Institute for Free Speech

Last updated
Institute for Free Speech
Formation2005
Founder Bradley A. Smith
Type 501(c)(3) Nonprofit organization
Purpose"To defend the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition." [1] [2] [3]
Location
Region
United States
Website www.ifs.org
Formerly called
Center for Competitive Politics

The Institute for Free Speech (IFS), formerly called the Center for Competitive Politics, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. [4] [5] [6] IFS' stated mission is to "promote and defend the First Amendment rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government through strategic litigation, communication, activism, training, research, and education." [7] It has worked to oppose limits on political donations and other campaign regulations. [8] [9] [10] [2] [11]

Contents

History

The Center for Competitive Politics was founded in 2005 by former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley A. Smith, a 2000 Clinton appointee who had been selected by congressional Republican leaders. [8] Smith founded the organization with the goal of "challenging the current campaign finance system in both federal court and the court of public opinion." [8]

The organization represented the plaintiffs in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission , Court of Appeals decision that authorized the creation of Super PACs in 2010. [12]

In 2014, the organization challenged California's requirement that nonprofit groups must turn over their donor lists to the state in order to receive a license to solicit contributions from residents of the state. [13]

In 2014, the organization stated its opposition to a proposed constitutional amendment that would give Congress more power to regulate political spending. [14] It has also opposed proposed Internal Revenue Service guidelines that would redefine tax rules for social welfare organizations that engage in political advocacy as a secondary activity. [15]

In October 2017, the organization changed its name to the Institute for Free Speech, [10] with an emphasis on "protecting First Amendment political speech rights". [16] [2] [3]

Allen Dickerson, legal director of the institute, became a member of the Federal Election Commission in 2020, after being nominated by President Donald Trump and confirmed by a vote of 49 to 47 in the U.S. Senate. [5] [17]

Activities

The Institute for Free Speech represents plaintiffs in free speech cases. [18] [19] [20] It has been particularly active in criticizing campaign finance regulations, taxpayer-financed political campaigns, and restrictions on referendums and ballot initiatives. The organization publishes various studies and reports on campaign finance and political speech matters, and provides pro bono legal counsel to parties in suits challenging the constitutionality of campaign finance statutes. It has also defended the right of independent groups to participate freely in the electoral process. [21] [22]

The organization has a Free Speech Arguments Podcast that reviews oral arguments from First Amendment free political speech cases across the country. [16]

In 2024, the organization released a study of state laws regarding free speech protection against frivolous lawsuits. [16] [23]

Related Research Articles

Campaign finance laws in the United States have been a contentious political issue since the early days of the union. The most recent major federal law affecting campaign finance was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold". Key provisions of the law prohibited unregulated contributions to national political parties and limited the use of corporate and union money to fund ads discussing political issues within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election; However, provisions of BCRA limiting corporate and union expenditures for issue advertising were overturned by the Supreme Court in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life.

Corporate personhood or juridical personality is the legal notion that a juridical person such as a corporation, separately from its associated human beings, has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons. In most countries, a corporation has the same rights as a natural person to hold property, enter into contracts, and to sue or be sued.

A 527 organization or 527 group is a type of U.S. tax-exempt organization organized under Section 527 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. A 527 group is created primarily to influence the selection, nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates to federal, state or local public office.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Institute for Justice</span> American libertarian non-profit public interest law firm

The Institute for Justice (IJ) is a libertarian non-profit public interest law firm in the United States. It has litigated ten cases before the United States Supreme Court dealing with eminent domain, interstate commerce, public financing for elections, school vouchers, tax credits for private school tuition, civil asset forfeiture, and residency requirements for liquor license. The organization was founded on September 3, 1991. As of 2023, it employed a staff of 157 full-time staff members in Arlington, Virginia and seven offices across the United States.

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), often referred to as the McCain–Feingold Act.

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time. The United States Supreme Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. The ruling came in response to a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporate donations in ballot initiatives unless the corporation's interests were directly involved.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign finance in the United States</span> Contributions to American election campaign funds

The financing of electoral campaigns in the United States happens at the federal, state, and local levels by contributions from individuals, corporations, political action committees, and sometimes the government. Campaign spending has risen steadily at least since 1990. For example, a candidate who won an election to the House of Representatives in 1990 spent on average $407,600, while the winner in 2022 spent on average $2.79 million; in the Senate, average spending for winning candidates went from $3.87 million to $26.53 million.

A 501(c)(3) organization is a United States corporation, trust, unincorporated association or other type of organization exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code. It is one of the 29 types of 501(c) nonprofit organizations in the US.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bradley Smith (law professor)</span> American political scientist

Bradley Alan Smith is the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio. He previously served as commissioner, vice chairman, and chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) between 2000 and 2005. He has held prior visiting appointments at Princeton University and West Virginia University. He is best known for his writing and activities on campaign finance regulation.

Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that issue ads may not be banned from the months preceding a primary or general election.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other associations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign Legal Center</span> American nonprofit organization

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) government watchdog group in the United States. CLC supports strong enforcement of United States campaign finance laws. Trevor Potter, former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission, is CLC's founding president.

The term corporate donation refers to any financial contribution made by a corporation to another organization that furthers the contributor's own objectives. Two major kinds of such donations deserve specific consideration, charitable as well as political donations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dark money</span> Undisclosed American political contributions

In politics, particularly the politics of the United States, dark money refers to spending to influence elections, public policy, and political discourse, where the source of the money is not disclosed to the public.

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. 185 (2014), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. The decision held that Section 441 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which imposed a limit on contributions an individual can make over a two-year period to all national party and federal candidate committees, is unconstitutional.

The Constitutional Accountability Center(CAC) is a non-profit think tank located in Washington, D.C., that seeks to advance a progressive interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. The group has filed numerous lawsuits against former President Donald Trump.

A campaign finance reform amendment refers to any proposed amendment to the United States Constitution to authorize greater restrictions on spending related to political speech, and to overturn Supreme Court rulings which have narrowed such laws under the First Amendment. Several amendments have been filed since Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and the Occupy movement.

Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Colorado Republican Party challenged the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as to whether the "Party Expenditure Provision" of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) violated the First Amendment right to free speech. This provision put a limit on the amount of money a national party could spend on a congressional candidate's campaign. The FEC argued that the Committee violated this provision when purchasing a radio advertisement that attacked the likely candidate of the Colorado Democratic Party. The court held that since the expenditures by the committee were made independently from a specific candidate, they did not violate the campaign contribution limitations established by the FECA, and were protected under the First Amendment.

<i>FEC v. National Conservative PAC</i> 1985 United States Supreme Court case

FEC v. National Conservative PAC, 470 U.S. 480 (1985), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States striking down expenditure prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which regulates the fundraising and spending in political campaigns. The FECA is the primary law that places regulations on campaign financing by limiting the amount that may be contributed. The Act established that no independent political action committee may contribute more than $1,000 to any given presidential candidate in support of a campaign.

FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life was a lawsuit filed by the US Federal Election Commission.

References

  1. ↑ "Your Rights | The Institute for Free Speech defends your First Amendment right to freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition". Institute for Free Speech. Retrieved 6 April 2024.
  2. 1 2 3 "Institute for Free Speech". DeSmog . Retrieved 6 April 2024.
  3. 1 2 "Institute for Free Speech". Charity Navigator . Retrieved 6 April 2024.
  4. ↑ Sanders, Katie. "Is IRS Obama's Watergate?". Politifact . Retrieved 2024-04-06.
  5. 1 2 Ackley, Kate (26 June 2020). "FEC set to lose its quorum again". Roll Call . Retrieved 6 April 2024. the conservative Institute for Free Speech
  6. ↑ Lonas, Lexi (20 October 2023). "'No credibility': Critics cry foul as colleges press for free speech amid Israel-Hamas conflict". The Hill . Retrieved 6 April 2024. the conservative-leaning Institute for Free Speech
  7. ↑ "About the Institute for Free Speech". Institute for Free Speech. 23 October 2007. Retrieved 2 December 2017.
  8. 1 2 3 Cummings, Jeanne (2008-08-12). "Conservatives plot on campaign finance". Politico . Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  9. ↑ Beckel, Michael (2016-01-20). "What Is "'Dark Money' and Is It Bad?". Center for Public Integrity . Retrieved 2024-04-06– via NBC News.
  10. 1 2 Leathle, Emma (November 1, 2017). "Congress Holds Hearings On Online Political Ads". HuffPost . Retrieved 2 December 2017.
  11. ↑ Ackley, Kate (2022-09-21). "Senators to seek action on Democratic political disclosure bill". Roll Call . Retrieved 2024-04-07.
  12. ↑ "The Court Case That Led to the Creation of Super PACs". About.com . Archived from the original on 2014-08-19. Retrieved 2014-08-18.
  13. ↑ "Give Us Your Donors, or Else". The Wall Street Journal . 2014-07-22. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  14. ↑ Newlin Carney, Eliza (2014-07-02). "Hobby Lobby Ruling Fuels Amendment Push". Roll Call . Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  15. ↑ Hicks, Josh (2014-06-18). "IRS to propose specific limits on nonprofits' political activities". Washington Post. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  16. 1 2 3 "Welcome to The Institute for Free Speech | Your Rights: The Institute for Free Speech is here to defend your First Amendment rights". Institute for Free Speech. Retrieved 6 April 2024.
  17. ↑ Lee, Michelle Ye Hee (December 9, 2020). "Senate confirms three FEC commissioners, restoring full slate for the first time since 2017". The Washington Post .
  18. ↑ Pazniokas, Mark (September 13, 2023). "Court explores whether CT's campaign law violates free speech". The Connecticut Mirror . Retrieved 8 April 2024.
  19. ↑ "Alexander et al v. Sutton et al". pacermonitor.com. PacerMonitor, LLC. Retrieved 8 April 2024.
  20. ↑ "Belin v. Nelson". pacermonitor.com. PacerMonitor, LLC. Retrieved 8 April 2024.
  21. ↑ Mahony, Edmund (20 May 2024). "CT Supreme Court rules that state ban on some political ads infringes on political free speech". Hartford Courant. Retrieved 24 May 2024.
  22. ↑ Mays, Jeffery C. (23 April 2019). "Gays? Palestinians? Speaking Your Mind Can Spell Trouble on the City Council". The New York Times. Retrieved 24 May 2024.
  23. ↑ Collins, Ronald K.L. (January 10, 2024). "Robert Post: 'There is growing pessimism about the future of free speech in the United States' — First Amendment News 407 | Institute for Free Speech report on frivolous lawsuits". FIRE Newsdesk. Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression . Retrieved 8 April 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.