In the News
Washington Examiner: The Left has one problem with Trump’s FEC nominee: He’s a Republican
By Bradley A. Smith
In politics, you’re often damned if you do and damned if you don’t. The attacks at Tuesday’s confirmation hearing for President Trump’s FEC nominee, Trey Trainor, are a reminder that some people can never be satisfied.
Since September, campaign finance “reform” groups have been screaming that democracy is in peril…
With no FEC quorum, groups on the Left have stoked fears that the 2020 election will be a “Wild West.”…
These fears range from overblown to ridiculous. No candidate stopped reporting donors or abiding by contribution limits when the FEC lost its quorum. Candidates know what the FEC’s critics try not to admit: Violations committed now can and will be prosecuted after a quorum is restored.
Even when the FEC is fully staffed, the civil enforcement process, like, we should note, the enforcement process in most government agencies and courts, can take years to deliver a final decision.
The Courts
St. Louis American: Court takes away police ‘terror’ tool
By Rebecca Rivas
A federal judge ruled on Thursday, March 5 that the City of St. Louis’ ordinance on “impeding” traffic was unconstitutional – throwing out a law that city police have used to justify arresting, macing and tasing citizens at Ferguson and Stockley verdict protests…
“This is a law that has long been used to arbitrarily arrest people who are protesting,” said Tony Rothert, attorney with the ACLU Missouri. “It has a chilling effect on those who want to protest. It really instills terror, especially for people of color and people who are protesting police activity. This is a case about the future and taking away this tool that police officers have used to terrorize.” …
U.S. District Court Judge Henry Edward Autrey found that municipal ordinance entitled “Impeding and interfering with pedestrian and vehicular traffic” was unconstitutional because it was too vague and doesn’t exclude a person’s constitutional right to free speech…
He further said that the ordinance “restricts more speech than is essential to further the City’s interests in public health and safety and traffic regulation.”
The ordinance also authorizes any police officer to put an end to “expressive conduct” on a street or sidewalk at any time for any reason, he said.
“Under the ordinance, persons may exercise their First Amendment rights in the city’s streets, sidewalks, and other public places only at the ‘whim of any police officer,'” Autrey wrote.
Congress
New York Times: House Reaches Deal to Overhaul Surveillance Laws
By Nicholas Fandos and Charlie Savage
House leaders on Tuesday struck a bipartisan deal to overhaul surveillance laws just days before a trio of F.B.I. investigative tools expires, raising the possibility of a last-minute breakthrough in a politically complex debate over civil liberties and national security…
“This bill does not go far enough, but it does represent real reform,” Rep. Jim Jordan said. “These reforms have long been necessary but have been especially warranted in recent years given the F.B.I.’s spying on the Trump campaign affiliate Carter Page and the affront to First Amendment rights that this represented.” …
Under the bill, the FISA court would also be directed to consider appointing a government critic when an application “presents exceptional concerns” about protecting the First Amendment rights of a surveillance subject – a formulation that could apply to investigations touching on political campaigns or religious activity.
FEC
Washington Post: Senate takes step to move forward with nomination of FEC commissioner
By Michelle Ye Hee Lee
The Senate Rules Committee’s rare public hearing on a nominee for the FEC, James E. “Trey” Trainor III, served as the first step to confirm the conservative Texas lawyer, whose nomination has languished for three years…
Trainor has been nominated three times to the position since 2017, but he remained in limbo amid controversy over his social media postings and a standstill among Senate leaders on the logistics of appointing commissioners.
It remains unclear whether Trainor will be confirmed. The Rules Committee has not yet scheduled its vote to move his nomination to the full Senate. On Thursday, party leaders in the Senate remained split on Trainor’s nomination.
Trainor, an Austin-based elections lawyer, has pushed for less regulation of money in politics and fought efforts to require politically active nonprofit organizations to disclose their donors. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) attended the hearing to raise concerns about Trainor’s past comments on limiting donor disclosure. Government transparency groups widely oppose Trainor’s confirmation.
Bloomberg Government: Trump’s FEC Pick Rejects ‘Blanket’ Recusal on President’s Issues
By Kenneth P. Doyle
The Republican nominee to serve on the Federal Election Commission, James “Trey” Trainor, pushed back on Democrats’ suggestion he recuse himself from decisions related to President Donald Trump’s campaign because of his previous role advising Trump’s 2016 White House bid.
The questioning from Democrats came during a Senate Rules and Administration Committee hearing attended by both party leaders…
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the panel’s ranking member, asked if Trainor would “just recuse yourself from the beginning on these Trump matters” to avoid possible conflicts of interest.
“Not as a blanket matter,” Trainor responded. He said would follow the practice of other commissioners, none of whom have such recusals. “I think we should all follow the same rules and guidelines.” …
Trainor said he would consult with FEC staff about possibly recusing himself from specific enforcement cases or other matters, in line with the past practice of other commissioners.
DOJ
BloombergQuint: DOJ to Propose Changes to Legal Shield for Tech Companies
By Victoria Graham and David McLaughlin
The Justice Department plans to propose changes to a legal shield enjoyed by companies such as Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Facebook Inc. amid criticism that the tech platforms carry material that promotes illicit conduct and suppresses conservative opinions. The Justice Department is concerned that tech companies are expanding beyond the original intent of the liability provision, known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, in order to immunize them from laws, Jeffrey Rosen, the department’s No. 2 official, said at a conference in Washington.
“After 25 years it seems that the time has come for Congress to assess what changes to Section 230 are now needed,” Rosen said. “When all is said and done, we’d like to see the benefits maintained and enhanced while the harms are mitigated.”
Citizens United
International Business Times: Too Much Money Corrupting Politics? Business Leaders Come Together To Fight Citizens United Case
By Bobby Ilich
A recent letter from the Business for American Promise to International Business Times cited “110 business leaders across 16 states calling for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn” the Citizens United case. The signees include Philadelphia Phillies part-owner William Buck, Salesforce’s Peter Schwartz, Ben Cohen from Ben & Jerry’s and Wells Fargo former VP Judy Nagel.
“As business leaders and citizens with a wide variety of political interests and affiliations, we are convinced that the current dysfunction of our political system is not self-correcting; systemic change is required to restore the health of our civic institutions and the integrity of our government,” the letter reads…
The letter provides notes from signers about why they oppose the 2009 case.
Media
Newsmax: Dershowitz: I’m Thinking of Suing CNN for Their Lies
By Alan Dershowitz
CNN, along with other media, pride themselves on testing statements made by presidential candidates and others for their truthfulness or falsity.
But who is testing the truthfulness or falsity of statements made by CNN and other media?
A case in point. CNN repeatedly claimed and continues to claim through its reporters and talking heads – that during the impeachment trial I had told senators… that presidents are “immune from every criminal act, so long as they could plausibly claim they did it to boost their re-election effort.” …
A simple truth-check, if CNN had bothered to conduct one, would have shown that I said exactly the opposite of what CNN said I had said…
I could sue CNN for defamation, as some have urged me to do; they maliciously and intentionally lied about what I said for the explicit purpose of defaming me and misleading their viewers. Even though I’m a public figure, a deliberate lie told with malice, is not protected by the first amendment.
I have some access to the marketplace of ideas, through my writing, radio and TV appearances (though not on CNN).
But what about those whom the media defames and who do not have such access?
Where do they go to get their reputations back?
Online Speech Platforms
The Atlantic: The Conspiracies Are Coming From Inside the House
By Renée DiResta
I was one of the researchers who investigated the Internet Research Agency’s social-media manipulation tactics from 2014 to 2017…
The dynamics of political fandom are perhaps even more visible in 2020. Again, foreign provocateurs are likely somewhere in the mix. But the vast majority of the people driving the rancor, and impulsively retweeting false or misleading content that confirms their own political biases, are Americans, including many who should know better. This is, after all, the era of influencers-people who have made a career of being popular online and have active fan bases and massive reach that most Russian trolls can only aspire to. Misspelled social-media postings from pseudonymous accounts only go so far. But when prominent journalists and political figures with huge Twitter followings give in to baseless speculation and push narratives that delegitimize elections, the effect is exponentially greater…
Platforms can only do so much in response to hyperactive partisan factions or wild conspiracies furthered by blue-check influencers. Being, say, an actual Texas secessionist falls squarely within the bounds of free expression, and the tech companies are not going to intervene in legitimate domestic political expression (nor should they).
Political Parties
Washington Post: Democrats hate the GOP so much they’re hurting themselves in congressional races
By Raymond La Raja
Small donors tend to be catalyzed by media events, which motivate them to make in-the-moment donations over the Internet…
But small donors are also motivated by what political scientists call “affective partisanship” or an intense dislike of the other party, particularly its leadership…
These dynamics illustrate the promise and potential perils of relying on small donors to help parties compete. On the positive side, it could mean that candidates do not have to rely as much on superwealthy donors to finance their campaigns. The shift could plausibly improve political representation in some ways. And why shouldn’t passionate donors put the heat on people like McConnell and Graham to hold them accountable for positions they find objectionable? Finally, there are plausible long-term benefits of contesting long shot races, because it can lead to sincere efforts to woo voters who often get ignored…
But small-donor impulses also mean that the party may “waste” money on lost causes. Political parties tend to invest in candidates who have the biggest potential for wins, while individual donors (especially small donors) prefer candidates who share their preferences. And these preferences tend to be extreme relative to those of voters, making it harder for small donor-funded candidates to win general elections with swing voters.
Candidates and Campaigns
Washington Post: The Cybersecurity 202: Former 2020 contenders take lead on slamming Trump over disinformation
By Joseph Marks
Former contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination are taking the lead on pummeling the Trump administration over disinformation.
In the past few days, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) led a letter from 18 Senate Democrats slamming the Department of Veterans Affairs for not doing enough to protect veterans from online disinformation as the 2020 election approaches. And Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) savaged Facebook for being too slow to take down a deceptive Trump campaign ad that posed as materials for the decennial census.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) is also piggybacking on news about Russian online disinformation efforts in a renewed push to pass a bill to tighten rules on political advertising online. The Honest Ads Act has been stalled largely by opposition from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
The States
WENY News: PA House Dems Highlight Voting, Campaign Reform Proposals
By Cody Carlson
Several Democratic state Representatives are sponsoring Bills in a legislative package being called the “For The People” Plan…
House Minority Leader Frank Dermody (D-Allegheny) introduced House Bill 795, a Bill that would put hard caps on campaign contributions…
HB1953, a Bill from Rep. Kevin Boyle (D- Philadelphia) would provide a 600% public match for qualified small-dollar campaign contributions for candidates running for office. Small-dollar contributions would include anything less than $200.
Finally, HB2262 by Rep. Melissa Shusterman (D- Chester, Montgomery) would implement a lifetime lobbying ban for elected public officials, and increase the waiting period for public employees from one year to two years…
All nine of the proposals are sitting in the House State Government Committee awaiting further action.
NPR Illinois: Legislation Would Ensure Campaign Funds Could Pay For Child Care
By Brian Mackey
Illinois politicians would be allowed to use campaign money to pay for child care under legislation being considered in the General Assembly.
The proposal would apply to candidates, officeholders, campaign staff, and volunteers, and would allow campaign money to be spent on child care, as long as the care is necessary for the official to do political, governmental or public policy work…
“I’d like to make it clear, though, that we believe this is currently allowed under existing law, and this is a clarification,” [State Sen. Melinda Bush, a Democrat from Grayslake] said.
Illinois State Board of Elections spokesman Matt Dietrich said there’s never been a complaint about the practice. He said when candidates have asked about this, they’ve been told using campaign money for childcare is OK, citing a law that lets officeholders cover “customary and reasonable expenses.”
Ballotpedia News: Gov. Cuomo includes donor disclosure requirements in New York state budget proposal
By Jerrick Adams
Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has included amendments to New York’s nonprofit donor disclosure laws in his fiscal year 2021 budget proposal.
Part UU of the executive budget proposes that a nonprofit group disclose the following for any donation of $1,000 or more earmarked to pay, in whole or in part, for political communications: the name and address of the donor, the date and amount of the donation, and a description of any restriction placed on the donation.
The amendments come in response to a federal court order striking down portions of A10742, donor disclosure laws enacted by the state legislature in 2016…
Chai Jindasurat, policy director at Nonprofit New York, said, “Donors have legitimate and personal reasons for why they wouldn’t want to be disclosed or labeled [and] why they would want to give anonymously. If it is a problem, we’re happy to try and figure out a way to address transparency for all types of nonprofits. We just don’t know if it’s actually an issue.”
By Tim Cushing
Apparently offended by a Senate hearing witness garbed in an anti-police t-shirt, the Lt. Governor of Texas, Dan Patrick, welcomed all challengers via Twitter to sue him for violating people’s free speech rights.
The tweet says:
Outraged to see this T-shirt at a Senate Hearing Thur. Future witnesses beware. No one will ever be allowed to wear such a vulgar shirt in a Senate hearing again-especially one that denigrates the brave men & women of law enforcement. Want to take me to court? Ok. Make my day.
The shirt shows a middle finger extended above the phrase “Fuck the police.”
Clearly of the belief that Supreme Court precedent almost exactly on point has no bearing on Texas Senate proceedings, the state’s second-in-command has promised to ban any t-shirt he subjectively feels is “vulgar,” but “especially” the ones that “denigrate” law enforcement…
Patrick’s proposal sounds exactly like a content-based ban on speech, which is exactly the sort of thing the First Amendment guards against…
Chuck DeVore, vice president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Austin, disagrees with Patrick’s critics.
Legislative chambers, DeVore said, have the power to set their own rules of decorum as a co-equal branch of government. While the courts have the power to review laws passed by a legislature, they cannot tell lawmakers how to pass those laws or run their affairs, he said.
Cato: Lawmakers! Do Not Agree To Carry Luggage That a Stranger Has Packed!
By Walter Olson
Several Rhode Island lawmakers have come in for embarrassment after a man approached them – according to one, he was wearing “what appeared to be a military uniform” – and asked them to introduce a bill to make the media fairer and better behaved. Who could be against doing that? Among other provisions, the bill would provide that if a news outlet had reported on allegations in a civil or criminal legal proceeding, it would have to report down the road on later disposition of the case, on pain of a $10,000 fine.
That would fly in the face of established First Amendment precedent, in cases like Miami Herald v. Tornillo (1974), and would sharply discourage the press from reporting on many legal proceedings in the first place. The executive director of the state ACLU called the bill a “direct attack” on press freedom, while the head of the newspaper association called it “laughable and frightening.” A lawmaker who had agreed to introduce the measure in the lower house said “If I knew, I would run ten-thousand-million miles away from that guy…. I didn’t do my research.”
Tallahassee Democrat: Leon County looking at beefing up lobbying ordinance, upgrades to 911 system
By Karl Etters
County commissioners could be on their way to adopting a new ordinance that would more clearly define lobbying, but it may not address the county’s lack of penalties for those who violate the rules.
The ordinance, if approved by commissioners and taken up at a public hearing next month, would consolidate the definitions of “lobbying” and “lobbyist” contained within the ordinance and amend county code to include individuals who fit the definitions under regulations…At the same time the county is addressing its lobbying ordinance, the city’s Independent Ethics Board is working through an ordinance recommendation that would close what members see as a loophole in registration that firms or people not paid “primarily” for lobbying efforts don’t have to register.
It is recommending city officials, staff or lobbyists keep and disclose records of lobbying contacts, either in person or by phone, and include the date and topic of the conversation and that public officials make their calendars more accessible.
