Before phone banking for Trump…

“If you want to make phone calls on behalf of Donald Trump’s presidential bid, you will have to agree to the terms of this contract…It’s a very peculiar document.” [David Post, Volokh] “The forms are extraordinarily broad, virtually prohibiting any volunteers from criticizing Trump or his family for the rest of their lifetimes, according to Rachel Sklar, a lawyer and CNN contributor.” [Jeff Stein, Vox] It also includes an “obligation to prevent your employees from demeaning or disparaging a Trump asset… That is surely not only absurd and unenforceable, it may well constitute abetting a violation of US labor law.” [Post] More on Trump and over-lawyering from Lawrence Cunningham (more), and generally. More on the recent Texas case in which a judge tossed a suit based on a nondisparagement clause proffered by a pet-sitting company, which then invoked it after a customer left a one-star Yelp review, from David Kravets at ArsTechnica.


  • It is dismaying that the non-lawyer candidate is the most litigious SOB ever. I don’t foresee any tort reform in future.

    • Dismaying? Not really. Trump is just articulating what the Republican party has been doing over the past 150 years. The Republican party seems to talk the talk, but not walk the walk. You seem surprised by someone who neither talks the talk nor walks the walk. As a caveat, the Democrat and Green parties are probably not your cup of tea either. Both the major parties are ruled by Machiavellians. Perhaps the Libertarian party?

      • 150 years ago the republican party had just won a civil war to end slavery, which the democrats fought so hard to keep that ‘peculiar institution’

  • What I find particularly amusing is that the agreement forbids disparaging any of Trump’s relatives. Since he and Hilary Clinton are 19th cousins, it appears that Trump campaign staff are forbidden to criticize his opponent.