"We are watching as the Democrats and radicalized special interest groups are using this fog of COVID to fundamentally remake American elections," said Catherine Engelbrecht, the president of True the Vote, a group that says it is trying to protect against voter fraud. She spoke on Thursday during a webinar sponsored by a conservative nonprofit, the Committee for Justice.
At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Democratic officials and activists prioritized pushing states to implement universal mail-in balloting, eliminating in-person voting altogether. These mandatory vote-by-mail and forced early voting policies would disenfranchise voters through fraud and mistake, and violate voters’ fundamental right to vote. Advocates are also trying to impose mail-in voting through court orders, invalidating voters’ votes for their representatives, rather than judges, to make these laws. In this virtual panel, election experts Jim Bopp, Catherine Engelbrecht, and Jason Snead weigh in on how vote-by-mail violates voting rights and the recent flood of litigation related to this issue.
At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Democratic officials and activists prioritized pushing states to implement universal mail-in balloting, eliminating in-person voting altogether. These mandatory vote-by-mail and forced early voting policies would disenfranchise voters through fraud and mistake, and violate voters’ fundamental right to vote. Advocates are also trying to impose mail-in voting through court orders, invalidating voters’ votes for their representatives, rather than judges, to make these laws. In this virtual panel, experts weigh in on how vote-by-mail violates voting rights and the recent flood of litigation related to this issue. Feauturing Jim Bopp, Jr., Catherine Engelbrecht, and Jason Sead.
Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg spent roughly $500 million on the 2020 presidential race and has very little to show for it. This should silence the ridiculous liberal fearmongering about Citizens United v. FEC (2010) once and for all.
Ashley Baker, director of Public Policy at the Committee for Justice, meanwhile warned that any proposed government solutions to the issues with Section 230 “are worse than the problem.” "Calling for top-down intervention by the government into social media content would give bureaucrats immense control over online speech," Baker said via email.
Contrary to popular belief, Citizens United did not let loose the dogs of corporate political warfare. As Committee for Justice President Curt Levey explained, this decision left most of the limits on political spending in place. "The total ban on corporate contributions to candidates, political parties, and political action committees remains in place," he explained.
Ten years ago today, the Supreme Court issued its famous Citizens United decision, striking down a federal ban on independent campaign advertising by corporations and labor unions as a violation of the First Amendment.
Last year, the Committee for Justice continued to play an influential role in holding judges and politicians accountable to the constitution. We worked to reclaim the judiciary from activist judges, confront the unaccountable administrative state, and oppose calls to restructure the Supreme Court.
NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), and its progeny held that courts should apply narrow tailoring to violations of the freedom of association. Has that requirement been overruled such that the right to associate privately does not enjoy the strong protective standard that applies to other First Amendment rights, which this Court has held requires narrow tailoring regardless of the level of scrutiny?
It may never be known whether Obama’s tirade against the Supreme Court was politically motivated or sincere. Levey for one is skeptical. “They didn’t worry about it when it was George Soros, who was doing this before the Koch brothers did,” he said. “There’s a lot of hypocrisy involved.”
At The Federalist Society blog, Ashley Baker remarks that Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, the court held that a private nonprofit that runs a public-access TV channel is not a “state actor” and therefore cannot be sued for violating the First Amendment, "notably declined — despite clear opportunities — to opine on online speech."
The Supreme Court's decision comes as the public debate about free speech heats up, with lawmakers and the general public upset about social media practices and conservatives wary of what they see as discriminatory censorship of online content by Facebook, Twitter, Google, and the like.
While House Democrats cloak the bill in terms of “restoring democracy” and “preventing corruption,” the legislation has one goal: to protect incumbents at the expense of the First Amendment, federalism, and individual voter integrity.
The Committee for Justice was very busy in 2018. In the last year, we advocated for a clear framework for accessing data abroad, worked to dispel the myth of Russian social media ads and election interference, applauded Supreme Court rulings on privacy and religious liberty, weighed in on how to regulate new technologies, and – last but not least – helped lead the long and brutal fight to #ConfirmKavanaugh.