported to the FEC, effectively violating commission regulations and the Federal Election Campaign Act – the primary law governing campaign finance. “As a result, to this day, the source of what is likely to be millions of dollars used to finance the Trump campaign’s canvassing activities remain unknown, unreported by either the Trump campaign or the outside groups,” the complaint argues. Trump Administration The Atlantic: Trump’s Attacks Threaten Much More Than Harvard By Greg Lukianoff .....On May 22, the Department of Homeland Security stripped Harvard University of its Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, instantly jeopardizing the visas of nearly 6,800 international students—27 percent of the student body. But the Trump administration’s attack didn’t end there. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s letter announcing this move also doubled as a request for documents, instructing Harvard to deliver five years of video or audio of “any protest activity involving a non-immigrant student,” plus disciplinary files, before the ban will be reconsidered. The next morning, Harvard sued and won a temporary restraining order. The letter represents the Trump administration’s latest assault in its war on Harvard, in which the government is effectively trying to nationalize a private university. It began with an April demand letter in which a multiagency Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism froze $2.2 billion in research grants to the school and threatened to freeze more unless Harvard abolished its DEI offices, banned masks used to conceal students’ identities during protests, audited each department for “viewpoint diversity,” and routed every foreign-student misconduct allegation directly to the DHS. A lawsuit from Harvard led the government to retaliate further, and President Donald Trump threatened in early May to take away Harvard’s tax-exempt status. If you’re wondering what governmental or executive process led to the freezing of these funds and the subsequent demands made by the Trump administration, none appears in evidence. The government first sent an official notice of an intent to withdraw Harvard’s student-visa certification on Wednesday, beginning the process a week after informing Harvard of the outcome. Nonpaywalled version RealClearPolitics: Trump Remedies to Harvard’s Ills Should Respect Free Speech By Peter Berkowitz .....A Statement on Academic Freedom and Harvard by Right-of-Center Scholars, Lawyers, and Former Government Officials,” published in the Chronicle of Higher Education on May 23, takes issue with the Trump administration’s hammer-and-tongs approach to re-grounding free speech at Harvard. The distinguished signatories include two of my Hoover colleagues with highly pertinent expertise – eminent First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh, and Michael McConnell, also a Stanford Law School professor, and among the nation’s leading authorities on America’s founding principles and constitutional traditions. The “generally right-of-center scholars, lawyers, and former government officials” identify several affronts to free speech in Trump administration efforts to invigorate it at Harvard. Candidates and Campaigns New York Times: Supreme Court Candidates Try TikTok and Tinder in Mexico’s Elections By James Wagner .....They weren’t allowed to buy ads on television, radio, billboards or online. Mexico barred them from public funding or receiving campaign contributions. National debates were difficult, if not impossible, to mount. So people running to be judges across Mexico were largely left with social media. In one widely seen video, one Supreme Court candidate argued that he was as well seasoned as the fried pork sold on the streets. Another Supreme Court candidate styled herself Dora the Transformer, a spin on the cartoon character Dora the Explorer. Another Supreme Court candidate used dating apps so that, in his words, prospective voters could match with justice and then chat about the issues. The strict campaign limits, in contrast to traditional rules for presidential or congressional elections, are part of Mexico’s sprawling, first-ever elections on Sunday. Voters will choose nearly 2,700 federal and state judicial positions at every level of the courts, with federal seats, like those on the Supreme Court, chosen at the national level and a host of officials elected locally. The States Washington Post: A man joked about a mayor’s legal trouble. Then, a subpoena arrived. By Jonathan Edwards .....When a 15-year-old boy disappeared in Riverview, Missouri, last month, James Carroll posted a photo of the boy in the city’s Nextdoor group with a joke: “Someone check Riverview’s mayor’s basement!” Carroll said his online comment in early April was an attempt to alert the city’s residents to a past lawsuit accusing Mayor Michael Cornell of luring a man from Texas with a promise of a job only to fire him for rejecting Cornell’s sexual advances. Days after the posting, Carroll received a subpoena demanding he appear at city hall the following afternoon to discuss issues including misuse of information about a missing juvenile, inciting violence against an elected official, defamation and cyberbullying of residents. The subpoena, signed by the mayor and Riverview’s city clerk, warned of “severe penalties” for failing to show up. On Tuesday, lawyers for the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm and advocacy organization, sent Cornell and other city leaders a letter urging them to rescind the subpoena and “unequivocally disavow” attempts to punish Carroll. The group says the mayor appears to have abused his power and suppressed free speech over an online attempt at humor. “A joke about an elected official is indisputably speech protected by the Constitution,” the nonprofit said in the letter. Politico: Campaign board fines Andrew Cuomo $675,000; awards rival Adrienne Adams millions By Joe Anuta .....New York City mayoral candidate Adrienne Adams on Friday qualified for just over $2 million in public matching funds Friday, while front-runner Andrew Cuomo was hit with a $675,000 penalty for improperly coordinating with a super PAC. The news out of the New York City Campaign Finance Board meeting was critical for Adams, whose late entrance into the race has been hampered by her low name recognition and insufficient funds. She’s the only major candidate in the race yet to air TV ads ahead of the June 24 Democratic primary. Read an article you think we would be interested in? Send it to Tiffany Donnelly at [email protected]. For email filters, the subject of this email will always begin with "Institute for Free Speech Media Update." The Institute for Free Speech is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that promotes and defends the political rights to free speech, press, assembly, and petition guaranteed by the First Amendment. Please support the Institute's mission by clicking here. For further information, visit www.ifs.org. Follow the Institute for Free Speech The Institute for Free Speech | 1150 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 801 | Washington, DC 20036 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice