Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

No on E v. Chiu: It’s a First Amendment Problem When Cities Regulate Political Speech

by April 8, 2024
April 8, 2024
No on E v. Chiu: It’s a First Amendment Problem When Cities Regulate Political Speech

Anastasia P. Boden, Brent Skorup, and Christopher Barnewolt

The Supreme Court has said that political speech “occupies the ‘highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values,’ and is entitled to special protection.” Yet lawmakers frequently target political speech and advocate for special regulation. A recent case, No on E v. Chiu, raises the question: When Americans want to engage in political speech, to what extent can the government compel them to include its own desired speech as well? According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the answer seems to be that there is no limit—localities can even make the government‐​mandated speech the primary message in someone else’s political ad. Such a result flies in the face of the First Amendment.

This case arose because San Francisco campaign finance law is stricter than state law. Critically, local rules require campaign ads to name the top two donors to each of the speaker’s top three donors, if any of those donors is also a committee. These disclaimers are required on video, audio, and print ads.

This means that political ads in San Francisco are required to name up to nine donors (and donors’ donors), those parties’ contribution amounts (for print ads), and a statement that financial disclosures are available online. Violations of these local laws are punishable by civil, criminal, and administrative penalties.

Not surprisingly, these mandated disclosures take up much time and space in a typical advertisement. Todd David, founder of the local “No on E” political campaign, found that the requirements consumed over 30 seconds. In all, San Francisco’s compelled speech would consume over half of the screen for portions of video ads, most of the time of No on E’s short video ads and huge portions of their print ads and mailers.

In addition to the displacement of political speech caused by San Francisco’s commandeering of No on E’s political ads, these regulations seriously burden people’s freedom of association. That’s because a mandate to publicize donors’ donors can mislead and confuse voters since those donors‐​once‐​removed may have no knowledge of the political campaign in question, let alone support it. For instance, one of No on E’s top donors—the Ed Lee Dems PAC—withdrew its support from the No on E campaign because the mandated disclaimers would give voters the false impression that the PAC’s donors supported the campaign.

Todd David sued the government, alleging that San Francisco’s rules violate the First Amendment. When David’s case, No on E. v. Chiu, reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court determined that “exacting scrutiny” applies to San Francisco’s regulations of political speech and found that the law was constitutional under this standard. No on E appealed that ruling to the US Supreme Court.

The Cato Institute submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in No on E. v. Chiu, urging the court to grant certiorari and make clear that strict scrutiny—not exacting scrutiny—is the correct standard for evaluating compelled speech laws like San Francisco’s. While the court has applied exacting scrutiny in the narrow context of campaign finance disclosures and disclaimers, San Francisco’s regulations are fundamentally different.

San Francisco’s mandated combination of disclosures and disclaimers—extended even to donor’s donors—directly burdens core political speech and the freedom of association.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision opens the door to onerous new state and municipal restrictions on Americans’ right to participate in the political process. The Supreme Court should grant No on E’s petition and prevent this type of novel interference with First Amendment rights.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
On FISA, What Is DoJ Hiding?
next post
Experts weigh in on liberal ‘freak out’ over RFK Jr after VP announcement: ‘Democrats’ worst nightmare’

You may also like

More Costly Steel Tariffs on the Horizon

February 11, 2025

126 Parole Orders over 7 Decades: A Historical Review of...

July 17, 2023

New Paper: Only 3 Percent of Green Card...

February 15, 2024

New York City Corruption

April 22, 2025

Affirmative Action in College Admissions

May 30, 2023

Lorie Smith’s Rights—and Ours

June 30, 2023

Big Brother’s Censorship Will Harm Those They Claim...

August 14, 2024

Should Election Authorities Publish the Records of Individual...

November 29, 2023

Americans Paid for the Trump Tariffs—and Would Do...

August 19, 2024

Will Big Sky Country Redefine Climate Policy?

April 15, 2024

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Friday Feature: Savannah Legacy Academy

      June 27, 2025
    • The Supreme Court Is Right on Reading Opt-Outs, But That’s Not Enough

      June 27, 2025
    • Barrett eviscerates Jackson, Sotomayor takes on a ‘complicit’ court in contentious final opinions

      June 27, 2025
    • Trump would strike Iran ‘without question’ if it restarts nuclear weapons program

      June 27, 2025
    • Florida man indicted for ’86’ posts allegedly threatening to kill Alina Habba

      June 27, 2025
    • Top House Republicans send stern warning to Senate GOP as Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ risks delay

      June 27, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,329)
    • Investing (2,079)
    • Politics (15,835)
    • Stocks (3,174)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved