Home
Categories
EXPLORE
True Crime
Comedy
Society & Culture
Business
News
Sports
TV & Film
About Us
Contact Us
Copyright
© 2024 PodJoint
Podjoint Logo
US
00:00 / 00:00
Sign in

or

Don't have an account?
Sign up
Forgot password
https://is1-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Podcasts211/v4/93/99/b4/9399b472-8310-61f5-fbac-d5f5e06cf77e/mza_11530403006319748223.jpg/600x600bb.jpg
Free Speech Arguments
Institute for Free Speech
38 episodes
1 week ago
Presented by the Institute for Free Speech The Free Speech Arguments Podcast brings you oral arguments from important First Amendment free political speech cases across the country.
Show more...
Government
RSS
All content for Free Speech Arguments is the property of Institute for Free Speech and is served directly from their servers with no modification, redirects, or rehosting. The podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by Podjoint in any way.
Presented by the Institute for Free Speech The Free Speech Arguments Podcast brings you oral arguments from important First Amendment free political speech cases across the country.
Show more...
Government
https://d3t3ozftmdmh3i.cloudfront.net/staging/podcast_uploaded_nologo/40608779/40608779-1718120136444-3ba54f4209709.jpg
Can Arizona Compel Broad Donor Disclosure for Ordinary Speech? (Americans for Prosperity, et al. v. Meyer, et al.)
Free Speech Arguments
43 minutes 8 seconds
5 months ago
Can Arizona Compel Broad Donor Disclosure for Ordinary Speech? (Americans for Prosperity, et al. v. Meyer, et al.)

Episode 30: Americans for Prosperity, et al. v. Meyer, et al.

Americans for Prosperity, et al. v. Meyer, et al., argued before Circuit Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Patrick J. Bumatay, and Gabriel P. Sanchez in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 15, 2025. Argued by Derek L. Shaffer (on behalf of Americans for Prosperity, et al.) and David Kolker (on behalf of Intervenor-Defendant Voters’ Right to Know) and Eric Fraser (on behalf of Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission).

Background of the case, from the Institute for Free Speech amicus brief:

Proposition 211 imposes sweeping disclosure rules unlike anything seen before. On every metric, the law expands on its predecessors. It covers more people, more speech, for a longer time. Where other laws narrow, Proposition 211 widens.
….
Proposition 211 expands on other disclosure rules in virtually every way. It does not limit disclosure to speech about elections, to speech close in time to elections, or to speech by those engaged mainly in election advocacy. It does not limit disclosure to donors who intend to support election advocacy, or even donors who know their dollars might be used for election advocacy. By expanding every part of an ordinary disclosure rule, Proposition 211 “accomplishes a shift in kind, not merely degree.” See Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 583 (2012) (“NFIB”) (Roberts, C.J., op.). And that shift in kind turns a series of individually problematic provisions into a cataclysmic First Amendment violation.

Statement of the Issues, from the Appellants’ Opening Brief:

  1. Whether the district court erred in concluding that Proposition 211 is facially valid even though its disclosures are untethered to electoral activity, its burdens surpass the strength of the State’s asserted interest, and its requirements are not narrowly tailored to the problems it purports to solve.
  2. Whether the district court erred in concluding that Proposition 211 is valid as applied to Appellants, even though Appellants alleged a reasonable probability that disclosure of their donors’ names will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals.
  3. Whether the district court erred in concluding that Proposition 211 does not compel association even though its disclosure requirements tie organizations and their donors to candidates and causes irrespective of their actual beliefs.

Resources:

  • CourtListener docket page for Americans for Prosperity, et al. v. Meyer, et al.
  • Appellants’ Opening Brief
  • Defendant-Appellees’ Answering Brief
  • Answering Brief of Appellee-Intervenor Defendant
  • Appellants’ Reply Brief
  • Institute for Free Speech amicus brief


The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute’s mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Free Speech Arguments
Presented by the Institute for Free Speech The Free Speech Arguments Podcast brings you oral arguments from important First Amendment free political speech cases across the country.