Over the past seven months, millions of dollars have poured into online crowdfunding accounts associated…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
What Happened to the Millions of Dollars Raised by Standing Rock Protesters?

Over the past seven months, millions of dollars have poured into online crowdfunding accounts associated with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s unjustified crusade against the Dakota Access Pipeline.  To date, the violence-plagued protest has cost North Dakota taxpayers more than $33 million dollars, and diverted countless resources to assist local law enforcement.

Through February 14, over $13.5 million has reportedly been raised for the protesters through at least 350 different online accounts setup on sites like GoFundMe and FundRazr.  While the list represents some of the more serious fundraising efforts, it's estimated that upwards of 20,000 individual campaigns exist, likely equating to millions in additional income.

So where is all of that money going?  Nobody really knows.…[more]

February 16, 2017 • 06:05 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 CFIF Files Federal Lawsuit to Vindicate Core First Amendment Rights in Louisiana
CFIF Files Federal Lawsuit to Vindicate Core First Amendment Rights in Louisiana Print
Monday, September 23 2013

ALEXANDRIA, VA – The Center for Individual Freedom (“CFIF”) late last week filed a federal lawsuit in Louisiana seeking to vindicate its First Amendment rights – and those of similarly situated would-be speakers – against illicit enforcement of certain provisions of Louisiana’s Campaign Finance Disclosure Act (“CFDA”).

The lawsuit charges that Louisiana authorities responsible for enforcement of the CFDA have disregarded a decision CFIF secured in 2006 by the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Center for Individual Freedom, Inc. v. Carmouche).  In that case, the Fifth Circuit clarified and narrowly construed Louisiana’s campaign finance laws to apply only to communications that include the so-called “magic words” of express advocacy defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo (e.g. “vote for,” “elect,” “defeat,” etc.).

On several occasions since Carmouche, the Louisiana Board of Ethics, without any legislative amendment to Louisiana’s campaign finance laws and in violation of the Fifth Circuit’s decision, has brought enforcement actions in cases where the challenged speech steered clear of such “magic words.”  Those enforcement actions have erased any bright line standard that is required by the First Amendment for what is and is not permitted speech under Louisiana’s campaign finance scheme without being subjected to broad and burdensome disclosure requirements.  As a result, CFIF is currently standing mute instead of communicating its views in Western Louisiana prior to the upcoming Caddo Parish District Court election on October 19, 2013.

CFIF also was forced to refrain from speaking in Louisiana in 2004 as it failed to secure a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the CFDA before its rights to speak were ultimately vindicated by the Fifth Circuit in Carmouche, and again in 2012 when it first discovered that state enforcement authorities had disregarded the Fifth Circuit’s ruling.

“The First Amendment demands that the rules of the road be clear and precise so speakers don’t unwittingly subject themselves to burdensome regulation and prosecution,” said CFIF President Jeffrey Mazzella.  “The actions by the Louisiana Board of Ethics in direct violation of the Fifth Circuit’s Carmouche decision and the First Amendment have left us driving blind, leaving CFIF no other choice but to once again seek relief in the courts.”

CFIF’s lawsuit, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, seeks: 1) a declaration that certain provisions of Louisiana’s campaign finance statute are unconstitutionally vague and void and/or that the statute has only the meaning given to it in Carmouche; 2) permanent injunctive relief against enforcement of the invalid law or forbidding any meaning other than that established in Carmouche; 3) an award of legal fees and expenses; and 4) such other relief as may be just. The lawsuit names each individual member of the Louisiana Board of Ethics and Charles R. Scott, the District Attorney for the 1st Judicial District, as defendants. 

CFIF is represented by Jan Witold Baran, Thomas W. Kirby, Caleb P. Burns and Andrew G. Woodson of the Washington, DC firm Wiley Rein LLP, and Christopher K. Ralston and Bryan Edward Bowdler of Phelps Dunbar, LLP in New Orleans.

Read CFIF's Complaint here (pdf).

Read CFIF President Jeffrey L. Mazzella's Declaration here (.pdf).

Read CFIF's Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction here (pdf).

Read CFIF's Memorandum In Support of its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction here (pdf).

###

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following former U.S. Presidents and his First Lady embarked on a lengthy road trip months following the inauguration of his successor?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Before Scott Pruitt was confirmed as the Environmental Protection Agency's new administrator, the New York Times reported agency staff fighting against his nomination. This is highly unusual and inappropriate. It shows not only how difficult his new job will be but also how necessary it is that he succeed. And it shows, too, how great a threat rogue bureaucracy can become to constitutional order.…[more]
 
 
—The Editors, Washington Examiner
— The Editors, Washington Examiner
 
Liberty Poll   

U.S. stock indexes have jumped to record highs since President Trump was inaugurated, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average above 20,000. Where would the Dow be if Hillary Clinton had been elected president?