From our friends at Unleash Prosperity, another fantastic visual aid to rebut the predictable default…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: Climate Change Causing Wildfires? No.

From our friends at Unleash Prosperity, another fantastic visual aid to rebut the predictable default rationalization that climate change, rather than incompetent leadership, underlies wildfires in California or elsewhere:

 

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="874"] Climate Change? No.[/caption]

 …[more]

January 17, 2025 • 07:50 AM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
CFIF Scores Victory in Campaign Finance Case Print
By Jeff Mazzella
Tuesday, February 02 2016

On January 21, 2016, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously ruled in favor of the Center for Individual Freedom (“CFIF”) in Van Hollen v. FEC, a campaign finance case addressing free speech and compelled disclosure. 

The decision marks the second time in the case that the Court of Appeals reversed a decision by District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who twice struck down a Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) rule requiring non-profit organizations that spend more than $10,000 per year on electioneering communications to disclose only donors who give “for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications.” 

Congressman Christopher Van Hollen (D-Maryland) brought suit against the FEC, hoping to force organizations engaged in electioneering communications to disclose all donors who contribute over a certain amount, regardless of whether they intended for their donations to fund such speech.

Anticipating that the FEC, due to its split membership, might not appeal any adverse decision at the district court level, CFIF intervened to protect free speech interests and to preserve a right to appeal.

The Court of Appeals’ decision, authored by Judge Janice Rogers Brown and joined by Judges David Sentelle and Raymond Randolph, reversed the district court and upheld the FEC rule as being consistent with the requirements of Chevron and the Administrative Procedure Act.  The court also acknowledged the burdens that compelled disclosure impose on free speech and association guaranteed by the First Amendment.

“By affixing a purpose requirement on BCRA’s disclosure provision, the FEC exercised its unique prerogative to safeguard the First Amendment when implementing its congressional directives,” wrote Judge Brown. “Its tailoring was an able attempt to balance the competing values that lie at the heart of campaign finance law.”

CFIF was represented in the case by Thomas W. Kirby, Jan Witold Baran, Caleb P. Burns and Samuel B. Gedge of Wiley Rein, LLP. 

To read the full entire D.C. Circuit Court decision, click here

Notable Quote   
 
"Days before departing his last political job, a beleaguered Joe Biden went to the podium to announce a long-awaited ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. But when pressed by the news media over who should get credit for the deal, the 46th American president demurred.'Is that a joke?' Biden retorted Wednesday afternoon. And moments later he walked away without providing an answer.Half way across the…[more]
 
 
— John Solomon, Chief Executive Officer and Editor in Chief of Just the News
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you support the U.S. ban of TikTok unless it is sold by its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, for national security and privacy reasons?