In the News
State Policy Network: Institute for Free Speech releases 50-state campaign finance/lobbying law survey
By Matt Nese
The Institute for Free Speech released a first-of-its-kind survey of laws in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, and Seattle that implicate First Amendment speech and petition rights. The purpose of this review was to determine how each state (or city) regulates speech about government to assess how much of a burden each jurisdiction imposes on core First Amendment activity.
“States regulate speech about government through a labyrinth of laws that often make it nearly impossible for average citizens to participate,” said IFS senior fellow and survey author Eric Wang. “This document is the first of its kind to attempt to pierce that veil. Would-be speakers will now at least be aware of the pitfalls they face.”
The survey examines state laws in twelve distinct policy areas: (1) false statement laws; (2) “expenditure”/ “express advocacy” definitions; (3) electioneering communication statutes; (4) independent expenditure reporting requirements for non-PACs; (5) disclaimer requirements; (6) statutory authority for super PACs; (7) how PAC status is determined; (8) PAC status thresholds; (9) incidental committee regulations; (10) private enforcement actions; (11) coordination rules; and (12) lobbying (particularly grassroots lobbying) statutes. These areas all have the significant potential to chill speech and association.
“With this survey, citizens and groups looking to engage in policy debates can be aware of the potential pitfalls and landmines that are scattered across state campaign finance laws,” said IFS Research Director Scott Blackburn. “When exercising your First Amendment rights, the first step is knowing the current state of the law. Hopefully, this survey will make that task much easier.”
The Pathway: The curious case of Ron Calzone
By Don Hinkle
[Ron] Calzone is a model citizen. He takes the time to visit the State Capitol and thoughtfully engages lawmakers on potential laws, especially those involving constitutional questions.
Liberal opponents mock him – often in the media. Now, they have gone a step further, using the Missouri Ethics Commission as a political weapon by filing a complaint demanding that Calzone register and file regular reports just like paid, professional lobbyists. The Commission action is nothing less than state-sponsored harassment. Mind you, Calzone has never been paid to be a lobbyist and he has never given gifts to politicians. He, like you and me, is simply a citizen who appeals to lawmakers on principle…
But in a shocking 2-1 decision, the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis ruled against Calzone. The dissenting judge, David Stras, appointed to the court by President Donald Trump, wrote an opinion so scathing that at least six of the 11 judges assigned to the Eighth Circuit vacated the earlier 2-1 ruling and – in a stunning turn of events – granted Calzone a re-hearing April 19 in St. Louis. This time in front of all 11 judges.
In his dissent, Stras wrote: “By sweeping so widely, Missouri law endangers the free exchange of ideas. Indeed, a political adversary, an unscrupulous government official, or even a legislator tired of being held accountable could simply submit a complaint to the Commission accusing a politically active citizen of lobbying – that is, speaking out – without first registering as a lobbyist.”
Think about that. This wrong-headed ruling could inhibit our right to influence the laws that affect our lives. It strikes at the “free speech” clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In short, it threatens our freedom.
[Learn more about Calzone v. Missouri Ethics Commission here]
Online Speech Platforms
Wired: Facebook Is Changing News Feed (Again) To Stop Fake News
By Emily Dreyfuss and Issie Lapowsky
By far the biggest change to come from these announcements is the introduction of a new metric called Click-Gap, which Facebook’s News Feed algorithms will use to determine where to rank a given post. Click-Gap, which Facebook is launching globally today, is the company’s attempt to limit the spread of websites that are disproportionately popular on Facebook compared with the rest of the web. If Facebook finds that a ton of links to a certain website are appearing on Facebook, but few websites on the broader web are linking to that site, Facebook will use that signal, among others, to limit the website’s reach…
In addition to introducing this new metric, Facebook is also turning its attention to Groups, where so much amplification happens. Private or semi-private Groups have exploded in popularity in recent years, in part thanks to a push by Facebook to promote communities. At the same time, they have become petri dishes of misinformation, radicalization, and abuse. Groups are a particularly tricky part of Facebook’s ecosystem, because they are intimate, insular, and often opaque. Because many are secret or closed, when abuse happens, it’s up to members to report it or Facebook’s automated tools to detect it.
Facebook will now take a more punitive approach for administrators of toxic Groups, and will factor in moderator behavior when assessing the health of a group…
Facebook will also penalize these Groups for spreading fake news, which doesn’t always violate community standards. In much the same way the platform reduces the reach of sites that get repeatedly dinged by its partner fact-checkers, Facebook will now downgrade the reach of Groups it finds to be constantly sharing links to such sites. That, the company hopes, will make the Groups harder to find.
Washington Post: I wanted to help Google make AI more responsible. Instead I was treated with hostility.
By Kay Coles James
Like many businesses and nonprofits, my organization, the Heritage Foundation, relies on Google search, YouTube and other Google products to promote our work, to reach audiences and to advance our mission. We’re also concerned about reports alleging that Google suppresses conservative voices and politically skews its search-engine results. It was reassuring to be invited to participate in the AI advisory council – a sign that Google wanted to treat a wide range of viewpoints fairly as it develops new technology. Given the massive control exerted by social media and Internet companies over the information Americans use every day, such broadmindedness is essential.
Unfortunately, some individuals inside and outside the company didn’t share this appreciation for a diversity of viewpoints. That became clear last month after the members of the advisory council were announced. Some Google employees were so alarmed by the prospect of a conservative invading their playground that they started a petition to have me removed from the panel. It gained more than 2,500 signatures…
Last week, less than two weeks after the AI advisory council was announced, Google disbanded it. The company has given in to the mentality of a rage mob…
Whether in the streets or online, angry mobs that heckle and threaten are not trying to change hearts and win minds. They’re trying to impose their will through intimidation. In too many corners of American life, there is no longer room for disagreement and civil discourse. Instead, it’s agree or be destroyed.
Congress
Washington Post: The Technology 202: This is Ted Cruz’s playbook to crack down on Big Tech for alleged anti-conservative bias
By Cat Zakrzewski
Sen. Ted Cruz’s proposals to crack down Big Tech are the stuff of Silicon Valley nightmares.
Accusing Twitter and Facebook of suppressing conservative voices, the Texas Republican yesterday floated an overhaul to a key law that protects Internet platforms from legal liability for content posts on their sites, breaking up the companies, or even charging them with fraud.
These are the kinds of proposals that could keep Silicon Valley companies up at night – as they would fundamentally alter how the companies operate today.
The companies, which testified in a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, deny their systems are biased against conservatives – and there is no evidence that proves they systematically favor one political ideology over another. And Internet lobbyists and digital rights advocates already pushing back hard: They say the ideas Cruz, who chairs the subcommittee, is putting on the table betray a misunderstanding of how Internet law works and say that could have dangerous implications for the economy. They also warn that such steps amount to government overreach and could endanger free speech online.
Let’s break down Cruz’s three-part playbook – and the backlash from techies…
DOJ
Washington Post: Julian Assange arrested in London, accused by U.S. of conspiring in 2010 WikiLeaks release
By William Booth, Karla Adam, Ellen Nakashima and James McAuley
British authorities arrested WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Thursday in response to a U.S. extradition request, and a U.S. federal court unsealed an indictment charging him with a single count of conspiracy to disclose classified information that could be used to injure the United States…
In an indictment unsealed hours later, Assange was accused of conspiring in 2010 with Chelsea Manning, a U.S. Army intelligence analyst then known as Bradley Manning, and others to publish secret military and diplomatic documents that Manning had collected…
Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said in a statement: “Any prosecution by the United States of Mr. Assange for WikiLeaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional, and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations. Moreover, prosecuting a foreign publisher for violating U.S. secrecy laws would set an especially dangerous precedent for U.S. journalists, who routinely violate foreign secrecy laws to deliver information vital to the public’s interest.”
Barry Pollack, Assange’s U.S.-based attorney, said that while the indictment charges Assange with conspiracy to commit computer crimes, the factual allegations against him “boil down to encouraging a source to provide him information and taking efforts to protect the identify of that source.” Pollack added in a statement: “Journalists around the world should be deeply troubled by these unprecedented criminal charges.”…
In the last administration, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. decided against pursuing prosecution of Assange out of concern that WikiLeaks’ argument that it is a journalistic organization would raise thorny First Amendment issues and set an unwelcome precedent.
New York Times: Ex-Obama Counsel Expects to Be Charged Soon in Mueller-Related Case
By Kenneth P. Vogel
Lawyers for Gregory B. Craig, a White House counsel in the Obama administration, expect him to be indicted in the coming days on charges related to his work for the Russia-aligned government of Ukraine.
The case against Mr. Craig, 74, stemmed from an investigation initiated by the office of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III…
The case against Mr. Craig is related to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, which the Justice Department is prioritizing in part because of scrutiny related to Mr. Mueller’s investigation.
The law requires Americans to disclose detailed information about lobbying and public relations work for foreign governments and politicians, and it has been the basis for charges brought against several people investigated by the special counsel.
Mr. Craig’s lawyers do not necessarily expect him to be charged with violating the act.
Rather, they expect him to be charged with making false statements to the Justice Department officials examining whether he was required to register under the law for work he did in 2012, while he was a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.
The work, on behalf of the government of Viktor F. Yanukovych, then the president of Ukraine, was linked to Paul Manafort, who at the time was a political consultant earning tens of millions of dollars for his representation of Mr. Yanukovych.
Candidates and Campaigns
Politico: Advocacy groups press 2020 candidates to disclose bundlers
By Maggie Severns
“Bundlers frequently raise vast sums of money for candidates, often hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of dollars, to curry favor with those candidates,” the coalition wrote in a letter. “We call on you now to implement a system to regularly and meaningfully disclose information about your campaign bundlers.”
Candidates had a mixed record of releasing bundler information in 2016. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush released lists of their top fundraisers, though Clinton released less information about the people raising money for her campaign than Obama had. But others, including President Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, did not identify their bundlers.
The request from 16 groups – including the Campaign Legal Center, Issue One, the League of Women Voters and Public Citizen – comes amid a broader wave of support among Democrats for curbing the influence of money in politics – including taking voluntary steps limiting their own campaigns…
In addition to disclosing names of bundlers, the letter from the good-government groups asks candidates for president to make bundlers easily identifiable by including information like their employers and occupations, as well as detailed information on their fundraising – “such as the exact aggregate amount they have raised to date, which can – and should – be regularly updated over the course of your campaign,” the letter reads.
In the past, candidates have released varying levels of detail on their bundlers. Obama, for example, released names of bundlers grouped by different ranges of money they raised. Clinton released the names of all bundlers who raised at least $100,000 for her campaign, but she did not specify the amounts raised.
The States
Atlanta Journal-Constitution: New Georgia ethics chief says he will subpoena Abrams campaign records
By James Salzer
The new director of the state ethics commission plans to subpoena bank records from the campaign of 2018 Democratic gubernatorial nominee Stacey Abrams and groups that raised money to help her in last year’s nationally watched race.
Former Douglas County prosecutor David Emadi, who started his new job Monday, also said his office will soon decide whether to prosecute the campaigns of Atlanta mayoral candidates.
Emadi’s predecessor, Stefan Ritter, was accused of stalling investigations after the commission audited campaign reports from the organizations last year…
Lauren Groh-Wargo, former campaign manager for Abrams, said, “The Abrams campaign worked diligently to ensure compliance throughout the election and, had we been notified of any irregularities, would have immediately taken action to rectify them.
“The new ethics chief – a Kemp donor and former Republican Party leader – is using his power to threaten and lob baseless partisan accusations at the former Abrams campaign, when they should be focused on real problems like the unethical ties between the governor’s office and voting machine lobbyists instead.” …
“Those investigations are all moving forward,” Emadi said. “What I can say about the investigation into the Abrams campaign is in the relatively near future, I expect we will be issuing subpoenas for bank and finance records of both Miss Abrams and various PACs and special-interest groups that were affiliated with her campaign.”
More than a dozen “independent groups,” mostly funded by out-of-state donors, were created in Georgia last year to help support Abrams’ effort.
