New from the Institute for Free Speech
Analysis: Major Provisions of H.R. 1 Threaten Free Political Speech
The Institute for Free Speech today released an analysis of three speech-chilling sections of H.R. 1, also known as the “For the People Act of 2019.” Those provisions would regulate political speech on the Internet, violate the privacy of advocacy groups and their supporters, and compel speakers to include lengthy government-mandated messages in their communications.
“By making it harder for Americans to speak about government, a better title for the bill would be the ‘For the Politicians Act,'” said Institute for Free Speech President David Keating…
The Institute’s analysis finds these sections of H.R. 1 would benefit politicians and campaign finance attorneys while harming the public. The legislation’s many restrictions and regulations on speakers would make it harder for Americans to promote ideas about government and to hold elected officials accountable. H.R. 1 would also subject speakers to increased costs from legal and administrative compliance, liability risk, and would harm donor and associational privacy for civic groups that speak about policy issues and politicians.
“H.R. 1 appears to be a slapdash effort to stitch together every unworkable and unconstitutional idea from the past decade about how to increase regulation of Americans’ free speech rights,” said Institute for Free Speech Senior Fellow Eric Wang. “While the bill may be dead on arrival, it is nonetheless a deeply troubling statement of Congress’s priorities and attitudes towards the First Amendment.” …
The 570-page bill combines a number of pre-existing proposals on campaign finance, political speech, voting rights, and ethics laws. The provisions included in this analysis are identified in the bill under the misleading titles, “DISCLOSE Act,” “Honest Ads Act,” and “Stand by Every Ad Act.”
By Eric Wang
This analysis examines Title IV, Subtitles B (“DISCLOSE Act”), C (“Honest Ads”), and D (“Stand by Every Ad”) of H.R. 1 (116th Congress). The Institute for Free Speech (IFS) previously analyzed earlier versions of these provisions when they were introduced as standalone bills. Due to the evolving and obscure legislative language, this analysis represents IFS’s latest understanding of the legislation and supersedes any prior analyses IFS has released on these measures. As it continues to analyze these and other sections of H.R. 1 that regulate First Amendment rights, IFS expects to release additional analyses of the bill…
As a preliminary matter, Title IV, Subtitles B, C, and D of H.R. 1 contain a hodgepodge of partially related and overlapping campaign finance definitional, reporting, and disclaimer provisions that are scattered in a variety of different bill sections. Instead of consolidating and presenting these provisions in an organized, cohesive, and streamlined manner, the bill’s sponsors threw together previously separate bills in a way that severely frustrates public understanding of legislative language that was already exceedingly vague and complex. This thoughtless, obfuscatory, and expedient approach to legislating, which is convenient only for the politicians pushing the bill, belie its title purporting to be “For the People.”…
H.R. 1’s substance further underscores how the bill would help politicians and campaign finance attorneys more than it would benefit the public. The bill would greatly increase the already onerous legal and administrative compliance costs, liability risk, and costs to donor and associational privacy for civic groups that speak about policy issues and politicians. Organizations will be further deterred from speaking or will have to divert additional resources away from their advocacy activities to pay for compliance staff and lawyers. Some groups will not be able to afford these costs or will violate the law unwittingly. Less speech by private citizens and organizations means politicians will be able to act with less accountability to public opinion and criticism.
Changes to Current Campaign Finance Laws Proposed by H.R. 1
To facilitate understanding of how H.R. 1 would change current federal law that regulates political speech, the Institute for Free Speech has created a document that places relevant provisions of the bill into current code.
Disclosure
The Intercept: A Democratic Firm Is Shaking Up The World Of Political Fundraising
By Rachel M. Cohen
Deacon staffers would search for similar candidates – like Monica Vernon, who was running for Congress at the same time in Iowa – and then try and track down the contact information for the donors listed on their Federal Election Commission reports…
Eventually, Hogenkamp connected with David Chase, a Democratic political operative who was then managing the campaign for Rubén Kihuen in Nevada’s 4th Congressional District…
“Using OpenSecrets, I built some product that allowed you to search through all the federal and state contributions,” Chase told The Intercept…
Following that conversation, Hogenkamp went back and recruited a bunch of Syracuse University computer science students to help him build out his vision…
To comply with the legal prohibition, Grassroots Analytics bars its algorithm from scraping the FEC website and websites like OpenSecrets that aggregate data directly from the FEC. Instead, Grassroots Analytics collects campaign contribution data only from public record caches, newspaper articles, nonprofit reports, and secondary websites. However, there’s little question that most of the campaign finance information they do collect originated at some point from FEC reports…
But should donor information, even if it’s technically public, be made so easily accessible? …
Others shrug off the critics, saying that while the FEC and secretaries of state should work to clarify campaign finance rules in the age of the internet, including for political advertisements, right now it’s no secret that most campaigns utilize FEC data in some fashion for solicitation purposes. “Most people think it’s fine to use those lists to research people a little further, to get a better picture of their donor history, and then turn them into leads,” one senior finance director told me.
Independent Groups
Wall Street Journal: Liberals Outpaced Conservatives in ‘Dark Money’ Midterm Spending
By Julie Bykowicz
As Democratic presidential hopefuls promise not to boost their candidacies through spending by outside groups with cash from wealthy donors, sometimes given secretly, a new report says the party received most of the so-called “dark money” spent on political ads in the 2018 midterms.
That marked the first time since 2010 that liberal nonprofits outspent conservative ones, according to a report by Issue One, an organization that advocates reducing money in politics. Liberal groups accounted for 54% of the $150 million in dark-money spending in last year’s election cycle, conservative groups 31% and nonpartisan or bipartisan groups 15%…
A liberal group called Majority Forward, which spent $46 million on ads and was active in 10 competitive Senate races last year, was the biggest nonprofit spender during the midterm elections, the report says. Majority Forward is led by J.B. Poersch, a Democratic operative who has worked closely with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and has never disclosed any of its donors. Last week, the group announced it would run $600,000 in new ads targeting six Republican senators during the partial government shutdown.
“Majority Forward files contributions and election activity in accordance with required federal election law,” Mr. Poersch said in a statement…
Majority Forward shares staffing and strategy with Senate Majority PAC, a left-leaning super PAC.
Political Parties
Wall Street Journal: For Democrats in 2020, Small Donors Are Gauge of Fundraising Success
By Julie Bykowicz
Grass-roots support has taken on such importance in Democratic politics that for the first time the Democratic National Committee expects to include some kind of small-money metric in its debate qualifications, though precise rules haven’t been set, party officials have said.
Candidates and Campaigns
MintPress News: Kamala Harris Schmoozes Mega-Donors While “Rejecting” Corporate Funding
By Whitney Webb
[W]hen one visits Harris’ campaign website, a banner immediately appears that reads “Alert! Kamala refuses to accept donations from corporate PACS! Add your donation here.”
This same point has recently been touted by Harris’ campaign, which announced on Tuesday that the California senator had raised over $1.5 million in the first 24 hours after launching her campaign…
Though Harris’ campaign decision to turn down corporate funding is admirable, it is dishonest of the campaign to use this as a selling point, given that she has directly courted donations from mega-donors who head major corporations as well as members of Clinton’s “inner circle” and Democratic Party mega-donors.
The States
American Prospect: How Democrats Should Reform Elections in the States
By Richard Pildes
Democratic states will undoubtedly debate campaign-finance reforms, including public financing, for state and local elections. Public financing has typically been centered on individual candidates rather than political parties. But parties are critical in making democratic politics and governance function effectively. So it’s a mistake for campaign-finance regulation of any form to give the role of political parties the short end of the stick and encourage money to flow primarily to individual candidates. One possibility is for states to provide targeted support for the parties to carry out functions for which the parties are particularly well suited, such as registering new voters. Another option is to create voucher systems that encourage voters to donate to parties. Parties should also be able to coordinate more with their candidates’ campaigns than is possible under federal law.
Burlington County Times: Editorial: Dark money groups need sunlight
New Jersey lawmakers have advanced legislation that would expose “dark money” groups that raise funding to influence elections and policy in our state.
The legislation, originally written by Sen. Troy Singleton, D-7th of Delran, when he was in the Assembly, would require nonprofit 501(c)4s, super political action committees and other similar groups to disclose their contributors, and also would raise the donor disclosure threshold from $300 to $10,000.
It took three years for legislators to get the bill out of the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, but at least they succeeded, and unanimously, too…
Singleton said the legislation is a first step to restore the public’s trust in government and hold elected officials accountable. “Voters deserve to know who is trying to influence their elected representatives’ vote,” he said…
There are concerns about the legislation, with some saying it’s too broad and could jeopardize the privacy of people who donate to nonpartisan groups like the NAACP and American Civil Liberties Union.
Singleton is willing to discuss changes, as long as all groups that seek to influence legislation and policy are subject to disclosure requirements. As Jeff Brindle, executive director of the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, pointed out: “Without reform, New Jersey’s election landscape will be transformed in a way that undermines the public’s interests.”
That’s all that matters.
The bill still has to be fine-tuned, approved by the Senate and Assembly, and signed by Murphy – you know, the way we expect our government to work. With efficiency, and on our behalf.
Austin American-Statesman: Does the Texas anti-Israel boycott law pass constitutional muster?
By Asher Price
Seeking to preserve a politically-charged state law that bars governmental entities from doing business with contractors who support a boycott of Israel, Texas officials are mobilizing this month at the courthouse and the Capitol.
In legal filings and legislative proposals, they argue that the law should be applied to companies and not individuals.
But some legal experts say the strategy may run afoul of recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that expand certain corporate speech rights, raising questions about whether shutting out companies that support the Israel boycott is constitutionally kosher.
Supporters of the law, however, say it’s in keeping with a tradition of political leaders deciding whether to do business with companies whose activity might conflict with public policy.
The latest efforts to preserve the law, which state officials say protects the economy of Texas’ No. 4 trading partner, come after government contractors alleged in a pair of lawsuits that language in their contracts violates their free speech rights.
Everett Daily Herald: Judge says AG can add allegations to suit against Eyman
By Jerry Cornfield
Superior Court Judge James Dixon granted Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s motion to amend a complaint accusing Eyman of secretly moving campaign funds between two initiatives in 2012 and receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickbacks from one of the signature-gathering vendors.
The suit, filed in March 2017, seeks $2.1 million in penalties and to bar Eyman from managing, controlling, negotiating or directing financial transactions of any kind for any political committee in the future.
The trial is set for early next year.
In the latest motion, state attorneys allege Eyman employed “a wide variety of schemes to solicit and collect funds that should have been reported as contributions” to his political committees since 2013…
Eyman, who represented himself Friday, didn’t oppose the state’s request.
“The motion to amend is better than them coming back with a new lawsuit,” he told the judge…
“I don’t think I did anything wrong,” he said. “I believe everything I did was consistent with the law.” …
Eyman said he had reached a breaking point earlier this month and wanted to settle. On Friday, he said he would never expect to get a reasonable offer from the attorney general.
But, he told Dixon, he was prepared to accept the court’s judgment in the case because he trusted any punishment meted out by the judge would be reasonable and fair.
Even if it meant no longer being politically active in the state, Eyman said, “I would accept it, I would abide by it, I would hate it.”
Leavenworth Echo: The persecution of Tim Eyman continues
By Bill Forhan
If you are going to challenge the political system be sure you have a lot of money and the help of a major law firm. Otherwise, you are in for a fight you cannot win.
It appears Attorney General Bob Ferguson continues his legal persecution of political activist Tim Eyman. Last week he requested the court declare Eyman’s attorney unqualified to represent Eyman.
It seems the AG has invoked the nuclear option by convincing the court to declare no individual practitioner can keep up with the army of lawyers employed by the state. So only hours before he was to appear in court Eyman found himself without legal council…
The suit is for $2.1 million dollars and a lifetime ban from participating in any political activity. It has forced Eyman to file for bankruptcy.
The problem is the penalty far outweighs other suits by the AG’s office for similar violations of Campaign Finance law. A review of the Attorney General’s website regarding enforcement action against campaign finance law violations shows the action against Eyman is remarkable. Only one other claim exceeds the amount sought against Eyman. That was against the Grocery Manufacturers Association for $19.1 million. The next closest claim was against the Washington Education Association for $975,000. The other 32 cases listed averaged $74,609 including AGO costs for prosecuting the cases.
In December of 2017 The Spokesman Review ran a story about how Campaign Finance complaints were becoming the newest political weapon in Washington politics. Bob Ferguson’s assault on Tim Eyman is moving that weapon from the big money politics of labor unions and political parties to individual citizens who are simply seeking to petition their government for a redress of their grievances…
There is no reason that individual citizens should need to hire a major law firm to represent them when they are simply exercising their Constitutionally protected rights.
