First Choice Women's Resource Center may well be one of the most important #freespeech opinions for the right to assemble in many years.
It's a beautifully written opinion and gives renewed force to vital precedents like NAACP v Alabama, Shelton v. Tucker, Bates v. Little Rock, and Buckley v. Valeo.
It's also going to help groups being subjected to lawfare by blue and red state AGs.
SCOTUS decision in First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. NJ is huge. Despite the iconic SCOTUS decision in NAACP v. Alabama, and the more recent decision in Americans for Prosperity Fdn v. Bonta, many lower courts have continued to insist that compelled disclosure of one's affiliations is not a harm that can even support a challenge to the government's actions.
Yesterday the Supreme Court firmly rejected that approach:
"Demands for private donor information ... 'chill' protected 1st Amendment associational rights even when those demands contemplate disclosure only to government officials and not ‘the general public. ...
"An injury in fact does not arise only when a defendant causes a tangible harm to a plaintiff, like a physical injury or monetary loss. It can also arise when a defendant burdens a plaintiff ’s constitutional rights. And our cases have long recognized that demands for a charity’s private member or donor information have just that effect."
This is a huge win for privacy and freedom, a huge blow to those who seek to "cancel" individuals or intimidate them from participating in public debate with threats of government retaliation, direct or indirect.
@JonahDispatch writes, "Democracy is what should happen between the parties, not within them."
Good point. But he fails to identify the problem. #SCOTUS has let states violate the First Amendment "right of the people peaceably to assemble" into parties the way they want.
If true, as is likely, disgusting tactics by the DOJ in the SPLC case.
The superseding indictment given to the press last night was a draft!
I'm sure @whignewtons would never have done anything like that.
Link to the full brief below.
Good to hear. Now, how about all those terrible campaign finance laws that abridge our freedoms?
Consider an article about the need to separate campaign and state. @CommishSmith could condense this law review article for a lay but intelligent audience like your readers.
https://t.co/E5VdWvPP83
To those who advance the cause of freedom in America, keep going.
One requirement of self-governance is the relentless pursuit of truth, which necessarily involves questioning people in positions of power in order to prevent tyranny.
https://t.co/u81nOCYuep
"A central claim of small-donor reform is that it will produce legislators who are more responsive to constituents and more effective in office. Our analysis finds little evidence for that. Across measures of legislative behavior and effectiveness, members who rely heavily on small donors do not outperform their peers. In some cases, they perform worse. And we find no evidence that they are more aligned with constituents on policies than Members of Congress who rely on PAC or larger donations."
@raylaraja and Zachary Albert.
Links to read more in the next post.
Image by Gemini AI
https://t.co/9Dp8QS8MtL
Small donors often seen as antidote to big money in politics
In Small Donors in U.S. Politics (@UChicagoPress), @zack_albert123 and I show story is more complicated
They broaden participation but aren't typical American, amplifying most partisan voices
The Louisiana State Legislature just passed a bill that includes an internet exemption in its campaign finance laws, protecting #freespeech. It's patterned after the @FEC's internet exemption.
@Grok support for X is incompetent worse than useless. It's a waste of time and makes me totally uninterested in paying for Grok @elonmusk.
It can't even give a hyperlink with the "h" in https and refers to nonexistent forms.
WTF X, you're putting people I'm NOT following in my "Following" feed. And I'm not talking about ads.
This is fraud.
If this is happening to you, repost please.
@premium