Attorneys from the Goldwater Institute, representing the Center for Arizona Policy and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, joined former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould on Thursday to challenge Proposition 211. The measure, called the “Voters’ Right to Know Act,” is being contested on the grounds that it violates the state Constitution’s protections for free speech and privacy.
In the wake of Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and a decade marked by attacks on political figures—the security risks of effectively doxxing political donors loom large in the case.
If upheld, the law would force nonprofit groups that weigh in on ballot measures or reference incumbents near an election to publicly disclose their donors—not just names and amounts, but also home addresses and employers—in a searchable database.
In today’s climate of escalating political violence—from death threats and swatting to vandalism, arson, and even assassinations—a database like this could essentially become a “hit list.”
In the AZ Supreme Ct today w my @GoldwaterInst colleagues to defend free speech & privacy rights in the #Prop211 case. You can learn more about the case here https://t.co/AzcEiCOulg
And watch the oral argument live in a few minutes on the court’s website: https://t.co/dkcgE7KDHC
In a press release the Goldwater Institute explained its position stating, “While proponents of the Voters’ Right to Know Act say they’re simply combatting so-called ‘dark money’ in politics, it is clear to Goldwater and its clients — the Center for Arizona Policy, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and individual donors — that their real intent is to intimidate their political opponents into silence.”
“Arizona’s Proposition 211 is as un-American as it is dangerous. No one should be exposed to retaliation or violence simply for supporting causes they believe in,” said Jon Riches, Goldwater’s Vice President of Litigation. “The law also violates Arizona’s Constitution, which provides stronger protections for freedom of speech and privacy than even the U.S. Constitution. That’s why we at the Goldwater Institute believe the Arizona Supreme Court will ultimately strike down Proposition 211.”
Prop 211 is silencing free speech in Arizona!!!
At today’s press conference, Scot Mussi of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club explained how this vague and dangerous law forced us to curtail our speech last campaign cycle. Why? Because Prop 211 puts the privacy and safety of donors… pic.twitter.com/fgctJGt5K4
Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi added, “They’re afraid of the activist organizations out there. They’re afraid of politicians and others that want to exact retaliation because they simply support a position or belief that they disagree.”
Mussi characterized the law as “a dangerous threat to our right to free speech and association.”
“As drafted, the law can be used to unconstitutionally target and harass private citizens, including our organization and our supporters,” Mussi stated. “We are confident that the Supreme Court will recognize the danger this law poses and will rule in our favor.”
In a statement to AZ Free News in May, Mussi elaborated on the potential for political intimidation: “Both the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution guarantee citizens the right to speak freely, which includes the right to not be forced to speak. Prop 211 not only violates this right for donors by silencing them from supporting causes they believe in but impairs the speech of nonprofits like ours as well.”
Peter Gentala, President of the Center for Arizona Policy, stated in a press release that Proposition 211 “creates an atmosphere of fear among those who support nonprofits that engage in the most pressing issues in Arizona today.”
The tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk is not only the loss of a cultural leader, but also a chilling reminder of what happens when we confuse speech with violence. Kirk was a tireless champion of free expression, and his death underscores the urgent need to examine how the suppression of dialogue can set the stage for real violence.
In his own words, Kirk once warned: “When people stop talking, really bad stuff starts… when you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against that group. What we as a culture have to get back to is being able to have reasonable disagreement where violence is not an option.” His words now read as both a prophecy and a plea for the culture of dialogue we so desperately need.
Suppressing Speech Is Not The Answer
Psychology teaches us that suppressing thoughts doesn’t eliminate them — it simply pushes them underground. Clinicians see this dynamic in individuals who repress emotions until they reemerge as passive aggression or even have destructive outbursts. The same pattern plays out in society: When people are told their perspectives are unspeakable, frustration grows, mistrust deepens, and the risk of acting out increases. Ironically, attempts to enforce “safe spaces” by silencing dissent often make communities more volatile. True safety comes from open dialogue, where conflict can be addressed directly rather than festering in silence.
The Danger Of “Social Justice Warrior” Rhetoric
When individuals adopt the mindset of “social justice warriors,” the very word “war” can take on a literal dimension. Combined with rhetoric that labels opponents as “Nazis,” “fascists,” or even as “threats to existence” for questioning prevailing ideologies, we create a psychological framework where violence feels like moral self-defense. Social psychologists call this groupthink — a process in which consensus becomes so rigid that dissenters can be irrationally cast as evil. Ingredients of groupthink include a belief in the moral superiority of the group, direct pressure on dissenters, strong outgroup stereotypes, and collective rationalization — all of which were present here. In such an atmosphere, attacking a speaker can feel like a righteous duty. Tragically, Kirk’s willingness to question aspects of trans ideology and other sacred cows of certain political groups placed him squarely in the crosshairs of this warped moral reasoning.
Words Are Not Violence
Words can sting, but they are not the same as physical harm. Equating speech with violence not only inflates anxiety but also undermines resilience. It conditions people to believe that discomfort is intolerable and that retaliation — even violent retaliation—is justified. By contrast, protecting free speech fosters self-efficacy — the belief in one’s ability to navigate challenges constructively. It strengthens authentic connection, reduces the loneliness that comes from self-censorship, and creates opportunities for genuine problem-solving.
Charlie Kirk’s assassination must be seen for what it is: a catastrophic failure to uphold the principle that dialogue is the antidote to violence, not its cause. As Kirk himself urged, the future of our culture depends on whether we can “have reasonable disagreement where violence is not an option.”
To honor his legacy, we must recommit to that vision — resisting the falsehood that words are violence — and embracing the truth that dialogue, even when difficult, is the path to peace. This is the very theme I explore in my book Can I Say That? Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly, which offers psychological tools for protecting free speech and building the resilience that open dialogue requires. The book includes examples such as Andy Ngo and Riley Gaines, who have suffered violence for their speech — and tragically, Charlie Kirk is now added to that list in the worst possible way. I urge you to channel your grief into action — do not be silenced but use your voice and stand together. It’s exactly what Charlie would have wanted.
Dr. Chloe Carmichael is contributor to the Daily Caller News Foundation, a clinical psychologist, USA Today bestselling author of “Nervous Energy,” and a visiting fellow at Independent Women. Her upcoming book “Can I Say That? Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly” (Skyhorse, Nov. 2025) explores the mental health benefits of open dialogue and the costs of self-censorship.
The steady decline of academic success and moral integrity is an undeniable reality in many Arizona school districts. K-12 libraries are plagued with sexually graphic novels. Science textbooks tout evolutionary theory and climate change nonsense. ELA assignments contain race-baiting themes and false social justice narratives. LGBTQ+ clubs are in full force, while private spaces still pose a safety risk to female students.
Do Christian/conservative teachers have any responsibility to restore order in our public schools? Aren’t they on the frontlines of steering young minds and upholding ethical standards in the classroom? Why don’t we see more exposure of subpar curricula and corrupt policies that fail to protect educators’ constitutional rights at work?
Will this school year be any different, or will Arizona teachers maintain the status quo?
Jessica Tapia’s Story
California educator and parental rights advocate Jessica Tapia
Jessica Tapia is an alumna and former employee of Jurupa Unified School District (JUSD). She graduated from Jurupa Valley High School, secured a full-time position in the district, and eventually landed her dream job as a high school P.E. teacher.
Tapia loved her career and her students, but she loved God foremost. And her faith would soon be tested.
Six years into her career, some JUSD students decided to research Tapia and discovered Christian/conservative posts on her social media page. The juveniles reported their findings to district officials, who conducted an internal investigation. Tapia was placed on administrative leave and admonished to hide her online profile. As a condition of employment, she would also have to agree to use students’ preferred names and pronouns, even without parental consent.
If Tapia complied with JUSD’s policies—including allowing boys to access girls’ locker rooms—she would keep her compensation package and enjoy acceptance among her peers. Otherwise, she faced serious and permanent consequences. Thankfully, Tapia not only believed in the unchanging truth that God created male and female, she was also willing to defend her faith and freedom of speech on school grounds.
Tapia was fired from her dream job, and the woke mob demanded her head on a platter. In a moment of truth, Tapia lost nearly everything she worked hard to achieve, and her reputation was now tarnished. JUSD reprimanded her for unprofessional conduct and accused her of publishing “racist, offensive, and disrespectful” content. No doubt, the most painful experiences came in the form of separating from her students and watching colleagues turn their backs.
This would be a sad story if it ended here.
Tapia knew her rights and filed a lawsuit against JUSD. Turns out, firing a teacher who refused to lie to students and families is not only morally reprehensible, but it’s also illegal. After a long battle with many ups and downs, stretching and testing her faith, Tapia finally won! JUSD settled with Tapia for $285,000 and another $75,000 for her attorney fees. She’s now one of America’s leading advocates for teachers and parental rights in education.
When JUSD violated Tapia’s First Amendment rights, she pushed back. When dangerous transgender policies contradicted her faith—and put female students at risk—Tapia refused to comply. When following orders suddenly meant hiding vital information from parents, she said no. Tapia didn’t cower in fear, take a bribe, or ignore the situation altogether. Instead, she chose to do the hard thing. The right thing.
What’s Your Story?
School board members are elected officials who swear an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Protecting teachers is their responsibility when it comes to drafting and voting on district policies. Administrators should not manipulate or control this process. Furthermore, school districts don’t have the legal right or moral authority to give ultimatums or blackmail employees into submission. It’s time teachers say, “Enough is enough.”
Transgender ideology is a dangerous lie and a mental illness that shouldn’t be imposed on anyone. Still, K-12 educators often conceal their Christian beliefs to avoid backlash and discrimination. These are the “don’t rock the boat” types. It’s also possible that some teachers are simply unaware or unbothered by high-profile issues on campus. These are the “ostrich” types. For the sake of moral clarity, consider the following real-life scenarios that also degrade our public education system.
We currently have teachers who, for whatever reason, purposely pass unprepared students on to the next grade level. Rebellious teachers hide inappropriate books in their classrooms and read filth to children behind parents’ backs. An increasing number are perpetrating or ignoring signs of sexual, physical, mental, and emotional abuse. Public schools are overflowing with activists disguised as teachers whose sole mission is to advance union agendas.
I say, enough is enough.
Of course, there are a host of problems that educators shouldn’t be blamed for, including:
overspending, mismanagement, and corruption at the district level.
excessive classroom sizes.
laxed or nonexistent disciplinary policies.
the expectation of training fellow teachers without compensation.
submitting to self-important, intimidating administrators (many of whom don’t even like children).
These hardships don’t go unnoticed by parents, community members, and board members who share educators’ concerns. Nevertheless, Tapia’s story is a prototype, a demonstration of boldness that highlights every teacher’s responsibility to always respond with moral integrity and conviction.
It’s simple: Set and keep professional boundaries. Respect students and safeguard their innocence. Be straightforward with parents and never lie to save face. Refuse to be intimidated or comply with unconstitutional policies. Don’t quit in the heat of the battle. Know your rights. If you experience legitimate discrimination on school grounds, consult legal counsel and file a complaint.
Teachers shouldn’t be discouraged when criticisms are ignored and questions go unanswered. Those with the most power are typically the least compelled to solve problems that don’t immediately affect them. Oftentimes, negative publicity is the only way to disrupt the status quo. To be sure, nothing will change if good teachers keep playing nice, remaining silent, or walking away. There’s no outrunning the madness in government schools—you must find the backbone to confront the madness head-on.
Tapia’s testimony aligns with a theme we see throughout the Bible: God rewards obedience and courage; He hates rebellion and cowardice. Tapia’s story is a provocation for teachers to blow the whistle and stand on truth regardless of the consequences. Even if you’re not particularly religious, your First Amendment rights don’t end where bad district policies begin.
This school year can be different than years past. It just takes one good teacher to find their voice and lead the way.
When we launched the American Conservative Values ETF (ACVF), we did it with an important mission in mind: to give voice to the millions of Americans who are sick and tired of watching their retirement dollars fund woke liberal corporate activism. That mission brought us face to face with a troubling trend: major U.S. companies using their platforms not to grow shareholder value, but to push divisive political agendas. One of the worst offenders is Airbnb.
That’s why, through First Amendment legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom, we’ve filed a lawsuit against Airbnb. The lawsuit says Airbnb violated federal securities law and illegally excluded our shareholder proposal(s) from its 2025 proxy statement. Our proposal was simple.
We wanted Airbnb to explain the risks to its business from denying or restricting service to users based on their religion, political status, or Airbnb’s expansive speech codes. Instead of playing fair and following the law, we believe Airbnb broke the rules to shut us out. Here is a link to the lawsuit.
We believe Airbnb ignored SEC Rule 14a-8, which requires companies to notify shareholders within 14 days if they plan to exclude a proposal and give them an opportunity to challenge that decision. Airbnb didn’t do that. They just silently buried our proposal because it didn’t fit their politics.
Let me be blunt; This is what corporate viewpoint discrimination looks like in 2025. And we’re not going to let it stand.
We believe in free markets and free speech. As institutional investors, we believe that companies, especially publicly traded ones, should be focused on delivering value to their shareholders, not playing political referee. But Airbnb has turned itself into a culture war weapon. And now they’re shutting the door on shareholders who dare to question that approach.
We firmly believe that Airbnb’s behavior isn’t just wrong. It’s illegal. It undermines the entire purpose of shareholder democracy. Rule 14a-8 exists so that companies can’t pick and choose which viewpoints they allow on the proxy ballot. The SEC has made it clear that if a proposal meets the technical requirements, it belongs in front of all shareholders. Period.
When two different conservative groups (our co-plaintiff, The Heritage Foundation, also had a proposal ignored) submit 14a-8 compliant resolutions, those just get “lost in the mailroom.” That proves our point.
It’s our belief that Airbnb isn’t trying to stay out of politics. They’re just trying to silence one side of the political spectrum. Our proposals were lost in the mailroom while a proposal from a left-leaning group managed to make it to the ballot.
That’s why we’re taking this to court. This lawsuit isn’t just about one proposal or one company. It’s about defending the right of every investor including conservative investors to be heard. It’s about holding companies accountable when they break the law to protect their political biases. And it’s about making sure that our money isn’t used against us.
We’re grateful to stand with fellow conservative groups like The Heritage Foundation, our co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit in this fight. We’re grateful to be represented by excellent attorneys at ADF and Boyden Gray. Together, we’re demanding that Airbnb follow the law, include our proposals, and respect the rights of all shareholders, not just the ones who agree with their worldview.
We know this case could set a major precedent. If we win, it will send a loud and clear message to every boardroom in America. Conservatives will no longer be silenced. We have just as much right to shape the direction of the companies we invest in as anyone else. And we won’t stand by while biased corporations break the rules to push their agenda and shut us out.
So Airbnb had a choice. We believe they could have engaged with us, followed the process, and shown respect for their shareholders. Instead, they chose arrogance and exclusion. That choice now comes with consequences.
The woke bubble is bursting. The days of silent conservative investors are over. And we’re just getting started.
William Flaig is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and the Founder and CEO of the American Conservative Values ETF (ACVF). www.investconservative.com.
The 16 prominent Republicans prosecuted for their participation in creating an alternate Electoral College slate for the 2020 presidential election are one step closer to having their charges dismissed. Earlier this week, a Maricopa County Judge ruled that Attorney General Mayes may have been politically motivated to charge them.
On Monday, Maricopa County Judge Sam Myers ruled that the defendants successfully demonstrated that the charges against them could comprise an attack on what he deemed is “at least in part some arguably lawful speech.” This ruling could trigger a dismissal through Arizona’s Anti-SLAPP law, a statute designed to prevent legal action launched to suppress free speech. In the text of Arizona’s Anti-SLAPP law, the prosecution must now establish “the legal action on which the motion is based is justified by clearly established law and that the responding party did not act in order to deter, prevent or retaliate against the moving party’s exercise of constitutional rights.” As reported by Courthouse News, Judge Myers said that a statement from Arizona Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes, while announcing the indictment of the 16 Republicans that “this should never happen again,” could potentially show a political motivation to the prosecution.
As the outlet noted, Arizona prosecutors led by Mayes, have 45 days from the date of the ruling to respond to the judge’s ruling and prove to the court that the charges were brought in order to enforce existing Arizona laws and not to suppress the freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Myers said he will rule on the motion to dismiss once he’s received and considered the response. Responding to the ruling, Mayes promised an appeal in a press release saying, “We disagree with this ruling, and we will pursue an appeal.” She reiterated her claim adding, “It is not the lawful exercise of free speech to file forged slates of electors to deprive Arizona voters of their right to vote.”
The defendants in the case include former AZGOP Chair Dr. Kelli Ward, Dr. Michael Ward, former executive director of the AZGOP Greg Safsten, former Arizona State Senator Anthony Kern, former Senate Candidate Jim Lamon, former Cochise County Republican Committee chair Robert Montgomery, former Cochise County Republican Committee chair Samuel Moorhead, Arizona State Senator Jake Hoffman, Turning Point USA COO Tyler Bowyer, and attorneys John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Christina Bobb, as well as President Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Campaign Aide Boris Epshteyn, and director of Election Day operations Mike Roman.
Following the ruling, Eastman posted to X, “Major ruling in the Arizona electors case this a.m. The new judge just ruled that I met the prima facie case required to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute — that is, 1st Amend. rights implicated, & substantial evid. that the prosecution was to retaliate or deter those rights.”
Major ruling in the Arizona electors case this a.m. The new judge just ruled that I met the prima facie case required to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP statute — that is, 1st Amend. rights implicated, & substantial evid. that the prosecution was to retaliate or deter those rights.
Eastman added, “Just to clarify. The AG now has to prove that she wasn’t motivated by desire to retaliate or deter 1A rights. Their brief is due March 25. The judge also rejected the AG’s claim that the anti-SLAPP statute is unconstitutional.”
Fellow defendant Dr. Kelli Ward explained on X, “The court found sufficient showing in the defense’s arguments to warrant moving to stage 2 of the process in AZ’s criminal anti-slapp statute. Now the state has to prove that this case was not politically motivated and they must show that they’re using established precedent and not interpreting the law in new ways.”
