Generally speaking, the public-private NGO model is how Gov circumvents Constitutional Law. However, the services performed by CIS do not occur in a vacuum. They perform outsourced services thru Govt awards (ie Contract, Cooperative Agreement, Grant, etc) that are created thru legislation, EO’s, PDD’s. According to USASpending.gov The Center for Information Security Inc. has a Coop Agreement running thru 2023. Short desc is for cybersecurity at State, Local, & Tribal levels. I’m not an Atty, but this activity from AZ SoS & CIS is a gray area, open to interpretation. IDK if there is a good example of Case Law or not. I don’t believe its as open/ shut as you mentioned.
Jawboning is the term used to describe public-private relationship whereby govt “acts indirectly” thru private orgs because the application of Law is different.
The link is to summary about Dr. Ayyadurai’s case vs. MA. Aside from the blunders of self representation, and the outcome of the case, the Judge was “ interested in the 11th Amendment questions regarding qualified immunity, along with the 1st Amendment questions regarding government suppression of political speech”. The legality seems to be far from settled & perhaps a path forward exists (esp if Twitter dump highlights depth & frequency of targeted jawboning) 🤞🏼
Generally speaking, the public-private NGO model is how Gov circumvents Constitutional Law. However, the services performed by CIS do not occur in a vacuum. They perform outsourced services thru Govt awards (ie Contract, Cooperative Agreement, Grant, etc) that are created thru legislation, EO’s, PDD’s. According to USASpending.gov The Center for Information Security Inc. has a Coop Agreement running thru 2023. Short desc is for cybersecurity at State, Local, & Tribal levels. I’m not an Atty, but this activity from AZ SoS & CIS is a gray area, open to interpretation. IDK if there is a good example of Case Law or not. I don’t believe its as open/ shut as you mentioned.
Jawboning is the term used to describe public-private relationship whereby govt “acts indirectly” thru private orgs because the application of Law is different.
The link is to summary about Dr. Ayyadurai’s case vs. MA. Aside from the blunders of self representation, and the outcome of the case, the Judge was “ interested in the 11th Amendment questions regarding qualified immunity, along with the 1st Amendment questions regarding government suppression of political speech”. The legality seems to be far from settled & perhaps a path forward exists (esp if Twitter dump highlights depth & frequency of targeted jawboning) 🤞🏼
TechDirt