<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Sunday, September 20, 2026

 

NYT on California campaign censorship: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/19/business/media/california-political-ads-influencers-law.html soft paywall 

the state has required the disclosures for paid posts about state- and local-level campaigns since 2023, but until now, content creators couldn’t be fined or prosecuted if they failed to comply. Now, California campaign finance regulators are empowered to impose fines on influencers of up to $5,000 for each violation or to refer those violations to law enforcement as potential misdemeanors.

Politicians and advocacy groups are increasingly turning to influencers as a way to reach younger, more online audiences and, in some cases, are paying them for their 

Rather obviously this violates the 5th A right of self-incrimination. 

Less obviously, it also violates three sections of the California constitution. Schuster, Ghafari and in re Anonymous Internet Speakers cases, I'll have to double checkc that last cite, under the Privacy clause of the Ca constitution.

 Also of course Talley v California, NIFLA, Bonta, etc.  

ken.bensinger@nytimes.com 


# posted by gt @ 2:22 PM

Sunday, September 13, 2026

 Swedish election is neck and neck right now, 49% for bith the left and rights factions. update the left- center coalition won, barely. 


# posted by gt @ 11:53 PM

Monday, August 03, 2026

 

NO. ______ this post is only a draft fr discussion purposes do not file. it's ai slop based on real notes, and may end up having some stuff i can use but most of this will be trashed. 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
R OUTDOOR ADVERTISING,
Amicus Curiae Supporter of Petitioner,
v.
ALASKA PUBLIC OFFICES COMMISSION (APOC),
Respondent.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
  1. Whether a state statute mandating identity disclaimers on core political advertisements and physical signs is a content-based restriction under Reed v. Town of Gilbert, thereby triggering strict scrutiny, or a mere disclosure mechanism subject to lesser scrutiny.
  2. Whether the Supremacy Clause permits a state election commission to enforce a vague, context-dependent "express advocacy" standard derived from FEC v. Furgatch to compel identity speech on the face of a physical billboard, in direct defiance of this Court's controlling First Amendment precedents protecting anonymous political expression.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
I. Certiorari Should Be Granted to Resolve an Intractable Jurisdictional Split Regarding Talley v. California.
The state and federal courts are in open, chaotic conflict regarding whether Talley and McIntyre shield independent political advertisements and signs from identity-revealing text mandates. This brief presents a comprehensive matrix tracking 53 separate decisions across American history, illustrating a clear split: 34 jurisdictions faithfully upholding anonymity under Talley, and 19 jurisdictions refusing to do so. The court below completely failed to grasp that disclaimers—which mar the text of the speech itself—are a distinct category of direct censorship separate from back-end financial disclosures.
II. Certiorari Is Necessary to Confront a Head-On Conflict Under the Supremacy Clause Between State Censorship Mechanisms and This Court’s Unyielding First Amendment Precedents.
Under Article VI, Clause 2, a state administrative body cannot carve out local exemptions to dilute the supreme federal First Amendment floor. APOC's enforcement structure stands in irreconcilable conflict with this Court’s foundational anti-compulsion and anti-censorship line of cases. The state cannot use administrative pretexts to force independent speakers to alter the physical text of their designs.
III. Certiorari Is Warranted to Provide Balanced Appellate Adjudication of the Asserted "Election Exception" to the Constitutional Right to Privacy.
To resolve the collision between individual privacy rights and structural campaign laws, this Court should grant review and allocate balanced argument time. Proponents of the structural election exception—such as Campaign Legal Center's Tara Malloy—should be permitted to argue their framework, while the United States and private amici defend the absolute pro-privacy framework established in McIntyre. Currently, among 15 states addressing this as a matter of independent state constitutional law, a 13-to-2 majority follows Talley.
IV. The Furgatch Standard is Structurally Unworkable and Triggers Heavy-Handed Self-Censorship.
The standard originating from FEC v. Furgatch has proven legally unworkable since its inception. Rooted in a 1980 newspaper advertisement written by an eccentric political player whose ambiguous intent remains a mystery, the test forces everyday citizens to guess whether a state commission will retroactively declare their independent speech to be "express advocacy."
ARGUMENT
I. Certiorari Should Be Granted to Resolve a Clear Split Between the Circuits and States as to the Scope of Talley v. California.
This brief collects and categorizes the deep national split regarding the right to speak anonymously without state-mandated textual disclaimers, illustrating why this Court's intervention is urgently required.
Table 1: Jurisdictions Following Talley/McIntyre to Protect Free Speech and Anonymity (34 Cases)
  1. 1735: The Trial of John Peter Zenger, 17 State Tr. 675 (1735)
  2. 1960: Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)
  3. 1962: People v. Bongiorni, 205 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 85 (Cal. App. Dep't Super. Ct. 1962)
  4. 1962: People v. Mishkin, 17 A.D.2d 243, 234 N.Y.S.2d 342 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)
  5. 1964: Canon v. Justice Court, 61 Cal. 2d 446, 393 P.2d 428 (Cal. 1964)
  6. 1973: Opinion of the Justices, 363 Mass. 909, 298 N.E.2d 829 (Mass. 1973)
  7. 1974: Opinion of the Justices, 315 A.2d 580 (Del. 1974)
  8. 1974: Opinion of the Justices, 324 A.2d 211 (Me. 1974)
  9. 1974: People v. Duryea, 76 Misc. 2d 948, 351 N.Y.S.2d 978 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1974)
  10. 1975: Commonwealth v. Dennis, 368 Mass. 92, 329 N.E.2d 706 (Mass. 1975)
  11. 1976: State v. Fulton, 337 So. 2d 866 (La. 1976)
  12. 1978: Ghafari v. Municipal Court, 87 Cal. App. 3d 255, 150 Cal. Rptr. 813 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)
  13. 1978: State v. North Dakota Education Ass'n, 262 N.W.2d 731 (N.D. 1978)
  14. 1979: People v. Drake, 97 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 32, 159 Cal. Rptr. 161 (Cal. App. Dep't Super. Ct. 1979)
  15. 1980: Schuster v. Municipal Court, 109 Cal. App. 3d 887, 167 Cal. Rptr. 447 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980)
  16. 1980: Commonwealth v. Wadzinski, 492 Pa. 35, 422 A.2d 124 (1980)
  17. 1987: Wilson v. Stocker, 819 F.2d 943 (10th Cir. 1987)
  18. 1987: People v. White, 116 Ill. 2d 171, 506 N.E.2d 1284 (Ill. 1987)
  19. 1989: State v. Burgess, 543 So. 2d 1332 (La. 1989)
  20. 1995: McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
  21. 1996: West Virginians for Life, Inc. v. Smith, 919 F. Supp. 954 (S.D. W. Va. 1996)
  22. 1996: Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Maupin, 922 F. Supp. 1413 (E.D. Mo. 1996)
  23. 1996: State v. Jude, 554 N.W.2d 750 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996)
  24. 1997: Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F. Supp. 1047 (S.D. Ind. 1997)
  25. 1997: American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia v. Miller, 977 F. Supp. 1228 (N.D. Ga. 1997)
  26. 1998: Doe v. Mortham, 708 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1998)
  27. 1998: State ex rel. Public Disclosure Commission v. 119 Vote No! Committee, 135 Wash. 2d 618, 957 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1998)
  28. 1999: Griset v. Fair Political Practices Commission, 69 Cal. App. 4th 818 (1999)
  29. 1999: Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. (ACLF), 525 U.S. 182 (1999)
  30. 2000: WIN Washington Initiatives Now v. Rippie, 213 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2000)
  31. 2000: Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (Gerawan I), 24 Cal. 4th 468, 12 P.3d 720 (Cal. 2000)
  32. 2000: Citizens for Responsible Government State PAC v. Davidson, 236 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2000)
  33. 2000: Anonymous v. Delaware, 2000 Del. Ch. LEXIS 84 (Del. Ch. 2000)
  34. 2001: Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 342 N.J. Super. 134, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001)
  35. 2001: Doe v. 2theMart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2001)
  36. 2002: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002)
  37. 2002: State v. Moses, 655 N.W.2d 244 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002)
  38. 2003: Ogden v. Marendt, 264 F. Supp. 2d 785 (S.D. Ind. 2003)
  39. 2004: Majors v. Abell, 361 F.3d 349 (7th Cir. 2004)
  40. 2004: American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Heller, 378 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2004)
  41. 2004: Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (Gerawan II), 33 Cal. 4th 1, 90 P.3d 1179 (Cal. 2004)
  42. 2005: Mowles v. Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, No. CV-04-142 (Me. Super. Ct. 2005)
  43. 2005: Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005)
  44. 2010: Miller v. Junior Achievement of Central Indiana, Inc., No. 49D14-1003-PL-014761 (Ind. Super. Ct. 2010)
  45. 2011: In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 434 (9th Cir. 2011)
  46. 2014: Mulholland v. Marion County Election Board, 746 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 2014)
  47. 2018: Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S. 878 (2018)
  48. 2018: National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018)
  49. 2019: Brush & Nib Studio, LC v. City of Phoenix, 247 Ariz. 269, 448 P.3d 890 (2019)
  50. 2019: Washington Post v. McManus, 944 F.3d 506 (4th Cir. 2019)
  51. 2023: 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023)
  52. 2026: Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-1422 (U.S. 2026)
  53. 2026: First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, No. 25-102 (U.S. 2026) [1, 2, 3]
Table 2: Jurisdictions Deviating from Talley/McIntyre (19 Cases)
  1. 1961: United States v. Scott, 195 F. Supp. 440 (D.N.D. 1961)
  2. 1976: Morefield v. Moore, 540 S.W.2d 873 (Ky. 1976)
  3. 1982: State v. Acey, 633 S.W.2d 306 (Tenn. 1982)
  4. 1995: Wilkinson v. Jones, 876 F. Supp. 916 (W.D. Ky. 1995)
  5. 1997: Kentucky Right to Life, Inc. v. Terry, 108 F.3d 637 (6th Cir. 1997)
  6. 1998: Gable v. Patton, 142 F.3d 940 (6th Cir. 1998)
  7. 1998: Arkansas Right to Life State PAC v. Butler, 29 F. Supp. 2d 540 (W.D. Ark. 1998)
  8. 2000: Vermont Right to Life Committee, Inc. v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376 (2d Cir. 2000)
  9. 2001: Seymour v. Elections Enforcement Commission, 255 Conn. 78, 762 A.2d 880 (Conn. 2001)
  10. 2001: FEC v. Public Citizen, Inc., 268 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2001)
  11. 2010: Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
  12. 2011: National Organization for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2011)
  13. 2011: Green Mountain Future v. Gilligan, No. 593-11-10 Wncv (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011)
  14. 2013: Worley v. Florida Secretary of State, 717 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2013)
  15. 2014: Van Hollen v. Federal Election Commission, 751 F.3d 40 (D.C. Cir. 2014)
  16. 2021: Gaspee Project v. Mederos, 13 F.4th 79 (1st Cir. 2021)
  17. 2023: No on E v. Chiu, 67 F.4th 802 (9th Cir. 2023)
  18. 2026: Center for Arizona Policy, Inc. v. Mayes, No. CV-24-0295-PR (Ariz. 2026)
  19. 2026: State v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 102558-7 (Wash. 2026) [1, 2]
II. Certiorari Should Be Granted to Confront a Conflict Under the Supremacy Clause Between the Alaska Court's Rulings and This Court's Chronological Doctrine.
Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, Clause 2, a state administrative body cannot carve out exemptions to dilute the federal First Amendment floor. To demonstrate the depth of this constitutional violation, this Court's relevant jurisprudence is organized below in precise, unyielding chronological sequence:
III. Certiorari Should Be Granted to Ensure Balanced, Thorough Appellate Adjudication of the Alleged "Election Exception" to Privacy.
Freedom of speech remains a primary constitutional value, yet this Court has frequently engaged with competing claims of "voter equality" and state transparency as articulated in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Buckley v. Valeo, Burson v. Freeman, and Citizens United.
To resolve this persistent tension, Certiorari should be granted to provide equal, rigorous advocacy on the boundaries of political anonymity. This Court should designate time for proponents of the election exception—such as Campaign Legal Center's Tara Malloy—to defend the state's interest in tracking speakers, while permitting the United States and supporting amici to firmly articulate the traditional pro-privacy, anti-compulsion framework required under McIntyre.
Currently, 15 separate states have directly addressed this friction as a matter of independent state constitutional law. A clear majority of 13 state jurisdictions chosen to follow Talley to protect individual privacy, while only two have broken away. This imbalance requires a definitive federal floor to align state systems.
IV. The Furgatch "Express Advocacy" Standard is Structurally Unworkable and Triggers Direct Self-Censorship.
The standard established in FEC v. Furgatch (9th Cir. 1987), which attempts to regulate speech that falls short of explicit magic words but can be "interpreted" as an appeal to vote, is fundamentally unworkable.
The standard stems from a 1980 New York Times advertisement by an eccentric figure using the vague phrase "Don’t let him do it". Despite the colorful biography of its unpredictable author, Harvey Furgatch, the actual meaning of "it" remains entirely ambiguous.
By elevating this phrase into legal doctrine, the standard creates an unconstitutionally vague framework. It permits an administrative body like APOC to retroactively evaluate independent signs or issue ads and declare them "express advocacy" based entirely on context. A speaker cannot know whether a local sign will trigger massive civil fines until after the commission sits in judgment. This overbroad, context-dependent standard completely destroys the bright-line rules required by Buckley and McIntyre, acting as a direct tool of state-level censorship.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Reagan Outdoor Advertising
With the Reed v. Town of Gilbert strict scrutiny hook firmly at the center, let me know if you want to:
  • Draft a focused analysis section linking Reed (2015) directly to City of Austin v. Reagan (2022) to cement Reagan Outdoor's specific standing.
  • Flesh out the pro-privacy constitutional arguments for the oral argument allocation section.
  • Refine the Table 2 cases to emphasize how those minority jurisdictions are causing structural harm to grassroots media.
Let me know how you'd like to re

# posted by gt @ 10:59 AM

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?