Originally published at Sen. Rand Paul's office website.

​WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, joined by Congresswoman Harriet Hageman (R-WY) and Congressman Dan Bishop (R-NC-08), introduced the Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act. This bill will prohibit federal employees and contractors from using their positions to direct online platforms to censor First Amendment protected speech, reinforcing our collective commitment to safeguarding the constitutional rights of all American citizens. The Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act is a streamlined iteration of the Free Speech Protection Act, tailored to address the standing issues highlighted in Murthy v. Missouri.

“Americans are a free people, and we do not take infringements upon our liberties lightly. Our Founding Fathers enshrined the First Amendment to protect our God-given right to free expression, recognizing its fundamental importance to a free society,” said Dr. Paul. “With the Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act, we will strip away the barriers preventing judicial review of coercive government tactics that silence dissenting voices and ensure that no government official or contractor can undermine the First Amendment rights of Americans. We must confront and dismantle this censorship apparatus to protect our fundamental right to free speech.”

“I have repeatedly said that the government cannot do by proxy what it is prohibited from doing directly. This is exactly what happened with the Biden Administration pressuring social media companies to suppress the free speech of American citizens. The Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act will not only ensure future litigants would have standing, but also would also apply to the plaintiffs in Murthy,” said Rep. Hageman. “Our forefathers ratified the First Amendment recognizing that government actors would always seek to control public discourse in order to protect their own power structure. No one has a monopoly on truth, and the Biden administration and federal agencies are not entitled to declare that American’s speech is ‘mis-information,’ ‘dis-information,’ or ‘mal-information’ and silence the message, especially when you consider how much accurate and truthful information was squelched during Covid-19 and the 2020 election. We will continue to fight to protect our First Amendment rights.” 

“Americans have a God-given right to free expression, and the constant attacks on the First Amendment from government bureaucrats make safeguarding that right all the more important. Malicious actors within government should never be allowed to silence and censor Americans, and Americans targeted by the Censorship Industrial Complex deserve their day in court. This legislation will ensure just that by removing barriers for judicial review and cracking down on those who aim to trample on the First Amendment,” said Rep. Bishop.

The bill would:

1. Empower individuals to sue government officials who coerce online platforms into censoring constitutionally protected speech.
2. Apply to past First Amendment violations and establish a presumption of liability for any government official attempting to pressure platforms into censorship, thereby overcoming the causality issue identified by the Supreme Court in Murthy.
3. Provide a vital mechanism for all Americans to protect their constitutional rights and challenge government overreach. It ensures that government officials are held accountable for any attempts to infringe upon our fundamental right to free speech.

Additional support:
“In the covid era, the federal government systematically suppressed legal online speech that contradicted its policy priorities, including criticism of covid misinformation spread by the government on topics like immunity, school closures, mask and covid vaccine effectiveness, vaccine injuries, and vaccine mandates. Given the recent failure of the Supreme Court to protect Americans against this threat to free speech rights, it is vital for Congress to act to secure the First Amendment. I am pleased that Sen. Paul has authored such a bill which will prohibit Federal employees and contractors from censoring legal speech. I encourage all law makers to support the bill,” said Jay Bhatthacharya MD, PhD., Stanford University and plaintiff in Murthy v. Missouri.

“Rights that cannot be vindicated in court are not rights at all. By closing the courthouse doors to Americans who are victimized by government censorship campaigns, Murthy invites the government to violate First Amendment rights at will—so long as it does so indirectly, utilizing numerous government agencies, rather than directly or through a single agency. Murthy essentially gives the government a blueprint on how to censor American citizens. This legislation says, ‘not so fast’,” said Bradley A. Smith, Chairman and Founder, Institute for Free Speech.

“As we inch closer to a crucial election in November, Congress should act swiftly to stop government censorship by proxy and protect Americans’ access to information. By restricting federal employees and contractors from encouraging platforms to suppress speech directly or indirectly, this bill is an important step in the right direction. Heritage Action applauds Sen. Paul for fighting government overreach and the weaponization of censorship on Big Tech platforms,” said Ryan Walker, Executive Vice President, Heritage Action.

“Let the people sue government officials who are working on the taxpayer dime to censor everyday Americans. Senator Paul is valiantly defending our Constitutional free speech rights. This bill is a no-brainer,” said L. Brent Bozell III, Founder and President, Media Research Center.

“Senator Rand Paul has introduced legislation allowing citizens to sue the federal government for censoring their speech, protecting First Amendment rights. For too long, federal entities have violated free speech using government power and funds. This bill ensures courts cannot dismiss these cases on standing grounds, preventing constitutional abuses. Senator Paul’s initiative is a crucial step in safeguarding free speech, a cornerstone of our free society,” said George Landrith, President, Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

“The Supreme Court’s failure to decide the Murthy v. Missouri case on the grounds that Missouri did not have standing in their attempt to protect their citizens against unconstitutional government censorship was a travesty. Senator Rand Paul’s introduction of legislation to provide states standing to sue on censorship cases would provide perhaps the only vehicle for broadly protecting free speech rights from the federal government coercing and suggesting censorship via corporate social media proxies. Americans for Limited Government proudly supports the Rand Paul legislation,” said Richard Manning, President, Americans for Limited Government.
​
“Senator Rand Paul has long been a champion of free speech and individual liberty, and this is on full display today with his legislation that will help preserve our freedoms that some in the federal government too often are trying to destroy,” said Vance Ginn, President of Ginn Economic Consulting and Former Chief Economist of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

“As social media has grown to allow Americans more free and unfettered speech online, there have been highly motivated efforts by government officials to limit speech online using both direct and indirect forms of coercion. This is a direct challenge to the spirit and future strength of the First Amendment. The Consumer Choice Center strongly supports Sen. Paul’s “Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act” as a vehicle to end unconstitutional jawboning and hold public officials accountable when they aim to suppress public discourse and free expression online,” said Yael Ossowski, Deputy Director, Consumer Choice Center.

“The Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act is a necessary corrective to the Supreme Court ruling that current law does not provide standing to victims of government-directed censorship to get their day in court. Congress should pass it quickly to allow citizens to appropriately defend their First Amendment rights,” said Phil Kerpen, President, American Commitment.

“No government should have the ability to control American free speech online or censor us from speaking. NetChoice applauds Sen. Paul for taking this important step to defend the First Amendment from government officials that abuse their power by trying to suppress open and free dialogue online. Sen. Paul’s bill makes it clear that Americans have the right to challenge the government for jawboning in court. NetChoice looks forward to working with Sen. Paul and the U.S. Senate to get this issue right so that Americans and businesses are protected from government interference when exercising their constitutionally-protected speech,” said Carl Szabo,Vice President & General Counsel, NetChoice.

“The recent decision in Murthy v. Missouri seemed to give government officials free rein to push social media companies to censor speech they dislike. Sen. Paul is stepping up to fix this by ensuring citizens have standing to sue when they do this. Free speech makes a comeback,” said Jim Hanson, Executive Director, America Matters.

Background:
On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Murthy v. Missouri, a landmark First Amendment case, that the plaintiffs did not have standing to seek an injunction against government officials who attempted to pressure platforms into censoring speech related to COVID-19. The court’s decision hinged on the plaintiffs seeking an injunction against future censorship, rather than compensation for past violations of their First Amendment rights. However, the plaintiffs would not have been able to seek compensation, even if they wanted to, as the Supreme Court has consistently refused to acknowledge a cause of action allowing individuals to seek compensation from federal officials for past First Amendment violations.

Like countless other Americans, Dr. Paul was also targeted by the pervasive censorship regime during the pandemic. In 2021, Dr. Paul posted a video on YouTube to educate the public about the potentially harmful consequences of relying on ineffective cloth masks to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. YouTube took down his video and suspended his account for a week. This blatant suppression of dissenting views led him to announce that he was quitting the platform and would henceforth post his content on Rumble.com. 

You can read the bill HERE. 

Originally published at Texas Policy Research Institute. 

The Texas Legislative Budget Board (LBB) has released its Fiscal Size-Up (FSU) for the 2024-25 biennium, providing a comprehensive overview of the state’s budget. This document is essential for understanding how Texas allocates its financial resources and highlights significant fiscal actions taken by the 88th Texas Legislature. Here’s a breakdown of the key points from the FSU and additional insights to provide clarity and context.
The DelayIt is important to note that there was a significant delay in the publication of the FSU this cycle, for reasons unknown. For comparative purposes, here are the release dates of the past few Fiscal Size-Up publications:

• 2024-25: July 2024
• 2022-23: March 2022
• 2020-21: May 2020
• 2018-19: September 2018
• 2016-17: May 2016
• 2014-15: February 2014
• 2012-13: January 2012

Overview of the 2024-25 Biennial BudgetFor reference, we have cataloged the Texas State Budget by Biennium from 1996 to 2025 based on information previously published by the LBB. You can also see that information broken down by Article of the State Budget for the same time period.
Here are the key takeaways from how state lawmakers appropriated taxpayer money in the most recent legislative session:

• Historical Budget Increase:
  • The Texas Legislature passed the largest budget increase in the state’s history in the 88th Legislative Session (2023), with general revenue funds growing by 21.2%, state funds by 32%, and all funds by 21.5%.
  • Though the budget includes a substantial $12.7 billion for new property tax relief (making it the second-largest property tax relief effort in Texas history), property taxes still increased by $165 million.
  • All of this happened with the backdrop of an over $32 billion budget surplus (i.e. over-collected taxpayer money)

• Public Education Funding:
  • State spending on public education increased significantly, with a 33.3% rise in state funds and a 28.6% rise in all funds.
  • This increase elevates the state’s share of public education funding to approximately 50%, though this figure might be slightly inflated due to federal COVID-related funding in the previous biennium.
  • Funding for school administration and support staff outpaces funding for teachers themselves, despite dismal testing results.

Detailed Analysis and RecommendationsVance Ginn, a Ph.D. economist, Founder and President of Ginn Economic Consulting, former Chief Economist at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from 2019 to 2020 in the Trump Administration, and board member of Texas Policy Research, recently shared his initial thoughts on the FSU on Twitter/X.
“You’ll notice that the increase in All Funds, which includes all funding sources, is 21.5% when consistently calculated from initial appropriations to initial appropriations. At the same time, the LBB reports it to be just a 2.7% increase from an inconsistent comparison, which tells us very little about how much our tyaxpayer dollars are being used. This is because the 2024-25 amounts don’t include any supplemental appropriations or other spending that will happen by the Texas Legislature, so it is incomplete and incorrect to compare the two amounts in the FSU without this context.”
Vance Ginn, Ph.D. Twitter/X post, 7.31.2024 @VanceGinnDr. Ginn highlighted several broader points about the FSU, including what it includes, what it excludes, and his concerns leading into the next legislative session in January 2025:

• Budget Comparisons:
  • The FSU documents budget allocations across various articles and funding sources, but comparisons between biennial periods can be misleading. The initial appropriations for 2022-23 include supplemental appropriations and other budget changes, while the 2024-25 figures are based solely on initial appropriations. This apples-to-oranges comparison needs to be understood in context.
  • Consistent comparisons show a 21.5% increase in all funds from initial appropriations to initial appropriations, contrasting with the LBB’s reported 2.7% increase based on an inconsistent comparison. This discrepancy underlines the need for a more accurate representation of budget changes.

• Public Education Concerns:
  • Despite increased funding, there are ongoing concerns about declining student outcomes and stagnant teacher pay. Significant portions of the funding are directed toward facilities, athletics, and administrative costs rather than directly impacting student performance.
  • Future funding should consider these factors, and there is a possibility of reduced spending in the next session due to the recent rapid increases and poor outcomes.

• School Choice and Finance Reform:
  • Universal Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) are proposed as a means to provide school choice without harming public education funding. ESAs could help reduce overall expenditures and lower school district property taxes, aligning with the state’s goal of fully funding education as per the Texas Constitution.

• Spending Excesses and Recommendations:
  • The current budget’s excess spending is seen as unsustainable, necessitating budget cuts in the next legislative session. The Governor is urged to call for a 10% across-the-board cut to prioritize limited government roles and substantial tax relief.
  • Specific recommendations include reducing school district property tax rates and the business margins tax rates incrementally until they reach zero.

ConclusionThe Texas Legislative Budget Board’s Fiscal Size-Up for the 2024-25 biennium reveals significant increases in the state budget, particularly in public education funding. However, a review of the document highlights the need for careful consideration of budget comparisons, the impact of increased funding on education outcomes, and the sustainability of current spending levels. The proposed reforms aim to optimize the allocation of taxpayer dollars, improve public education outcomes, and provide substantial tax relief to Texans.

My interview with Lars Larson Show.

​Join me for Episode 107 of the Let People Prosper Show to learn the keys to liberty and prosperity from Douglas Carswell, President and CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy and former member of the British Parliament.

Subscribe, share, and rate the Let People Prosper Show, and visit vanceginn.com for more insights from me, my research, and ways to invite me on your show, give a speech, or other opportunities.

Originally published at Kansas Policy Institute.

​​The recent performance of the U.S. economy presents a complex picture for Kansans. The U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an annualized pace of 2.8% in the second quarter of 2024, fueled largely by consumer spending, which rose by 2.3%. However, this growth masks underlying weaknesses critical for states like Kansas to consider.

The personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index, excluding volatile food and energy prices, increased by 0.2% in June and remained at 2.6% year-over-year, indicating persistent inflation above the Federal Reserve’s target of 2%. The Federal Reserve has tried to curb inflation by reducing its balance sheet from $9 trillion to $7.2 trillion, which includes most U.S. Treasury debt, mortgage-backed securities, and federal agency debt. But its balance sheet remains significantly higher than the pre-pandemic $4 trillion, indicating substantial inflationary pressures remain as too much money is chasing too few goods and services.

Average real weekly earnings adjusted for inflation have been down 1% since January 2021. This decline in inflation-adjusted earnings means consumers are burning their savings at an unsustainable rate, resulting in a historically low savings rate of 3.5% today. The trend is concerning for Kansas as it suggests that consumers have less disposable income, which can slow down economic activity and reduce state revenues from sales taxes.

Excessive deficit spending by Congress further complicates the Federal Reserve’s conundrum of balancing interest rates against inflation. High government spending contributes to upward pressure on interest rates, making it challenging for the Fed to maintain its federal funds rate target of 5.25-5.5% without exacerbating inflation. For Kansas, this federal fiscal policy environment could lead to higher borrowing costs and a constrained economic outlook if interest rates continue to rise.

Kansas can help working families navigate these national economic challenges by focusing on state-level fiscal responsibility and economic freedom. The state can draw lessons from national trends to implement policies that mitigate the impact of federal fiscal and monetary policies. Kansas should adopt a responsible budgeting approach that changes no more than the rate of population growth plus inflation and substantially reduces personal income taxes, eventually to zero.
Reducing regulatory burdens and promoting a business-friendly environment are crucial for fostering innovation and job creation. By emphasizing economic freedom, Kansas can attract new businesses and investments, offsetting some of the negative impacts of national economic weaknesses.

​By focusing on fiscal restraint, tax reform, and enhancing economic freedom, Kansas can create a resilient economic environment that supports growth and prosperity despite the headwinds from federal policies and economic conditions. This approach aligns with the Kansas Policy Institute’s pro-growth approach for lower taxes, reduced regulation, and a limited government that fosters an environment where businesses and individuals can prosper.