Shocking but necessary perspective on the cost of Chinese theft of U.S. intellectual property (IP) from…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: The Shocking Cost of Chinese Intellectual Property (IP) Theft

Shocking but necessary perspective on the cost of Chinese theft of U.S. intellectual property (IP) from National Review employing Congressional Research Service numbers:

 

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="592"] The Shocking Cost of Chinese IP Theft[/caption]

 …[more]

July 14, 2020 • 11:48 AM

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   
In which one of the following years was the National Park Service established?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"The National Basketball Association is now blocking fans from customizing jerseys to include 'FreeHongKong,' while allowing a range of gross activist slogans on its merchandise. Through its online store, the league has long let fans create jerseys with personalized messages on the back. In fact, the feature recently become a key part of the NBA's push to allow players to sport activist statements…[more]
 
 
—Jonah Gottschalk, The Federalist
— Jonah Gottschalk, The Federalist
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you currently expect your local schools to reopen on time in the fall?