The Sony cyberattack - apparently state-sponsored - obviously raises solemn concerns, including national…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Google Seeks to Exploit Sony Cyberattack for Its Own Self-Interest

The Sony cyberattack - apparently state-sponsored - obviously raises solemn concerns, including national security and the very safety of American citizens.

Accordingly, immediate public discussion should focus primarily upon the gravity of the attack and how the Internet, one of the most transformative and beneficial innovations in human history, can sometimes become a tool for those with destructive and even deadly intent.  While Sony Pictures, its employees, and its customers were the immediate victims this time, the reality is that this could happen to anyone and any enterprise.  In fact, such attacks on other companies and individuals occur at an alarmingly accelerating pace.

Leave it to Google, however, to attempt to profit from the attack and leverage it on behalf of its own…[more]

December 19, 2014 • 03:09 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.
Home Press Room Van Hollen v. FEC: CFIF Files Motion to Preserve Core Speech and Association Rights in Federal Court
Van Hollen v. FEC: CFIF Files Motion to Preserve Core Speech and Association Rights in Federal Court Print
Friday, June 17 2011

Seeks Intervenor-Defendant Status in Chris Van Hollen v. Federal Election Commission

ALEXANDRIA, VA – Expanding on its extensive litigation history defending free speech and association rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, the Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) yesterday filed a motion to intervene as a defendant in Chris Van Hollen v. Federal Election Commission, a case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The lawsuit, brought by Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), seeks to compel the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to force certain nonprofit corporations and other groups to disclose all their donors if they engage in any “electioneering communications,” broadcast issue ads that refer to federal candidates and air in the weeks and months leading up to elections.  Van Hollen claims it is unlawful to disclose only donations made for the purpose of supporting such speech.

Following Congress’ refusal to pass the DISCLOSE Act, legislation sponsored by Van Hollen that sought to further restrict political speech through burdensome and chilling disclosure requirements, the Maryland Congressman now charges that the FEC’s 2007 rules regulating such speech are inconsistent with the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act of 2001 (“McCain-Feingold”).  In other words, Van Hollen is trying to accomplish through the courts that which has already been rejected by the people’s representatives in Congress.  The U.S. Supreme Court has said that such disclosure is sufficiently burdensome to trigger First Amendment protection.

Van Hollen’s complaint specifically names CFIF and other similarly situated organizations that ran issue ads leading up to the 2010 midterm elections in full compliance with current FEC regulations.  However, because the organizations mentioned in the complaint were not named as defendants, they had no right to defend themselves or the regulation authorizing their activities.  When CFIF asked Van Hollen to allow it to defend itself, he refused, forcing CFIF to seek permission from the court.

“We take the plain language of the First Amendment seriously and we’re deeply opposed to governmental regulation of speech,” said CFIF President Jeffrey Mazzella.  “To the extent the FEC’s activities are permitted by existing Supreme Court precedent, the First Amendment demands that the Commission minimize the burdens it imposes on free speech and association. 

“CFIF is seeking to intervene as a defendant in this case to ensure its fundamental rights, and those of all who speak out on issues of public importance, are preserved,” Mazzella continued. “The FEC, in and of itself, has no stake, nor should it have, in defending the constitutional rights of organizations, or their donors, who would be most negatively affected by an adverse ruling.  Once accepted by the court as an intervenor, CFIF will vigorously defend its rights based on accepted constitutional protections and strong Supreme Court precedent."

CFIF is represented by Jan Witold Baran, Thomas W. Kirby, Caleb P. Burns and Andrew G. Woodson of Wiley Rein LLP in Washington, DC.

To read CFIF's Motion to Intervene, click here.

###

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following Americans was the first to successfully fly a self-propelled, heavier-than-air aircraft?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Obama is hardly the first president to seek rapprochement with our adversaries and reconciliation with our enemies, of course. But his determination to make nice -- even in the face of clear and repeated rejection from the other side -- is unparalleled. For Obama and his team, diplomacy with rogue regimes is an end in itself, and any deal, however one-sided, is a win, especially one that the White…[more]
 
 
—Stephen F. Hayes, The Weekly Standard
— Stephen F. Hayes, The Weekly Standard
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you approve or disapprove of the U.S. opening diplomatic relations with Cuba?