Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
Go to
www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.
| (i) Name of supported organization | (ii) EIN | (iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 10 above (see instructions)) | (iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document? | (v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions) | (vi) Amount of other support (see instructions) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||
|
Total |
||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2016 | (b) 2017 | (c) 2018 | (d) 2019 | (e) 2020 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") .. | 2,021,188 | 2,179,442 | 2,567,314 | 2,486,518 | 2,832,692 | 12,087,154 |
| 2 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf.... | ||||||
| 3 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | ||||||
| 4 | Total. Add lines 1 through 3 | 2,021,188 | 2,179,442 | 2,567,314 | 2,486,518 | 2,832,692 | 12,087,154 |
| 5 | The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f).. | 2,707,299 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 9,379,855 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2016 | (b) 2017 | (c) 2018 | (d) 2019 | (e) 2020 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 2,021,188 | 2,179,442 | 2,567,314 | 2,486,518 | 2,832,692 | 12,087,154 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 217 | 27,747 | 65,186 | 70,542 | 102,248 | 265,940 |
| 9 | Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.. | ||||||
| 10 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.).. | 8,381 | 6,471 | 14,491 | 4,592 | 2,718 | 36,653 |
| 11 | Total support. Add lines 7 through 10 | 12,402,059 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2016 | (b) 2017 | (c) 2018 | (d) 2019 | (e) 2020 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") . | ||||||
| 2 | Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose | ||||||
| 3 | Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513 ..... | ||||||
| 4 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf... | ||||||
| 5 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge | ||||||
| 6 | Total. Add lines 1 through 5 | ||||||
| 7a | Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons | ||||||
| b | Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 7a and 7b.. | ||||||
| 8 | Public support. (Subtract line 7c from line 6.) | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2016 | (b) 2017 | (c) 2018 | (d) 2019 | (e) 2020 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Amounts from line 6... | ||||||
| 10a | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources.. | ||||||
| b | Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 10a and 10b. | ||||||
| 11 | Net income from unrelated business activities not included in line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on. | ||||||
| 12 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.) .. | ||||||
| 13 | Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.).. | ||||||
| Section A - Adjusted Net Income | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Net short-term capital gain | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Other gross income (see instructions) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Add lines 1 through 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Depreciation and depletion | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Other expenses (see instructions) | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4) | 8 | ||||
| Section B - Minimum Asset Amount | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year): | 1 | ||||
| a | Average monthly value of securities | 1a | ||||
| b | Average monthly cash balances | 1b | ||||
| c | Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets | 1c | ||||
| d | Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c) | 1d | ||||
| e |
Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI): |
|||||
| 2 | Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Subtract line 2 from line 1d | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 0.015 of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions). | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3) | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Multiply line 5 by 0.035 | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6) | 8 | ||||
| Section C - Distributable Amount | Current Year | |||||
| 1 | Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A) | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Enter 85% of line 1 | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Enter greater of line 2 or line 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Income tax imposed in prior year | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| Section D - Distributions | Current Year | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes | 1 | |
|
2
Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity |
2 | |
| 3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations | 3 | |
| 4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets | 4 | |
| 5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required - provide details in Part VI) | 5 | |
| 6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions | 6 | |
| 7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6. | 7 | |
|
8
Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions |
8 | |
| 9 Distributable amount for 2020 from Section C, line 6 | 9 | |
| 10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount | 10 | |
| Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions) |
(i) Excess Distributions |
(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2020 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2020 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Distributable amount for 2020 from Section C, line 6 | ||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2019 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI). See instructions. |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2020: | ||||
| a From 2015....... | ||||
| b From 2016....... | ||||
| c From 2017....... | ||||
| d From 2018....... | ||||
| e From 2019....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2020 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2015 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from line 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2020 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2020 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from line 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2020, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2020. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2021. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a Excess from 2016..... | ||||
| b Excess from 2017..... | ||||
| c Excess from 2018..... | ||||
| d Excess from 2019..... | ||||
| e Excess from 2020..... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION A, LINE 8B | NO SUCH COMMITTEES EXISTED. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11B | THE INSTITUTE'S AUDIT COMMITTEE REVIEWS A DRAFT OF THE 990 PRIOR TO FILING. A COPY OF THE FORM 990 IS ALSO PROVIDED TO THE INSTITUTE'S GOVERNING BODY BEFORE IT IS FILED. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C | EVERY YEAR BOTH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND EVERY OFFICER REVIEWS THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY AND MUST DISCLOSE ANY CONFLICTS. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS REVIEWS THE POLICY AT OR AROUND ITS FINAL MEETING OF THE YEAR AND EACH MEMBER PROVIDES WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGMENT. EVERY EMPLOYEE ALSO RECEIVES AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE POLICY. ANY CONFLICTS OR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS ARE RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT OR OTHERWISE REPORTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND REVIEWED AND RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. IN REVIEWING ANY CONFLICT OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT, ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHO MAY HAVE A CONFLICT IS RECUSED FROM RESOLVING THE CONFLICT OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15A | THE PRESIDENT'S COMPENSATION IS NEGOTIATED WITH THE CHAIRMAN, AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD. COMPENSATION FOR EMPLOYEES IS APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 | THE INSTITUTE'S FORM 990 IS AVAILABLE ON ITS WEBSITE AND IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC UPON REQUEST. THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE ON ITS WEBSITE. THE INSTITUTE DOES NOT MAKE ITS GOVERNING DOCUMENTS AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. |
| FORM 990, PART XII, LINE 2C | THE PROCESS DID NOT CHANGE FROM THE PRIOR YEAR. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SELECTION OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDITORS AND OVERSIGHT OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDIT. |
| CASES IN LITIGATION PART I | CALZONE V. MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION (LOBBYING DISCLOSURE.) OUR REPRESENTATION OF RON CALZONE, A CITIZEN ACTIVIST IN MISSOURI, BEGAN IN AUGUST 2015. SOME LEGISLATORS AND LOBBYISTS IN THE STATE ATTEMPTED TO SILENCE MR. CALZONE, WHO HAS FOR MANY YEARS ADVOCATED FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, FREE MARKETS, AND CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED GOVERNMENT. UNFORTUNATELY, AS MR. CALZONE SAYS, "MY ACTIVISM HAS MADE SOME POWERFUL ENEMIES MAYBE HIGH-PAID LOBBYISTS DON'T LIKE HAVING TO EXPLAIN TO THEIR CLIENTS WHY AVERAGE CITIZENS, USING NOTHING MORE THAN FACTS, REASON, AND SPEECH, BEAT THEM AT THEIR OWN GAME TIME AND AGAIN." MR. CALZONE'S DIFFICULTIES WITH STATE REGULATORS BEGAN ON ELECTION DAY 2014, WHEN THE SOCIETY OF GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS, A LOBBYIST GUILD IN MISSOURI, FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION. THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT WHEN MR. CALZONE SPOKE WITH LEGISLATORS DURING HIS ADVOCACY, HE WAS ACTING AS A LOBBYIST. THIS CLAIM WAS SURPRISING BECAUSE CALZONE HAD NEVER BEEN PAID OR IN ANY WAY COMPENSATED, NOR HAD HE GIVEN ANY GIFTS TO LAWMAKERS. YET HIS ALLEGED FAILURE TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST WITH THE STATE COULD SUBJECT HIM TO FINES AND POSSIBLY EVEN JAIL TIME. THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH'S LEGAL TEAM STEPPED IN TO DEFEND MR. CALZONE AGAINST THESE ABSURD CHARGES, REPRESENTING CALZONE IN SEPTEMBER 2015 WHEN HIS CASE CAME BEFORE THE MISSOURI ETHICS COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION HEARING WAS A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE. FOR OVER FOUR HOURS, BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, THE COMMISSION VIOLATED BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES AND IGNORED THE PLAIN WORDS OF MISSOURI LAWS. WITNESSES THAT THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH'S ATTORNEYS HAD NEVER BEEN INFORMED ABOUT TESTIFIED AGAINST MR. CALZONE, DOCUMENTS WERE ENTERED AS EVIDENCE THAT WERE NEVER VERIFIED, AND THE INVESTIGATOR FOR THE COMMISSION QUOTED INTERVIEWS SHE ALLEGEDLY CONDUCTED WITH LAWMAKERS, DESPITE ADMITTING THAT SHE HAD DELETED ALL OF HER NOTES. IN THE END, THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT MR. CALZONE WAS A LOBBYIST AND SOUGHT TO FINE HIM $1,000 FOR NOT PROPERLY REGISTERING WITH THE STATE BEFORE EXPRESSING HIS OPINIONS ABOUT MISSOURI LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO STATE LEGISLATORS. OUR ATTORNEYS APPEALED THE COMMISSION'S RULING IN MISSOURI STATE COURT. A STATE COURT JUDGE ENDED THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MR. CALZONE BECAUSE THE INITIAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED BY A CORPORATION INSTEAD OF AN INDIVIDUAL AS REQUIRED BY LAW. SINCE ANOTHER COMPLAINT BY AN INDIVIDUAL COULD AGAIN TRIGGER AN INVESTIGATION AND FINE, OUR ATTORNEYS IMMEDIATELY FILED A LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT ON OCTOBER 21, 2016 SEEKING TO HAVE THE LAW DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AFTER A LOSS IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, WE APPEALED TO THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHERE A PANEL OF THREE JUDGES RULED AGAINST CALZONE, BUT THE OPINION DREW A SHARP DISSENT. WE APPEALED TO THE FULL EN BANC EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH AGREED TO REVIEW THE RULING. ON NOVEMBER 1, 2019, THE FULL EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULED IN FAVOR OF OUR CLIENT RON CALZONE'S RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT. THE COURT SET A NEW PRECEDENT ESTABLISHING THAT UNPAID VOLUNTEERS LIKE CALZONE WHO TALK TO STATE LEGISLATORS, WITHOUT TRYING TO INFLUENCE THEM WITH GIFTS, CANNOT BE FINED FOR FAILING TO REGISTER AS LOBBYISTS. THE CASE FINALLY ENDED IN MARCH 2020 WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE APPROVED AN AWARD FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES. OUR SUCCESS IN THIS CASE PROTECTED THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PETITION GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. |
| CASES IN LITIGATION PART II | INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH V. BONTA (DISCLOSURE OF GIVING TO CHARITIES.) AS IN MOST JURISDICTIONS, CHARITIES SOLICITING CONTRIBUTIONS IN CALIFORNIA ARE REQUIRED TO REGISTER WITH THE STATE. EACH YEAR, REGISTERED CHARITIES ARE REQUIRED TO FILE A COPY OF THEIR IRS FORM 990 TAX RETURNS WITH THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AS A CONDITION OF MAINTAINING THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED ABILITY TO SOLICIT CONTRIBUTIONS. ON SCHEDULE B OF THE FORM 990, CHARITIES ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT TO THE IRS THE NAMES, ADDRESSES, AND AMOUNT DONATED FOR MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS DURING THE YEAR. THE SCHEDULE B IS SUBMITTED TO THE IRS ON A CONFIDENTIAL BASIS AND, UNDER FEDERAL LAW, THE AGENCY IS PROHIBITED FROM RELEASING THIS INFORMATION TO ANYONE, EXCEPT IN VERY NARROWLY DEFINED CIRCUMSTANCES AND ONLY ON A CONFIDENTIAL BASIS. HISTORICALLY, THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL DID NOT REQUIRE REGISTERED CHARITIES TO FILE COPIES OF THEIR CONFIDENTIAL, UNREDACTED FORM 990 SCHEDULE B DONOR LISTS WITH THE STATE. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ONLY BEGAN DEMANDING THIS INFORMATION IN RECENT YEARS, AND THE SUDDEN DEMANDS DID NOT ARISE FROM ANY CHANGES IN, AND WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY, THE STATE'S LAWS AND REGULATIONS. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ALSO HAD NOT CITED ANY RECENT CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING THESE DEMANDS. BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS NOT LEGALLY ENTITLED TO THIS INFORMATION AND HAS NO GOOD REASON FOR DEMANDING IT, THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH FILED SUIT TO STOP THIS PRACTICE. WE ARGUED THAT THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DEMAND FOR OUR DONOR INFORMATION WAS AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH AND ITS DONORS' FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION. DONORS WHO MAY NOT NECESSARILY WISH TO SPEAK ON THEIR OWN ABOUT AN ISSUE MAY CHOOSE TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO SPEAK BY GIVING TO AN ORGANIZATION SPEAKING ON THEIR BEHALF. THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE FOR UNPOPULAR OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES PRECISELY THE TYPE OF SPEECH FOR WHICH THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S PROTECTIONS ARE MOST IMPORTANT. DONORS MUST BE FREE TO GIVE TO ANY LAWFUL CAUSE OF THEIR CHOOSING WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTRUSION. IF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE LOOKING OVER CITIZENS' SHOULDERS AND REVIEWING WHICH GROUPS THEY GIVE TO, THEY WILL CHILL DONORS' WILLINGNESS TO GIVE TO CERTAIN GROUPS, THEREBY REDUCING THEIR ABILITY TO SPEAK, AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THEIR ASSOCIATION. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE DEFAULT RULE SHOULD BE FOR INDIVIDUAL CHARITIES OPPOSING DEMANDS FOR THEIR DONOR INFORMATION TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY WILL FACE PARTICULARIZED HARM FROM TURNING THE DATA OVER TO THE GOVERNMENT. IN EFFECT, THIS CREATES A CATCH-22 IN WHICH ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR DONORS CAN CLAIM AN EXEMPTION ONLY AFTER THEY HAVE ALREADY SUFFERED HARM OR THREATS, BUT ORGANIZATIONS AND DONORS WOULD HAVE NO PROTECTION AGAINST POTENTIAL FUTURE HARM. FIRST AMENDMENT CASE LAW DOES NOT SUPPORT SUCH A BACKWARDS-LOOKING RULE. THE NINTH CIRCUIT RULED FOR CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING NONPROFITS FROM ENGAGING IN PROTECTED FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH IF THEY MAINTAIN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR SUPPORTERS. THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH WAS BANNED FROM SPEAKING WITH POTENTIAL DONORS IN CALIFORNIA UNLESS IT REPORTED ITS DONORS TO THE STATE. SINCE FILING THE LAWSUIT, THE INSTITUTE HAS REFUSED TO ACCEDE TO THE STATE'S DEMANDS AND AS A CONSEQUENCE STOPPED SOLICITING CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE STATE. ON DECEMBER 18, 2019, IFS ASKED THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO HEAR THE CASE AND REAFFIRM ITS LONGSTANDING PRECEDENTS ON FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION. ON JULY 2, 2021, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT GRANTED OUR PETITION. THE NINTH CIRCUIT'S RULING WAS VACATED AND THE CASE WAS REMANDED BACK TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOR RECONSIDERATION AFTER THE SUPREME COURT'S RULING IN AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY V. BONTA THE PREVIOUS DAY. OUR SUCCESS IN THIS CASE PROTECTED THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY. |
| CASES IN LITIGATION PART III | JOE MARKLEY AND ROB SAMPSON V. STATE ELECTIONS ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION (LIMITS ON CANDIDATE SPEECH.) AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS A STATE'S EFFORT TO RESTRICT VOTERS FROM HEARING IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT ELECTIONS AND CANDIDATES. CONNECTICUT'S STATE ELECTIONS ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION (SEEC) FINED TWO GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEMBERS FOR CAMPAIGN MAILERS THAT DISCUSSED THE GOVERNOR'S POLICIES. WITH THE HELP OF IFS, THE TWO CANDIDATES ARE FIGHTING BACK. JOE MARKLEY, THEN A STATE SENATOR, AND ROB SAMPSON, THEN A STATE REPRESENTATIVE (AND NOW A STATE SENATOR), WERE ENSNARED BY THE LAW AFTER THEY DECIDED TO SPLIT THE COSTS ON A SERIES OF STANDARD CAMPAIGN MAILERS HIGHLIGHTING THEIR ACHIEVEMENTS IN OFFICE. THE MAILERS PROMOTED MARKLEY AND SAMPSON AS OPPONENTS OF GOVERNOR DANNEL MALLOY'S POLICIES ON TAXES AND GOVERNMENT SPENDING. MALLOY WAS ALSO ON THE BALLOT THAT YEAR. BY CRITICIZING THE GOVERNOR'S RECORD, THE SEEC ARGUED THAT MARKLEY AND SAMPSON MADE AN ILLEGAL EXPENDITURE ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNOR'S OPPONENT. THE SEEC ORDERED SAMPSON TO PAY A $5,000 FINE AND ORDERED MARKLEY TO PAY A $2,000 FINE. IN ORDER FOR THE ADS TO BE LEGAL, THE SEEC BELIEVES THE GOVERNOR'S OPPONENT WOULD HAVE HAD TO APPROVE AND SHARE IN THE COSTS OF THE ADS. THIS IS HIGHLY UNREALISTIC AND WOULD RESULT IN LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATES BEING EFFECTIVELY PROHIBITED FROM SPEAKING ABOUT A GOVERNOR'S POLICIES IN CAMPAIGN ADS IF THE GOVERNOR IS RUNNING FOR REELECTION. WE ASKED A CONNECTICUT COURT TO DISMISS THE FINES AND DECLARE THE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AFTER THE STATE COURT RULED THAT IT COULD NOT RULE ON THE CASE BECAUSE TOO MUCH TIME HAD PASSED, OUR CLIENTS APPEALED. THE CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT AGREED TO HEAR THE CASE BEFORE THE LOWER APPEALS COURT HAD EVEN RULED ON IT. THE SUPREME COURT REVERSED THE LOWER COURT AND RULED THAT DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL WOULD "EFFECTIVELY PENALIZE THE PLAINTIFFS FOR THE COMMISSION'S MISTAKE" THAT DELAYED A JUDICIAL APPEAL. NOW WE SEEK VICTORY ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. SUCCESS IN THIS CASE WOULD PROTECT THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO SPEAK AND PUBLISH. MAZO AND MCCORMICK V. WAY, ET AL. (BALLOT SLOGAN RESTRICTIONS.) IFS ATTORNEYS ARE REPRESENTING TWO CANDIDATES FOR CONGRESS IN NEW JERSEY, EUGENE MAZO AND LISA MCCORMICK, IN A FEDERAL LAWSUIT ASKING THE COURT TO DECLARE THE STATE'S RESTRICTIONS ON CAMPAIGN SLOGANS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. NEW JERSEY LAW ALLOWS CANDIDATES IN PRIMARY ELECTIONS FOR CONGRESS TO INCLUDE A SLOGAN OF UP TO SIX WORDS NEXT TO THEIR NAME ON THE BALLOT. THE LAW, HOWEVER, PROHIBITS SLOGANS FROM NAMING OR REFERRING TO ANY OTHER PERSON OR ANY INCORPORATED ENTITY IN NEW JERSEY, UNLESS THE CANDIDATE RECEIVES THEIR PERMISSION. THIS HAS FUELED A COMPETITION IN THE STATE TO INCORPORATE ENTITIES IN ORDER TO OWN THE RIGHTS TO THEIR NAMES FOR BALLOT SLOGANS AND EXCLUDE OTHERS FROM USING THEM. EUGENE MAZO IS A LAW PROFESSOR WHO IS SEEKING THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION TO THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN NEW JERSEY'S 10TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. MAZO SUBMITTED THREE SLOGANS, BUT ALL WERE REJECTED BY THE STATE BECAUSE EACH NAMED AN INCORPORATED ENTITY IN NEW JERSEY. TO AVOID HAVING NO SLOGAN APPEAR ON THE BALLOT, MAZO DID WHAT OTHER CANDIDATES DO: HE REGISTERED CORPORATIONS OF HIS OWN IN THE STATE, NAMED AFTER SLOGANS HE WISHED TO USE. LISA MCCORMICK IS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER WHO IS SEEKING THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR THE HOUSE IN NEW JERSEY'S 12TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. STATE OFFICIALS DENIED HER CHOICE OF SLOGAN NOT ME. US." BECAUSE MCCORMICK DID NOT HAVE PERMISSION FROM AN INCORPORATED ENTITY ORGANIZED IN NEW JERSEY UNDER THAT NAME. A SECOND SLOGAN NAMING BERNIE SANDERS WAS ALSO DENIED BECAUSE SHE DID NOT HAVE SANDERS' PERMISSION TO USE HIS NAME. ULTIMATELY, MCCORMICK WAS ABLE TO SECURE PERMISSION TO USE THE SLOGAN, "DEMOCRATS UNITED FOR PROGRESS." CANDIDATES HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THE RHETORIC AND LANGUAGE OF THEIR CHOICE IN THEIR SLOGANS. YET NEW JERSEY'S LAW ALLOWS ANYONE TO CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF A SLOGAN SIMPLY BY INCORPORATING AN ENTITY UNDER THAT NAME. THIS SYSTEM IS UNWISE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE CASE IS MAZO AND MCCORMICK V. WAY, ET AL. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY, NEWARK DIVISION. SUCCESS IN THIS CASE WOULD PROTECT THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SPEAK. |
| CASES IN LITIGATION PART IV | SOUTH DAKOTA NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION, ET AL. V. BARNETT, ET AL. (CONSTITUTIONALITY OF BAN ON OUT-OF-STATE CONTRIBUTIONS.) AMERICANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE STATE BALLOT MEASURES, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT RESIDENTS OF THE STATE. THIS WAS THE ISSUE AT THE HEART OF THIS CASE. ON BEHALF OF OUR CLIENTS, THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT TO DEFEND THIS IMPORTANT FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT. THIS CASE BEGAN WHEN SOUTH DAKOTA VOTERS APPROVED INITIATED MEASURE 24 IN 2018. THE LAW BANNED "ANY CONTRIBUTION TO A STATEWIDE BALLOT QUESTION COMMITTEE BY A PERSON WHO IS NOT A RESIDENT OF THE STATE AT THE TIME OF THE CONTRIBUTION, A POLITICAL COMMITTEE THAT IS ORGANIZED OUTSIDE SOUTH DAKOTA, OR AN ENTITY THAT IS NOT FILED AS AN ENTITY WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE FOUR YEARS PRECEDING SUCH CONTRIBUTION." SUCH A BAN ON OUT-OF-STATE CONTRIBUTIONS IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT. COURTS HAVE LONG RECOGNIZED THAT CONTRIBUTIONS TO BALLOT MEASURE CAMPAIGNS PROMOTE ROBUST DEBATE ABOUT PUBLIC ISSUES. THEY THEREFORE RECEIVE SIGNIFICANT FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS. THIS IS NO LESS TRUE FOR CONTRIBUTIONS FROM RESIDENTS OF OTHER STATES. THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS CASE WERE FOUR TRADE ASSOCIATIONS THAT WISH TO SPEND FUNDS TO SPEAK ABOUT BALLOT MEASURES IN SOUTH DAKOTA, AND ONE NATIONAL NONPROFIT AND ONE FORMER SOUTH DAKOTA RESIDENT WHO WISH TO DONATE FUNDS TO GROUPS THAT SPEAK ABOUT SOUTH DAKOTA BALLOT ISSUES. ALL SIX WOULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED FROM EXERCISING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS BECAUSE OF THE BAN. THE SOUTH DAKOTA NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION IS A NONPROFIT FOUNDED IN 1882 THAT REPRESENTS SOUTH DAKOTA'S 114 WEEKLY AND 11 DAILY NEWSPAPERS. THE SOUTH DAKOTA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION IS A NONPROFIT FOUNDED IN 1897 THAT REPRESENTS NEARLY 4,000 SOUTH DAKOTA RETAILERS ACROSS THE STATE. THE SOUTH DAKOTA BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION IS A NONPROFIT THAT REPRESENTS 26 TV AND 118 RADIO STATIONS IN THE STATE. AND THE SOUTH DAKOTA CHAMBER BALLOT ACTION COMMITTEE IS AN EVERGREEN COMMITTEE AFFILIATED WITH THE SOUTH DAKOTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AN ORGANIZATION CREATED BY BUSINESS LEADERS TO PROMOTE PUBLIC POLICY IN THE STATE. THESE FOUR GROUPS ALL ADVOCATE FOR THE POLICIES THEY THINK ARE BEST FOR SOUTH DAKOTA. TO DO SO, THEY ADVOCATE FOR AND AGAINST BALLOT MEASURES. BUT ALL FOUR OF THESE GROUPS ALSO WANTED TO RECEIVE OUT-OF-STATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO HELP FUND THEIR ADVOCACY. BY BANNING SUCH FUNDS, SOUTH DAKOTA WAS LIMITING THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF THESE GROUPS. THE PLAINTIFFS ALSO INCLUDED THOMAS BARNETT, JR., A FORMER SOUTH DAKOTA RESIDENT WHO HAS LONG BEEN ACTIVE IN BALLOT MEASURE CAMPAIGNS, WHO HAD RECENTLY RETIRED TO FLORIDA. THIS BAN THUS PRESENTED SERIOUS HARM BOTH TO IN-STATE GROUPS LOOKING TO ACCEPT OUT-OF-STATE FUNDS AND OUT-OF-STATE GROUPS AND CITIZENS LOOKING TO SPEAK IN THE STATE. THE GOVERNMENT HAD NO LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN ENFORCING THIS BAN. FAR FROM BENEFITING THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, THIS BAN WOULD HARM THEM BY REMOVING VALUABLE VOICES IN DEBATES ABOUT BALLOT MEASURES. MANY STATE ISSUES HAVE NATIONAL OR REGIONAL IMPLICATIONS, AND VOTERS MAY WISH TO HEAR FROM NON-STATE RESIDENTS OR BUSINESSES WHO WILL BE AFFECTED BY STATE POLICY. VOTERS MAY ALSO WISH TO HEAR FROM NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WITH EXPERTISE IN SPECIFIC POLICY AREAS. THE LAWSUIT ALSO ARGUED THAT THE BAN WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BECAUSE IT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST AND BURDENS THE INTERSTATE FLOW OF FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OUT-OF-STATE INDIVIDUALS. ON MAY 9, 2019, A FEDERAL JUDGE AGREED WITH THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH'S ARGUMENT THAT THIS BAN WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER BOTH THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. THE STATE CHOSE NOT TO APPEAL, AND THE CASE FORMALLY ENDED ON JANUARY 9, 2020 WHEN THE FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERED AN AWARD FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THE CASE. OUR SUCCESS IN THIS CASE PROTECTED THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO SPEAK AND PUBLISH. |
| CASES IN LITIGATION PART V | THOMAS V. BRIGHT (CONSTITUTIONALITY OF TENNESSEE POLITICAL SIGN REGULATIONS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.) THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH REPRESENTED WILLIAM H. THOMAS, JR. IN THE STATE'S APPEAL OF A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT RULING THAT TENNESSEE'S SIGN RULES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IN MARCH 2017, A FEDERAL JUDGE RULED FOR THOMAS, SAYING TENNESSEE LAW VIOLATED THE FIRST AMENDMENT BY CREATING "AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL, CONTENT-BASED REGULATION OF SPEECH." MR. THOMAS OWNS SEVERAL ROADSIDE SIGNS. THIS APPEAL CONCERNED ONE SUCH SIGN, WHICH HE HAS USED TO EXPRESS VARIOUS NON-COMMERCIAL MESSAGES AND OPINIONS, SUCH AS CHEERING ON U.S. ATHLETES DURING THE OLYMPICS AND CELEBRATING HOLIDAYS. TENNESSEE HAS SOUGHT TO TEAR DOWN MR. THOMAS'S SIGN, BUT CRUCIALLY, IT WOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO DO SO HAD IT ADVERTISED ON-SITE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OR THE SALE OF HIS PROPERTY. SUCH ADS ARE EXEMPT UNDER THE LAW GOVERNING BILLBOARDS IN TENNESSEE. SO IF A NEARBY AUTO BODY SHOP WANTED TO ADVERTISE A SALE ON TIRES WITH THE SAME-SIZED BILLBOARD, IT COULD DO SO. AS A RESULT OF THIS EXEMPTION, THE STATE MUST LOOK TO A SIGN'S CONTENT TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT SHOULD BE REGULATED. THIS CREATES A MAJOR FIRST AMENDMENT PROBLEM. A LAW THAT PERMITS A SIGN THAT SAYS "CHEAP CIGARETTES HERE," BUT PROHIBITS AN IDENTICAL-SIZED SIGN THAT READS "CUT THE PROPERTY TAX OR "PASS THE CLEAN WATER ACT" IS A CONTENT-BASED RESTRICTION ON SPEECH. SUCH RESTRICTIONS MUST SURVIVE STRICT SCRUTINY. TENNESSEE APPEALED THE LOWER COURT'S RULING IN OCTOBER 2017. THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH REPRESENTED THOMAS DURING THE APPEAL BUT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE CASE PREVIOUSLY. ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2019, THE UNITED STATES SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT THE TENNESSEE BILLBOARD ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THIS RULING SET A NEW PRECEDENT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT AND WILL BE INFLUENTIAL IN OTHER FEDERAL COURTS. THE COURT BARRED TENNESSEE FROM TEARING DOWN A SIGN PRAISING TEAM USA THAT BELONGED TO OUR CLIENT. THE KEY PRINCIPLE AT STAKE IN THIS CASE GOES FAR BEYOND A PATRIOT PROHIBITED FROM SALUTING THE OLYMPIC TEAM. AS THE COURT NOTED IN ITS OPINION, "THE BILLBOARD ACT'S ON-PREMISES EXCEPTION SCHEME IS A CONTENT-BASED REGULATION OF (RESTRICTION ON) FREE SPEECH." AS SUCH, THE STATE'S LAW ENABLED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST POLITICAL AND PUBLIC POLICY SPEECH. TENNESSEE PETITIONED THE U.S. SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW, BUT THE COURT DENIED THE PETITION ON JULY 9, 2020. THE CASE ENDED WITH A SEPTEMBER 2, 2020 RULING BY THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE PROVIDING AN AWARD OF $259,055 IN ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR OUR WORK IN THIS CASE. OUR SUCCESS IN THIS CASE PROTECTED THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO SPEAK AND PUBLISH. |
| CASES IN LITIGATION PART VI | YES ON PROP B V. SAN FRANCISCO (COMPELLED SPEECH, INCLUDING TOP FIVE DONOR DISCLOSURE ON FACE OF COMMUNICATION.) DISCLAIMERS MUST BE SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD SO THAT VIEWERS CAN REMEMBER THEM AND SPEAKERS ARE NOT FORCED TO READ LENGTHY GOVERNMENT SCRIPTS. YET SAN FRANCISCO HAS CREATED DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENTS FOR CAMPAIGN ADS THAT CAN TAKE UP 28 SECONDS OF AD TIME OR OVER 30% OF PRINTED ADS. SUCH A LENGTHY DISCLAIMER CHILLS PROTECTED POLITICAL SPEECH AND WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE LAWSUIT, YES ON PROP B V. SAN FRANCISCO. SAN FRANCISCO POLITICAL ACTIVIST TODD DAVID FORMED THE COMMITTEE YES ON PROP B TO SUPPORT THE PASSAGE OF A MARCH 2020 BALLOT INITIATIVE TO IMPROVE HIS CITY'S FIRE, EARTHQUAKE, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE FACILITIES AND SERVICES. TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL, YES ON PROP B ("YPB") INTENDED TO PURCHASE DIGITAL VIDEO ADS, YARD AND WINDOW SIGNS, AND CHINESE LANGUAGE NEWSPAPER ADS. THE GROUP'S EFFORTS TO PERSUADE THE ELECTORATE WERE EFFECTIVELY SILENCED BY SAN FRANCISCO'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENTS. ON JANUARY 28, 2020, YES ON PROP B FILED A LAWSUIT IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TO SECURE ITS RIGHT TO SPEAK ABOUT ELECTIONS IN COMMON, COST-EFFECTIVE FORMATS. AFTER HEARING ORAL ARGUMENTS, THE COURT GRANTED ONLY LIMITED RELIEF COVERING NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS AND AUDIO AND VIDEO ADS OF 30 SECONDS OR LESS. THE RULING UPHELD THE DISCLAIMER REGIME OUTSIDE OF THESE NARROW CATEGORIES AND DETERMINED THAT THE RISK OF THE DISCLAIMERS CHILLING SPEECH WAS "MODEST." IN DOING SO, THE DISTRICT COURT WENT AGAINST PRECEDENT OF BOTH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ON MARCH 20, 2020, YPB APPEALED TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEYS FROM THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH, THE APPELLANTS ASKED THE COURT TO DECLARE SAN FRANCISCO'S DISCLAIMER REGIME UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN ITS ENTIRETY. UNFORTUNATELY, ON OCTOBER 21, 2020, THE NINTH CIRCUIT RULED THAT OUR CLIENT'S CLAIMS WERE MOOT AND DISMISSED THEM WITHOUT REACHING THE MERITS OF THEIR ARGUMENTS. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |