Podcast appearances and mentions of Bradley A Smith

My book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8 Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Politics, Terrence Howard, Klaus Schwab, WEF Chairman, ADL, WaPo Editorial Board, DEI Support Requirement, Thought Terminating Cliches, Rhyming Persuasion Technique, Windows Recall, Scarlett Johansson ChatGPT, OpenAI Security Team, AI Risk Speculation, ChatGPT, Non-Auditable Elections, Biden Dementia Concerns, Bill Maher, Greg Gutfeld, Hoax Funnel, Anti-Trump Lawfare, Robert Costello Side-Eye, Judge Merchan, FEC Expert Witness, Bradley A. Smith, MSNBC Hosts Mental Illness, Scott Adams --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

We're currently navigating through the sixth week of the former President Donald Trump's trial concerning allegations of falsifying corporate records, commonly known in the media as 'hush money', and the developments suggest a shift in the winds. Presiding Justice Juan Merchan of New York Supreme Court commenced the week with a significant announcement, setting the stage for the final arguments to take place in the forthcoming week. Anticipations are rife regarding the end of Michael Cohen's testimony on Monday, which has been a focal point of interest throughout the trial. Trump's legal counsel successfully utilized Cohen's previous law infringements and deceitful history, in an attempt to question his trustworthiness last week. The prosecution, however, insists that additional witnesses and financial records endorse Cohen's declarations. Justice Merchan offered some guidance to the defense team, outlining areas for former Federal Election Commission chairman, Bradley A. Smith's testimony. The defense aims to exploit Smith's knowledge to convince the jury that Trump did not intend to manipulate the 2016 election through his alleged misinterpretation of his business records. Parsing federal election laws is the proposed route, although, the experts are forbidden to explain the law or give interpretations, as per Merchan's direction. He expressed concern that Smith's testimony on campaign finance law would inevitably involve discussions or references regarding federal law precedents or the underlying intentions behind such rules.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Recent years have seen unprecedented controversies about election rules, including mail-in ballots and drop boxes, partisan and racial gerrymandering, early voting, ballot harvesting, and methods of vote counting. Because election laws have partisan consequences, the legislators who make election laws, the officials who administer elections, and the judges who decide election cases are often suspected of exercising power so as to increase their own side’s electoral chances. As we look ahead to future elections, this panel will consider what it means to have a fair election process and how much deference judges should pay to the determinations of officials whose actions in formulating and applying election laws may have partisan motivations.Featuring:Hon. Michael G. Adams, Secretary of State, Commonwealth of KentuckyProf. Richard Briffault, Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law SchoolProf. Richard H. Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of LawHon. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School; Former Commissioner, Federal Election CommissionModerator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

In this episode, host Vivek Ramaswamy discusses the controversial prosecution of Donald Trump by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, diving into the legal complexities surrounding the case. Joined by guest Brad Smith, a former Federal Election Commission chairman and law professor, they explore the payment made to Stormy Daniels during Trump's campaign and whether it constituted an unlawful campaign contribution. They also discuss the potential consequences of the indictment and the implications of campaign finance laws. Throughout the conversation, they raise concerns about the rule of law, the dangers of politicized prosecutions, and the future of political discourse.Bradley A. Smith, an accomplished law professor and former FEC Commissioner, is a leading expert in election law. Nominated to the FEC by President Bill Clinton, Smith has an impressive background that includes teaching at Capital University Law School and authoring numerous articles on campaign finance. With experience in both academia and practice, he has testified before Congress, made appearances on radio and television, and contributed to major publications. Smith holds a B.A. from Kalamazoo College and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. Time codes:00:01:15 - Introduction to the convention's theme and purpose.00:02:37 - First speaker introduces a groundbreaking new technology.00:05:56 - The audience is engaged in an interactive Q&A session with the first speaker.00:08:45 - A panel discussion begins, focusing on the impact of recent advancements in science and technology.00:11:33 - The second speaker presents research on the future of renewable energy.00:14:25 - A demonstration of an innovative sustainable energy solution.00:16:18 - The third speaker discusses the ethical implications of artificial intelligence.00:18:52 - The audience is asked to consider the potential consequences of AI on society.00:21:04 - A thought-provoking debate begins on the benefits and risks of genetic engineering.00:23:47 - The fourth speaker provides an update on a major scientific discovery.00:26:29 - A captivating visual presentation of the discovery and its potential implications.00:28:45 - The audience participates in a hands-on activity related to the discovery.00:31:23 - A panel of experts discusses the future of space exploration.00:34:17 - The fifth speaker shares their experience working on a high-profile space mission.00:36:59 - A sneak peek at an upcoming documentary on the history of space exploration.00:39:44 - The sixth speaker discusses the potential of virtual reality in various industries.00:42:30 - A live demonstration of a cutting-edge virtual reality experience.00:44:21 - The audience is invited to try the virtual reality experience for themselves.00:47:08 - A panel debate on the societal implications of mass surveillance technologies.00:50:02 - The seventh speaker shares insights on the development of quantum computing.00:52:39 - The audience is treated to a live demonstration of quantum computing capabilities.00:55:27 - The eighth speaker discusses the role of biotechnology in addressing global challenges.00:58:14 - A showcase of groundbreaking biotechnology innovations.01:00:52 - The ninth speaker explores the future of transportation and its impact on the environment.01:03:37 - A panel discussion on the ethical considerations of emerging technologies and their potential impact on society.

Many aspects of the United States governing structure have been criticized as inconsistent with democracy or at least with majority rule. Elections for the House of Representatives and state legislatures are subject to gerrymandering. The Senate represents large and small states equally and thus unequally weights the voters across the nation. The Electoral College, too, provides electoral advantages to some states over others. And the institutions themselves sometimes depart from majority rule, most notably in the United States Senate with its filibuster. Can these arrangements be justified, or should they be reformed?Featuring:Moderator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitProf. Sanford V. Levinson, W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law, University of Texas School of LawProf. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law SchoolProf. Stephanie Barclay, Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Religious Liberty Initiative, Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Lori A. Ringhand, J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law & Josiah Meigs Distinguished Teaching Professor, University of Georgia School of Law

Many western states are making significant structural changes to their campaign and election laws. Innovations like ranked-choice voting and new campaign financial disclosures rules are taking hold in many states, including California, Washington, Arizona, and Alaska. These changes are having real impact on the ground, as evidenced by the recent primary election in Alaska, where ranked-choice voting resulted in a Democrat being elected to Congress for the first time in five decades.Other legislative changes across the west address political speech and its funding sources, including Alaska’s recently enacted ban on so-called “dark money;” Arizona’s Proposition 211 measure, which was passed in the recent election; and Oregon’s consideration of introducing a similar measure on the ballot in 2024. In addition to significant policy debates over the merits of these policies, lawyers are challenging their constitutionality based on First Amendment speech and association grounds. The panel will begin by framing the policy debate, followed by a discussion of the current status of various election-related reforms, including litigation pushing state and federal constitutional challenges to these changes. Featuring:Mr. Daniel Suhr, Senior Attorney, Liberty Justice CenterMr. Kory Langhofer, Managing Partner, StatecraftProf. Richard Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of LawMr. Scott Kendall, Of Counsel, Cashion Gilmore & LindemuthProf. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of LawHon. Terry Goddard, Shareholder, Goddard Law PLC, Former Arizona Attorney GeneralModerator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

in this episode, Micaela Isler and Adam Belmar are joined by Bradley A Smith, Chairman, and Founder of the Institute for Free Speech for a look at the few bills still percolating in the 117th Congress that aim to do harm to employee-funded and business trade association PACs – directly and indirectly.

The For the People Act was introduced in the House of Representatives in 2019 as H.R. 1, the symbolic designation marking it as the top priority of the new Democratic House majority. Described by its author, Representative John Sarbanes, as addressing "voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government," the 570 page bill passed the House later that year, but was never voted on in the Republican-controlled Senate.The measure was reintroduced in the 117th Congress as H.R. 1 in the House and S. 1 in the Senate, but with still more provisions expanding it to over 800 pages. Proponents supporting passage have cited the importance of expanding voter access and fighting "voter suppression." Opponents argue that the bill significantly restricts free speech by changing campaign finance rules, creates the potential for widespread voter fraud by relaxing necessary voting integrity safeguards, and constitutes a federal takeover of state-run elections.The House passed the bill on a near party-line vote (1 Democrat voted "no"), and its fate now lies with the 50-50 divided Senate. Senate Republicans can block a vote with the filibuster, and H.R. 1 has been cited frequently as a reason to abolish the filibuster. But at least one Senate Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, has stated that he will not vote for the bill in its current form, depriving the legislation--for now--of even a simple majority.Mr. Bradley A. Smith, Chairman and Founder of the Institute for Free Speech and one of the nation's foremost experts on campaign finance law, joined the Federalist Society to discuss some of the more important provisions and implications of H.R.1/S. 1, the For the People Act.Featuring:- Bradley A. Smith, Chairman and Founder, Institute for Free Speech

The For the People Act was introduced in the House of Representatives in 2019 as H.R. 1, the symbolic designation marking it as the top priority of the new Democratic House majority. Described by its author, Representative John Sarbanes, as addressing “voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government,” the 570 page bill passed the House later that year, but was never voted on in the Republican-controlled Senate. The measure was reintroduced in the 117th Congress as H.R. 1 in the House and S. 1 in the Senate, but with still more provisions expanding it to over 800 pages. Proponents supporting passage have cited the importance of expanding voter access and fighting "voter suppression." Opponents argue that the bill significantly restricts free speech by changing campaign finance rules, creates the potential for widespread voter fraud by relaxing necessary voting integrity safeguards, and constitutes a federal takeover of state-run elections.The House passed the bill on a near party-line vote (1 Democrat voted "no"), and its fate now lies with the 50-50 divided Senate. Senate Republicans can block a vote with the filibuster, and H.R. 1 has been cited frequently as a reason to abolish the filibuster. But at least one Senate Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, has stated that he will not vote for the bill in its current form, depriving the legislation--for now--of even a simple majority.Mr. Bradley A. Smith, Chairman and Founder of the Institute for Free Speech and one of the nation’s foremost experts on campaign finance law will join us to discuss some of the more important provisions and implications of H.R.1/S. 1, the For the People Act.Featuring: -- Bradley A. Smith, Chairman and Founder, Institute for Free Speech

On April 8, 2021, the Federalist Society's El Paso Lawyers Chapter hosted a debate between Bradley A. Smith and Daniel I. Weiner on H.R. 1 and the future of election law.Featuring:Bradley A Smith, Chairman and Founder, Institute for Free SpeechDaniel I. Weiner, Deputy Director, Election Reform Program, Brennan Center for Justice, NYU LawModerator: David Vandenberg, Associate Attorney, Rincon Law Group, PC; The Federalist Society’s El Paso Lawyers Chapter* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Emily Conrad has written a comprehensive account of the US Electoral College in her new book, The Faithless? The Untold Story of the Electoral College. As another presidential election rapidly approaches this November, the fate may well rest in the hands of the Electoral College. Conrad conducted extensive interviews, profiling a diverse roster of faithless electors in the 2016 Electoral College. Conrad compiled their personal background and to understand their reasons for their rouge votes. "As I researched this book and talked with one faithless elector after another, I found myself constantly challenged in my ideas and understanding of the Electoral College, the role of political parties within America's democratic system, and the empowerment of the individual versus the masses in American politics" says Conrad. "However," Conrad continues, "one thing I do not question is the authenticity of the electors who decided to go against the popular vote of their states and vote faithlessly. Each one of the electors with whom I have spoken gave immense thought and emotional energy into his or her decision." Will the die-hard Bernie electors stay true to their convictions, or grudgingly support the official nominee? Will the lifelong Republican electors cast their vote for Donald Trump, or write in another candidate in the name of principle? Conrad expands upon these stories and details the reactions and aftermath after each elector casts their deciding vote, prompting the question: what do the faithless electors of 2016 prescribe to the possibility of faithless electors in this contentious 2020 presidential race? "While most political junkies examined the unprecedented nature of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential victory, Conrad was fascinated by the underreported stories about the eight so-called faithless electors who cast ballots that went against the popular vote of their states in the Electoral College. The driving questions behind the author's work lie not in constitutional debates surrounding the legality of faithless electors or the undemocratic nature of the Electoral College, but in the eight electors themselves . . . her deeply human approach that centers on the personal lives of the eight electors is a welcome alternative to a genre dominated by hyperpartisan pundits. By pushing Trump and Clinton out of the spotlight, the book is also an implicit celebration of democracy with an unrelenting focus on state and local activists willing to stand up against members of their own parties." - Kirkus Reviews "Not merely about the Electoral College, but about how ordinary, politically engaged Americans are struggling to cope with the political turmoils of our time. a particularly worthwhile read." - Bradley A. Smith, Professor at Capital University Law School, Federal Election Commissioner (2000-2005) --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/john-aidan-byrne0/support

Emily Conrad has written a comprehensive account of the US Electoral College in her new book, The Faithless? The Untold Story of the Electoral College. As another presidential election rapidly approaches this November, the fate may well rest in the hands of the Electoral College. Conrad conducted extensive interviews, profiling a diverse roster of faithless electors in the 2016 Electoral College. Conrad compiled their personal background and to understand their reasons for their rouge votes. "As I researched this book and talked with one faithless elector after another, I found myself constantly challenged in my ideas and understanding of the Electoral College, the role of political parties within America's democratic system, and the empowerment of the individual versus the masses in American politics" says Conrad. "However," Conrad continues, "one thing I do not question is the authenticity of the electors who decided to go against the popular vote of their states and vote faithlessly. Each one of the electors with whom I have spoken gave immense thought and emotional energy into his or her decision." Will the die-hard Bernie electors stay true to their convictions, or grudgingly support the official nominee? Will the lifelong Republican electors cast their vote for Donald Trump, or write in another candidate in the name of principle? Conrad expands upon these stories and details the reactions and aftermath after each elector casts their deciding vote, prompting the question: what do the faithless electors of 2016 prescribe to the possibility of faithless electors in this contentious 2020 presidential race? "While most political junkies examined the unprecedented nature of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential victory, Conrad was fascinated by the underreported stories about the eight so-called faithless electors who cast ballots that went against the popular vote of their states in the Electoral College. The driving questions behind the author's work lie not in constitutional debates surrounding the legality of faithless electors or the undemocratic nature of the Electoral College, but in the eight electors themselves . . . her deeply human approach that centers on the personal lives of the eight electors is a welcome alternative to a genre dominated by hyperpartisan pundits. By pushing Trump and Clinton out of the spotlight, the book is also an implicit celebration of democracy with an unrelenting focus on state and local activists willing to stand up against members of their own parties." - Kirkus Reviews "Not merely about the Electoral College, but about how ordinary, politically engaged Americans are struggling to cope with the political turmoils of our time. a particularly worthwhile read." - Bradley A. Smith, Professor at Capital University Law School, Federal Election Commissioner (2000-2005) --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/john-aidan-byrne0/support

DEBATE: Has The Electoral College Outlived Its Usefulness? Five American presidents — two in the last 20 years — have assumed office without winning the popular vote. As the nation gears up for another contentious presidential election, some are calling for an end to the Electoral College. They argue that the college subverts the will of the American people by unfairly prioritizing rural and swing states over the nation’s majority. But others say the Electoral College, which the Founders established in the Constitution, is necessary to ensure voters in less populous states have a voice in picking our president. Has the Electoral College outlived its usefulness? This debate is presented in partnership with the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law as part of the Newt and Jo Minow Debate Series.   Motion: The Electoral College Has Outlived Its Usefulness For the Motion: Jamelle Bouie - Columnist, New York Times Kate Shaw - Law Professor & Supreme Court Contributor, ABC News Against the Motion: Tara Ross - Author, "Why We Need the Electoral College" Bradley A. Smith - Law Professor & Former Chairman, Federal Election Commission A note from our sponsor: Get an extra 3 months Free on a one year package. Expressvpn.com/debate Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley A. Smith is perhaps best known for opposing many campaign finance regulations on First Amendment grounds. On today’s episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, we talk with the former chairman about how political campaign activity is regulated in America and how this regulation implicates the First Amendment. We also explore some of today’s hot-button campaign finance controversies. Smith is a professor of law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio. From 2000 until 2005, he served as a FEC commissioner. He was FEC chairman in 2004 and vice chairman in 2003. In 2005, Smith founded the Center for Competitive Politics, now known as the Institute for Free Speech. Show notes: http://www.thefire.org/anniversary Podcast transcript Cases: Buckley v. Valeo (1976), Randall v. Sorrell (2006) Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), Speechnow.org v. FEC (2010), McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014) Timeline: The history of campaign finance regulation Faulty Assumptions and the Undemocratic Consequences of Campaign Finance Reform by Bradley A. Smith (1996) Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform by Bradley A. Smith (2009) Stormy weather for campaign-finance laws National Enquirer didn’t commit a crime by killing Trump affair stories www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

Oct. 17, 2011 Saving Elections from Politics: A Doctrine of Separation of Campaign and State The Sumner Canary Lecture presented by the Center for Business Law and Regulation Case Western Reserve University School of Law Speaker Bradley A. Smith Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law Capital University

November 2009 featuring Alan Gura, Clark Neily, Malou Innocent, Jan Crawford Greenburg, Bradley A. Smith, Harvey A. Silverglate, David Goldhill See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Congress has been moving rapidly toward enacting new ethics and lobbying regulations. Such regulations have consequences for the elections in the fall, the public's views of Congress as an institution, and the basic political rights of all Americans. Please join us for an examination of the proposed ethics and lobbying regulations by Bradley A. Smith, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and senior adviser to the Center for Competitive Politics, and Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.