Mediaboss Marketing

The city of Seattle has just embarked on an unprecedented experiment in campaign-finance reform that forces property owners, through a new property tax, to sponsor the campaign contributions of other city residents. The city attracted nationwide attention in 2015 when it passed the first democracy voucher program, which is just now under way. The Pacific Legal Foundation, representing two property owners subject to the tax, has sued the city, arguing that the First Amendment forbids the city from compelling property owners to fund viewpoints they oppose.

At the start of this year, Seattle began mailing out four $25 vouchers to registered voters. Non-voters and even non-citizens can receive vouchers, too, upon request to the city. The vouchers can be used for only one purpose: campaign contributions for local elected office.

The idea is to give everyone a voice in politics but at whose expense? Heralding the arrival of the vouchers, The Stranger a left-leaning Seattle paper published a gleeful article: How to Get Your Free Money from Seattles New Public Campaign Financing System. It sported an image of money falling from the sky into the hands of waiting voters.

But that money doesnt rain down from above; it comes from the pockets of property owners, who are designated as the cash cows for other peoples political opinions.

This compelled subsidy for political donations violates the First Amendment. Freedom of speech embodies not only the right to speak, but also its corollary: the right not to speak. This includes the right to refrain from funding the speech of another person. After all, money talks, and when your money goes to promote a cause you dont believe in, youre the victim of political ventriloquism. The U.S. Supreme Court has called this a bedrock principle of the First Amendment that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support. This speech tax, by forcing Seattle property owners to support the political views of their neighbors, tramples upon this bedrock principle.

The Supreme Court has upheld neutral public campaign funding in the past, but the democracy-voucher program is an altogether different beast. Since voucher recipients decide which candidates get this money based on their political preferences, the speech tax undermines dissenting views and entrenches popular ones. Unlike neutral public campaign-funding schemes, the voucher program smacks of partisan inequality. As the money flows according to the preferences of Seattle residents, candidates who subscribe to the dominant political view will receive the most largesse. Minority candidates will get outfunded. This does not cultivate the equality of ideas that the democracy-voucher program purports to champion quite the opposite, in fact.

Even worse, the property owners compelled to pay for these political donations will tend to be among the crowd with minority viewpoints. Take, for instance, a major political issue in Seattle: rental housing. Seattle is a city of tenants; 54 percent of Seattle households rent. Seattle politicians have catered to this major constituency through recent measures like a renters commission, caps on move-in fees, and the mayors recent proposal to prevent landlords from rejecting renters because of a criminal history. For the most part, these measures clash with landlords political and economic interests.

Yet landlords and other property owners must now foot the bill for political speech that favor these kinds of measures. Take Jon Grants campaign for city council. Grant, the former director of the Tenants Union of Washington State, is a committed tenant advocate. If elected, hell pursue policies such as tenant collective-bargaining rights and rent control that will further undermine landlords interests. Grant has received $129,000 in voucher money, doubtless from many renter constituents. But landlords and other property owners are the real, involuntary source of that money; theyre forced to fund a candidacy at odds with their rights and basic interests.

We shouldnt shrug off this problem just because we might like the viewpoints favored by the vouchers, or because we cant work up sympathy for property owners. Reserving freedom of speech for popular views would obliterate the core purpose of the First Amendment to shelter the dissident. Yet the speech tax forces the dissident to power the megaphone of the majority.

It gets worse. Plenty of mom-and-pop landlords who rent out Seattle property live in surrounding King County. They have a stake in Seattle politics, but as non-residents, they cant receive vouchers themselves. A landlord who has owned a house in Seattle for 20 years cant get vouchers, yet she must pay for the campaign contributions of a University of Washington freshman who moved into the city last month.

We treasure the First Amendment because it upholds human dignity the power to shape our identity by what we believe and express. That dignity is sullied by a government that forces its people to serve as unwilling vessels for beliefs that repel them. As Thomas Jefferson said, To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. The supporters of the voucher program want to force property owners to underwrite partisan political donations in the name of democracy. I dont think that word means what they think that word means.

Ethan Blevins is an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation, representing the challengers to Seattles democracy-voucher program.

More:
Seattle's 'Democracy Voucher' Plan: Coercive and Unfair | National ... - National Review

The City of Seattle is experimenting with a first-in-the nation program that potentially makes every adult a campaign donor.

Under the democracy voucher program, every resident who is a registered voter has been mailed four $25 vouchers. Only candidates can redeem the vouchers for cash, but first they have to convince people to sign them over, which is why Jon Grant rarely meets someone without asking them for their vouchers.

Under the democracy voucher program, every resident who is a registered voter has been mailed four $25 vouchers. Only candidates can redeem the vouchers for cash, but first they have to convince people to sign them over. (Fox News)

Were funding our campaign through the democracy voucher program, Grant tells a homeowner in the Georgetown neighborhood of Seattle. So far Grants strategy has worked. His campaign has collected more than $200,000. Grant says 95 percent of the money has come from vouchers.

SEATTLE SEDNING VOTERS TAX-FUNDED VOUCHERS TO SPEND ON CAMPAIGNS

I think whats really exciting about this is every voter now has kind of a level playing field, said Grant, each has $100, which is essentially a coupon, that you can give to a candidate that matches your values.

Not everyone is thrilled with the program. Its funded by a property tax worth $30 million over 10 years, which the city calculates will cost the average homeowner $12 per year.

But its not about the amount of money for Mark Elster, a Seattle resident who along with another resident and help from the Freedom Foundation, a conservative think tank, has sued to stop the program. Elster does not support any of the candidates running for office and feels his money is providing political speech to those with whom he vehemently disagrees.

With three weeks to go before the primary, only 4 percent of the vouchers have been returned and cashed in by candidates who qualify. (Fox News)

Its a clear violation of First Amendment rights, said Elster. With free speech comes the right not to speak.

SEATTLE GUN TAX FAILURE? FIREARM SALES PLUMMET, VIOLENCE SPIKES AFTER LAW PASSES

Wayne Barnett, executive director of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, would not comment directly on the lawsuit, but defends the voucher program.

Most people have never had a candidate knock on their door and ask them to make a campaign contribution, Barnett said. Its empowering to people in a way theyve never been empowered before.

About 500,000 registered voters were mailed vouchers, but many more people are eligible to receive them if they apply. Non-citizens who are in the country legally cant vote, but they can get $100 worth of vouchers.

Jon Grant makes no apologies for seeking vouchers from everyone. The former director of the Tenants Union, who has been endorsed by the Democratic Socialist party, has collected vouchers from government-subsidized renters, new immigrants and some people living in illegal homeless camps. Its pushed Grant into the fundraising lead and has allowed him to have six paid campaign staffers. Two years ago, when he ran for the same seat against the incumbent, he raised only $75,000 through November and he could pay only one person.

One goal of the democracy voucher program is to reduce the amount and influence of money in politics. In exchange for receiving vouchers, candidates agree to a spending cap. The primary the cap is $150,000, from any combination of vouchers and private donations.

One goal of the democracy voucher program is to reduce the amount and influence of money in politics. In exchange for receiving vouchers, candidates agree to a spending cap. (Fox News)

But the Elections Commission has already lifted the spending cap.

Candidate Teresa Mosqueda, who has raised $100,000 in vouchers and another $85,000 in private donations, asked that the limit be lifted because an opponent who has opted out of the voucher program is raising a lot of private donations. Sarah Nelson, a brewery owner, is supported by the Seattle Chamber of Commerce. Her biggest donor is Amazon.

Four other candidates for City Council want to access vouchers, but havent qualified to receive the money. The bar to qualify is collecting 400 donations of at least $10 and matching signatures. Dr. Hisam Goueli is several dozen signatures short and is frustrated by the system.

I believe in its original intent, Goueli said. The problem is the program has become so cumbersome that its basically tanked our campaign.

With three weeks to go before the primary, only 4 percent of the vouchers have been returned and cashed in by candidates who qualify. Any voucher money that goes unused this year will roll over to the next election cycle.

Dan Springer joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in August 2001 as a Seattle-based correspondent.

View post:
Seattle's 'democracy voucher' under fire: 'Clear violation of 1st ... - Fox News

Theres great news just in from the folks at the ACLU of North Carolina:

RICHMOND, Va. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit today ruled 10-5 that the commissioners of Rowan County, North Carolina, violated the Constitution when they opened public meetings by coercing public participation in prayers that overwhelmingly advanced beliefs specific to one religion. The decision upheld a lower court ruling.

This ruling is a great victory for the rights of all residents to participate in their local government without fearing discrimination or being forced to join in prayers that go against their beliefs, said ACLU of North Carolina Legal Director Chris Brook, who argued the case. We are very pleased that the full Fourth Circuit has upheld a bedrock principle of the First Amendment: that government should not be in the business of promoting one set of religious beliefs over others.

The national ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief and the ACLU of North Carolina filed a lawsuit challenging the commissioners coercive prayer practice in March 2013 on behalf of three Rowan County residents.

All weve ever wanted is for Rowan County to be a welcoming place for everyone, no matter their religious beliefs, and I am so glad that the court agrees that the Constitution is on our side, said Nan Lund, the lead plaintiff in the case. No one in this community should fear being forced by government officials to participate in a prayer, or fear being discriminated against because they didnt participate in a prayer before a meeting for all the public.

Between 2007 and 2013, more than 97 percent of the prayers delivered by Rowan County commissioners before public meetings were specific to one religion, Christianity. The commissioners had instructed those present to stand and join in the prayer, leading many residents to feel coerced and pressured into doing so.

This decision serves as an important reminder that there are significant constitutional limits on government-sponsored prayer, said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

In May 2015, a federal district court ruled Rowans practice unconstitutional and ordered the commissioners to cease opening their meetings with coercive, sectarian prayer and a request that the public join them in prayers that advanced one faith.

Rowan County appealed that ruling and in September 2016 a divided 2-1 panel of the Fourth Circuit overturned the district court ruling. However, all 15 judges on the Fourth Circuit later agreed to vacate and reconsider that 2-1 decision. Oral arguments were held in front of all 15 judges in March 2017.

This is from the courts ruling:

We conclude that the Constitution does not allow what happened in Rowan County. The prayer practice served to identify the government with Christianity and risked conveying to citizens of minority faiths a message of exclusion. And because the commissioners were the exclusive prayer-givers, Rowan Countys invocation practice falls well outside the more inclusive, minister-oriented practice of legislative prayer described in [the case of] Town of Greece [v. Galloway]. Indeed, if elected representatives invite their constituents to participate in prayers invoking a single faith for meeting upon meeting, year after year, it is difficult to imagine constitutional limits to sectarian prayer practice.

The bottom line: This is just another powerful indicator of the critical importance of the federal courts in blunting Trumpism and of progressives staying fully engaged in the court nominations and confirmation process.

A statement issued yesterday afternoon by the good ...

Read the rest here:
BREAKING: First Amendment wins in new Court of Appeals government prayer decision - The Progressive Pulse

A man is seen with a laptop depicting an image of U.S. president Donald Trump with a Twitter logo displayed in the background in this photo illustration on 2 July, 2017.Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images

President Donald Trump has described himself on Twitter as MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL because of his use of social media. He has extolled the virtues of social media, allowing him to reach 100 million people without being intermediated by the Fake News Media. How presidential, effective, and good for America this novel approach to raw, direct communication is can be debated, but the legality of the presidents blocking Twitter users from receiving or replying to his posts based on their political viewpoints is beyond reasonable debate. It is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

On Tuesday, individuals who have been blocked by the president on Twitter filed a civil action in federal court in New York. That means Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald will soon opine on the presidents unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The complaint alleges that President Trumps Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, has become an important public forum for speech by, to, and about the President and by blocking individuals from receiving and replying to his tweets, the president is engaging in viewpoint-based discrimination prohibited by the First Amendment. Constitution protects certain platforms of communication in order to promote, as the Supreme Court put it, the free exchange of ideas . In a traditional public forum, like a public street or park, or in designated public forums, which are f ms designated by the government as a channel of communication for public debate, speakers can be excluded only when the exclusion is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and the exclusion is narrowly drawn to achieve that interest.

As Ive detailed on the Lawfare blog , although the president has not formally designated the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account as a public forum, this is no mere private account. The presidents own spokesperson, Sean Spicer, has stated that the posts of the president on that account should be considered official statements by the President of the United States . The president uses this account to speak to matters in his official capacitysuch as discussing his meetings with foreign leaders, providing reasons for hiring the FBI director, sharing video of cabinet meetings, and, of course, covfefe. Courts have taken heed; the Court of Appeals cited one of the presidents tweets in determining the purpose of the presidents Travel Ban.

Blocking people from receiving the official statements of the president based on their viewpoints is patently unconstitutional. Moreover, with some 20,000 replies posted to a typical @realDonaldTrump presidential tweet, there is undoubtedly a thriving public forum where citizens are engaging with the president and each other about matters of national importance. To deny an individual or an institution the right to participate in this forum affects not only their right to free speech, but it also affects the rights of the listenersthose individuals and institutions who were deprived of being able to hear the speech that was stifled.

The individual plaintiffs identified in the complaint have all alleged that they have been blocked by the president based on replies they tweeted criticizing the president or his policies. And there are many others that have been similarly blocked. For example, the veteran advocacy group VoteVets, which claims to represent more than 500,000 veterans, reports that it was blocked by the president after it tweeted a criticism of the president and his policies.

The next steps for the president seem clear: Stop engaging in viewpoint discrimination and unblock those individuals and institutions punished for criticizing him or his policies. If he doesnt, the courts will issue a declaration that his actions are unconstitutional and order him to comply. To quote one of the presidents tweets: See you in Court.

Robert M. Loeb is partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, in its Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice, and was previously an appellate counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice. Anjali Dalal is an associate at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, a former judicial law clerk to Judge Sack of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and has published on issues of how the First Amendment applies to Internet postings.

Read the original post:
How President Trump Is Violating the First Amendment - Fortune

Prominent Harvard law professor and liberal author Alan Dershowitz says Donald Trump Jr.s controversial meeting last year with a Russian lawyer is likely protected under the First Amendment.

Theres a big difference between the act of stealing, or the act of hacking, and the act of using it, Mr. Dershowitz told Fox Business host Neil Cavuto in an appearance Wednesday.

And theres really no difference under the First Amendment between a campaigner using information he obtained from somebody who obtained it illegally and a newspaper doing it, he continued. So I think this is conduct that would be covered by the First Amendment. It is also not prohibited by law. And theres been so much overwrought claim. There are people are talking about treason. I cant believe The New York Times had an op-ed yesterday in which treason was mentioned.

Mr. Trump Jr. on Tuesday released an email chain between himself and a British publicist that arranged a June 2016 meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who, according to the publicist, offered very high level and sensitive information about Hillary Clinton as part of the Russian governments support for Donald Trumps presidential campaign.

The younger Mr. Trump said Tuesday that the meeting turned out to be a waste of time and nothing came of it, but the revelation ramped up allegations from Democratic lawmakers that associates of President Trump may have colluded with the Russian government to influence the U.S. election. Some lawmakers, including Hillary Clintons running mate Tim Kaine, have said it could potentially lead to a treason investigation.

Mr. Dershowitz, however, said he doesnt see any crime at this point in Mr. Trump Jr.s behavior.

Even if the worst case scenario as far as we know now, is the Russians get in touch with Trump Jr. and say, we have some dirt on Hillary Clinton, come well give it to you and he goes and gets the information. Thats what the New York Times did with the Pentagon Papers, thats what the Washington Post did and many other newspaper did with information with Snowden and Manning, he told Newsmax Tuesday. You are allowed legally to use material that was obtained illegally as long as you had nothing to do with the illegal nature of obtaining the information, so at the moment I see no legal jeopardy for Trump Jr.

Read the original:
Alan Dershowitz: Donald Trump Jr.'s conduct likely covered by First Amendment - Washington Times