It's Citizens United v. FEC, which the Court just agreed to hear. Here's SCOTUSblog's summary:

The new campaign finance case involves a plea by a conservative advocacy group, Citizens United, to create a new exception to a 2002 law’s ban on radio or TV ads that corporations and labor unions air close to election time, so that the ban would not apply to a feature-length movie aimed at a candidate for President or for Congress. The appeal also urges the Court to strike down the 2002 law’s disclosure requirement for election-season broadcast ads when those ads are not subject to the ban itself. And it seeks to test whether a 2003 Supreme Court decision bars all challenges to the law’s disclosure requirements, even if the challenge is an as-applied claim.

The ban at issue in the case is the so-called “electioneering communications” provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. It bars corporations (including non-profit firms) and labor unions from using their own treasury funds to finance ads naming a federal candidate, if the ad appears on radio or TV 30 days before a primary election or nominating convention or 60 days before a general election.

Citizens United had prepared a film, titled “Hillary: The Movie,” and it released it to theaters and for store sales on DVD. It did not go forward with plans to put out the movie in TV-on-demand access on cable TV, because it feared the FEC would apply the ad ban to it. A federal District Court ruled that the movie about Sen. Clinton was the kind of radio and TV broadcast that ran afoul of the ban, interpreting it as a call to voters not to support her because she was unfit for the presidency. Citizens United also prepared a similar critical film about Sen. Barack Obama, titled “Hype: The Obama Effect,” and it, too, was released during the campaign.

Even though the presidential and congressional elections this year are over, Citizens United’s appeal to the Supreme Court appears to be still a live one because the group has indicated it plans to prepare and air such films in future campaigns. The FEC did not contend that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and on Friday the Court simply “noted probable jurisdiction,” indicating that it agreed it had authority to decide the case.

The BCRA provisions requiring disclosure, all being challenged in the appeal, require any corporation or union spending more than $10,000 a year to produce or air the kind of ad covered by the law must reveal to the FEC the names and addresses of anyone contributing more than $1,000 for the ad. Another provision requires that, if an ad is not authorized by a candidate or political committee, the broadcast must also say who is responsible for its content, and provide the name and address of the group behind the ad.

The District Court said the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in McConnell v. FEC, upholding many of the provisions in the BCRA law, upheld those disclosure requirements even if a particular radio or TV ad would not be banned under that law, and thus no new challenges to these requirements were allowed.

The jurisdictional statement asking the Court to agree to hear the case (what would be a certiorari petition if this were a certiorari case, but this one is a statutory direct appeal) is here. The FEC's response is here.

Paul Sherman of the Institute for Justice raises an interesting set of questions:

When discussing the Buckley and Brown holdings on disclosure, I think it's important to keep in mind that both decisions were written years before the Internet made campaign-finance data easily available to anyone with an idle curiosity in your political activity. In 1976 the average donor probably didn't have much to fear from having their contributions disclosed, because the cost of accessing that data was relatively high. But when that data can be accessed with just a few keystrokes, methods of retaliation that are already virtually impossible to detect or prove suddenly become very low cost. How can I demonstrate to a court, for example, that I was denied a job because I made a contribution to a disfavored candidate or ballot initiative? With employers routinely performing Google searches of job applicants, is it unreasonable to think this happens with some frequency?

I don't know the answers to these questions, or to the broader question of what should happen to campaign finance law in light of these questions. But I do think these are much worth considering.

For more from the Institute for Justice on this, see Disclosure Costs: Unintended Consequences of Campaign Finance Reform, and Campaign Finance Red Tape: Strangling Free Speech and Political Debate.

The Ninth Circuit has upheld California laws that mandate the disclosure of contributions to ballot measure campaigns (see here and here). But Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Brown v. Socialist Workers' 74 Campaign Committee (1982) held that "the First Amendment prohibits the government from compelling disclosures [of campaign contributions] by a minor political party that can show a 'reasonable probability' that the compelled disclosures will subject those identified to 'threats, harassment, or reprisals.'"

Presumptively, the same rule should apply as to compelled disclosures of contributions to ballot measure committees -- but does it apply even when the ballot measure may well win (as opposed to a "minor political party," which is nearly sure to lose)?

Relatedly, just how much of a showing of "harassment" and "reprisals" would opponents of same-sex-marriage have to show in order to justify such an exemption? I take it that the theater boycott incident I mention below wouldn't by itself suffice, nor would it if it's coupled with the hotel boycott we blogged about a few months ago. But, given Brown, how many such incidents -- or what types of incidents -- would be required? Does there have to be evidence of violence, police abuse, or firings by employers? Or would evidence of public boycotts of the contributor's business, or the contributor's employer, qualify?

The Sacramento Bee reports:

Scott Eckern, artistic director for the California Musical Theatre, resigned Wednesday as a growing number of artists threatened to boycott the organization because of his $1,000 donation to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California....

Los Angeles-based and Tony Award-winning composer Marc Shaiman ("Hairspray") wrote a blog saying he would never allow any of his shows to again be licensed or performed by California Musical Theatre while Eckern was employed there....

Speech calling for such boycotts is itself constitutionally protected. It neither is nor, in my view, should be illegal for people to refuse to patronize a theater because of the artistic director's political views. It likewise isn't illegal, and shouldn't be illegal for copyright owners to refuse to license their works for such reasons. I don't think there's a constitutional right to refuse to license the work under such circumstances, but I wouldn't support a ban on such refusals.

California law does bar employers from firing their employees for the employees' political activity, which would surely include contributions to political campaigns, and it doesn't seem to have an exception for situations where the employees' activity has caused boycotts or other losses to the employer. (See Cal. Labor Code §§ 1101-02, which has been read fairly broadly.) But it appears that Eckern resigned without being forced to do so by his employer.

Still, it seems to me that this story helps provide a counterpoint to the criticism of people and organizations who boycotted the Dixie Chicks for their statements. For more on the general topic of boycotts for speech, see my Deterring Speech: When Is It “McCarthyism”? When Is It Proper? (PDF pp. 11-30).

UPDATE: More thoughts on this from Adam B at DailyKos.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education so reports:

Binghamton University's Department of Social Work ordered the suspension of a master's student for one year with no guarantee of return, required him to apologize, and demanded that he publicly disavow his own views after he put up posters challenging the department for having hired the executive director of the Binghamton Housing Authority (BHA)—an agency the student thought was responsible for social injustice. Student Andre Massena, who remains in school pending an appeal, has turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help....

On August 25, 2008, Massena put up posters on campus claiming that a woman and her children had been unjustly evicted from their home by the BHA. Under the pseudonym "JUSTICESPEAKS," the poster called the BHA "inhumane" and noted that its executive director, David K. Tanenhaus, is an adjunct professor at the school's Department of Social Work. The poster encouraged readers to call the department "to let them know what you think."

Massena chose anonymity after hearing stories from other students in the department about students being unjustly "advanced" (expelled) from the program. When interrogated about the posters, Massena exercised his right to anonymous speech by declining to acknowledge authorship -- a decision ultimately cited as the official reason for Massena's punishment.

One week later, Massena received a "Written Plan" from his department. It failed to specify any alleged violations, but nevertheless assigned him shockingly onerous and unconstitutional requirements to complete in order to continue his master's program....

And a SUNY document posted by FIRE strongly supports the view that the student is being retaliated against for his speech:

This written plan was created in the spirit of a strengths-based commitment to Mr. Massena’s professional and personal growth, with the hope of all parties moving forward in a positive manner.

Specific actions to be undertaken by Mr. Massena and the dates by which these actions must be completed follow:

1. Mr. Massena will withdraw from all MSW courses for which he is enrolled for the fall term of 2008. He will take a two-semester leave of absence (Fall 2008 and Spring 2009) from the MSW program, in order to reflect upon his readiness to enter the field of social work as a professional practitioner, given his actions during late August, 2008, and the likely as well as possible consequences (both immediate and long-term) of his actions to various individuals, the Dept. of Social Work, Binghamton University, the Greater Binghamton community, and his own professional development....

5. By September 30, 2008, a formal statement of retraction will be written by Mr. Massena, to be signed and dated by him, and forwarded to the President of Binghamton University, the Binghamton University Dept. of Social Work, and the Binghamton Housing Authority, indicating that he does not agree with, and regrets the sentiments expressed in the following statement, which he promoted, initially, by distributing posters/leaflets at the University Downtown Center that said: “We will in no way, shape, or form apologize for any harm or inconvenience this poster may cause Binghamton Housing Authority or Binghamton University and their affiliates.”

6. Mr. Massena will make every effort possible and will inform Profs. Bronstein and Wiener of his efforts to end the process whereby students, service providers and community members approach the Dept. of Social Work in an effort to alleviate “wrong” they may see as occurring at the Binghamton Housing Authority....

7. By September 30, 2008, Mr. Massena will acknowledge verbally to Dr. Bronstein and Dr. Wiener that he understands that he is entitled to his opinions, and that taking responsibility for the harm that his actions have and may have caused is not the same as having these opinions.

8. By May 8, 2009, Mr. Massena will have completed an APA-formatted, 10-12 page critical reflection paper .... The subject of this paper will be: “effective professional strategies in the ethical practice of ‘macro’ social work in the early 21st century.” Mr. Massena will be provided with an initial reference for this paper (a scholarly essay by Olson) by Dr. Wiener, and the essay by Olson will be the foundational premise from which Mr. Massena’s essay begins. Mr. Massena will be responsible for finding four additional “outside sources” to support his self-reflections; the development of his “professional use of self” will be evident in the paper, and the “outside” references are not meant to “trump” his own “voice.” In contrast, his “voice” should have primacy....

Perhaps there are more facts that suggest that Mr. Massena misbehaved in ways other than just criticizing the city and linking the department to the city's actions (on the grounds that "Binghamton Housing's Director holds a [master's] degree in social work and is currenly teaching social work at [SUNY-Binghamton]"); but neither FIRE nor the report points to them, and I have found FIRE to be highly credible and thorough in its accounts in the past. And beyond that, the report's orders to Massena suggest that SUNY was indeed complaining about the content of the criticism ("Mr. Massena will make every effort possible and will inform Profs. Bronstein and Wiener of his efforts to end the process whereby students, service providers and community members approach the Dept. of Social Work in an effort to alleviate “wrong” they may see as occurring at the Binghamton Housing Authority") and the effects of that content, rather than some unspecified other misbehavior. Seems to me like a clear violation of the First Amendment and of student academic freedom principles.

Question 59:

Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.

(See the New York Times article.) Naturally, the Administration is entitled to know a great deal about its prospective high-ranking members, especially with regard to possible violations of the law, both for its own sake and in order to anticipate possible political problems. And the questionnaire certainly asks about a lot more than just guns, e.g., question 46, "Have any members of your family or close social or business associates been arrested for, charged with and/or convicted of a crime, other than a minor traffic violation? If so, please identify and describe each such arrest, charge or conviction. Please provide the same information for anyone under your professional supervision, or anyone of your superiors." Still, it struck me as interesting that gun ownership and gun registration was one of the things that they'd specifically ask about. It also struck me as interesting, though perhaps necessary given the reasonable worry about political blowback should the facts come out, that people would be told to report (1) gun ownership not just by themselves but also by immediate family members, and (2) possible hitherto undisclosed criminal conduct by their immediate family members (which likely includes adult children and possibly parents or siblings, though that's hard to tell).

UPDATE: As some commentators have pointed out, most states don't require registration for guns, but I understood the question as asking about registration information, if any: If the guns don't need to be registered and have never had to be registered (because the people had only owned guns in no-registration jurisdictions), then the registration information would be "no registration required," and the answer to "has the registration ever lapsed?" would be "no."

From Flores v. Texas (Oct. 23, 2008) (unpublished memorandum):

Appellant’s first three points of error relate to the trial court’s exclusion of evidence requested by appellant. That is, appellant complains about the exclusion of evidence concerning (1) the “John Reid” technique that allegedly results in false confessions, (2) the “circumstances” surrounding appellant’s written confession, and (3) his wife’s conversations with police, which were said to be contained on a compact disc. We hold that appellant has failed to preserve these complaints for appellate review.

In order to preserve a complaint concerning the exclusion of evidence, a defendant generally must make an offer of proof or file a bill of exception to make the substance of the evidence known. See Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(2); LaHood v. State, 171 S.W.3d 613, 621 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d). Otherwise, as here, we cannot assess whether the exclusion was erroneous or harmful. LaHood, 171 S.W.3d at 621. However, appellant failed to make an offer of proof, or file a post-trial bill of exception, to preserve his complaint to the trial court’s exclusion of evidence.[3]

[Footnote 3:] Appellant suggests that we may take judicial notice of information posted on a “reliable website.” We decline appellant’s invitation to take judicial notice of the Wikipedia entry for the “John Reid technique.” See James Glerick, Wikipedians Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt, Wall St. J., Aug. 8, 2008, at W1 (“Anyone can edit [a Wikipedia] article, anonymously, hit and run. From the very beginning that has been Wikipedia’s greatest strength and its greatest weakness.”) (emphasis added).

An interesting and reasonable result, which supports the view that Wikipedia shouldn't be relied on for contested questions. For certain uncontroversial matters (such as that the capital of Armenia is sometimes spelled Erevan), citing Wikipedia is probably fine, given that the time of judges, staff attorneys, and law clerks is valuable and best not spent on tracking down The Perfect Source. But when the matter is subject to reasonable dispute, there should either be a hearing -- as with other facts about the details of a case -- or a more elaborate discussion (as with so-called legislative facts that a court uses to determine the meaning of statutory language, develop various common-law rules, and the like).

Thanks to BNA's Internet Law News for the pointer.

Variety reports:

The mayor of [Batman,] an oil-producing city in southeastern Turkey, ... is suing ... Christopher Nolan and Warner Bros. for royalties from mega-grosser "The Dark Knight."

Huseyin Kalkan, the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party mayor of Batman, has accused "The Dark Knight" producers of using the city's name without permission....

The mayor is prepping a series of charges against Nolan and Warner Bros., which owns the right to the Batman character, including placing the blame for a number of unsolved murders and a high female suicide rate on the psychological impact that the film's success has had on the city's inhabitants.

Former natives of Batman are also said to have encountered obstacles when attempting to register their businesses abroad....

Thanks to Jacob Berlove for the pointer.

from the Army Times. Thanks to Max Boot (Commentary's Contentions blog) for the pointer.

That's Princeton Prof. Robert A. Falk, U.N. Human Rights Council "Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel," and author of this newspaper article published Sunday discussing his "doubts surrounding the true character of the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks." Not entirely news, given his past writing on the subject, but it was news to me.

A headline from the BBC News site. The story describes this report, from the Centre for Social Cohesion, which closes by suggesting ways in which "European governments ... [should] promote greater religious and social harmony by demonstrating that they see Muslims and those of Muslim background as full and complete citizens."

Thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer.