Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
This Week's "Your Turn" Radio Lineup

Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00 p.m. CDT (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EDT) on Northwest Florida’s 1330 AM/99.1FM WEBY, as she hosts her radio show, “Your Turn: Meeting Nonsense with Commonsense.” Today’s guest lineup includes:

 

4:00 CDT/5:00 pm EDT:  Kay S. Hymowitz, William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute - An Epidemic of Loneliness;

4:15 CDT/5:15 pm EDT:  Ross Marchand, Director of Policy for Taxpayers Protection Alliance - Unwarranted Carcinogenic Classifications and How the US Government is About to Drive Up the Cost of Videogames;

4:30 CDT/5:30 pm EDT:  Tom Schatz, President of Citizens Against Government Waste - 2019 Congressional Pig Book;

4:45 CDT/5:45 pm EDT:  Marlo Lewis…[more]

June 17, 2019 • 12:48 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
CFIF Scores Victory in Campaign Finance Case Print
By Jeff Mazzella
Tuesday, February 02 2016

On January 21, 2016, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously ruled in favor of the Center for Individual Freedom (“CFIF”) in Van Hollen v. FEC, a campaign finance case addressing free speech and compelled disclosure. 

The decision marks the second time in the case that the Court of Appeals reversed a decision by District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who twice struck down a Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) rule requiring non-profit organizations that spend more than $10,000 per year on electioneering communications to disclose only donors who give “for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications.” 

Congressman Christopher Van Hollen (D-Maryland) brought suit against the FEC, hoping to force organizations engaged in electioneering communications to disclose all donors who contribute over a certain amount, regardless of whether they intended for their donations to fund such speech.

Anticipating that the FEC, due to its split membership, might not appeal any adverse decision at the district court level, CFIF intervened to protect free speech interests and to preserve a right to appeal.

The Court of Appeals’ decision, authored by Judge Janice Rogers Brown and joined by Judges David Sentelle and Raymond Randolph, reversed the district court and upheld the FEC rule as being consistent with the requirements of Chevron and the Administrative Procedure Act.  The court also acknowledged the burdens that compelled disclosure impose on free speech and association guaranteed by the First Amendment.

“By affixing a purpose requirement on BCRA’s disclosure provision, the FEC exercised its unique prerogative to safeguard the First Amendment when implementing its congressional directives,” wrote Judge Brown. “Its tailoring was an able attempt to balance the competing values that lie at the heart of campaign finance law.”

CFIF was represented in the case by Thomas W. Kirby, Jan Witold Baran, Caleb P. Burns and Samuel B. Gedge of Wiley Rein, LLP. 

To read the full entire D.C. Circuit Court decision, click here

Question of the Week   
Where in the U.S. Constitution is the requirement for a decennial census?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Privacy expectations should not be lost just because digital and electronic information is transferred through wires or enters a remote server (the Cloud). If the government searched an individual's mail or home, it would need a warrant first. This same standard should apply to all property, including electronic data. But 48 of 50 states are failing to protect private data from government intrusion…[more]
 
 
—Anna Parsons, ALEC Center for Innovation and Technology
— Anna Parsons, ALEC Center for Innovation and Technology
 
Liberty Poll   

Should the 2020 U.S. Census add a multi-part question regarding U.S. citizenship, including specifically whether the respondent is or is not a U.S. citizen?