In the News
The Pelican Institute (Video): PeliCast: Online Speech During Elections
Hosted by Eric Peterson
Did someone say online censorship? Tune in Thursday for a special (and timely) #PeliCast on the debate over online speech and social media during elections, featuring Patrick Hedger, VP of Policy at Taxpayers Protection Alliance, and Scott Blackburn, Research Director at the Institute for Free Speech. You won’t want to miss this one!
ICYMI
Facebook and Twitter Become Arbiters of Truth
By Scott Blackburn
After years of claiming otherwise, Facebook and Twitter have succumbed to partisan pressure and begun openly deciding what is and is not true.
This is the sad result of this week’s dust up over a New York Post story detailing explosive allegations about Vice President Biden and his son, Hunter…
It is futile, stupid, and wrong for these platforms to deliberately slow the spread of a news story because some unnamed person within the company hierarchy has decided that story is false. That is true of any news story, but it’s particularly the case for one concerning a presidential candidate within weeks of the election.
Let’s start with the futility. Facebook and Twitter, despite their size and popularity, cannot control the news. This story was featured in a major American newspaper. And stories about the story, whether supportive or skeptical, were covered in every other newspaper. Those stories were shareable on Facebook and Twitter. And the most watched news network (Fox News) covered the story in every hour of its programming. The platforms’ lack of control was so obvious that, even after Twitter banned the story, it was, for a time, still trending … on Twitter!
Just in Time for Halloween: The Social Dilemma Frightens with the Fictional Monsters of Big Tech
By Tiffany Donnelly
The talking heads [of the Netflix documentary, The Social Dilemma] insist that what makes social media platforms so uniquely manipulative is their ability to “hack human psychology” and “hijack” the subconscious. They back up this central claim with such lackluster examples as Facebook’s photo tags, Gmail’s notifications, and YouTube’s video suggestions. Then, the tech insiders reveal the shocking truth to us plebes: these features are designed to drive user engagement.
With all 2020 has to offer, it’s hard to believe that a company influencing consumers is considered a scandal. Companies have always used psychology to persuade current and potential users to do something in the company’s interest. A cleverly arranged grocery aisle, a sale price that isn’t really a discount, a celebrity endorsement, a beautifully photographed Big Mac, or a political ad that uses unflattering footage of a challenger all play on our psychology to push us towards buying a product or adopting an idea.
Congress
Washington Examiner: Sheldon Whitehouse’s ‘dark money’ screed undercuts democracy
By Casey Given
On Tuesday, [Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse] seemed to make a Glenn Beck impression of yesteryear by pushing a narrative that [Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s] confirmation and the Supreme Court’s supposed rightward lurch are the results of years of conservative “dark money” efforts to influence the courts. This paranoid assault on political speech needs to be put to rest. The United States’s philanthropic culture is one of the hallmarks of our democracy and has been used to advance policy for the better on both the Left and Right…
As I’ve pointed out in the Washington Examiner before, money cannot legally buy election results. Campaigns, nonprofit organizations, and super PACs can promote a candidate or a cause, but it’s up to the voters to decide the outcome – hence how President Trump won the election in 2016 despite being outspent by then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton by almost double.
The same principles apply for Supreme Court nominees…
Lastly, as someone who is a fundraiser with ties to what some would label “dark money,” I’d like to point out what a cynical view of humanity the attack on donor privacy is. The underlying perspective of the attack seems to be that political actors do not have ethics or deeply held beliefs but rather are simply pawns for any payer’s game. The fact of the matter is that most activists on both the Left and the Right have genuine beliefs and a constitutional right to petition their government. This is something that should be celebrated, not condemned, as a feature of a free society.
Daily Caller: Ted Cruz Says Twitter And Facebook Could Face ‘Serious’ Campaign Finance Violations For Censoring Stories Critical Of Biden
By Andrew Kerr
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas told reporters Monday that Facebook and Twitter could face “potentially serious campaign finance violations” for censoring stories unfavorable of Democrats while letting critical coverage of Republicans run rampant on their platforms.
“Giant multi-billion dollar corporations are making multibillion-dollar contributions to support [Democratic presidential nominee Joe] Biden,” Cruz said in response to a question about Facebook and Twitter’s selective censorship of Republicans. “It is at a scale never before seen in our election.” …
Cruz said Monday that Facebook and Twitter’s censorship of the [New York Post’s Hunter Biden story] was a blatant attempt to interfere in the 2020 election.
“Big tech has taken the astonishing view that it has unlimited power to censor the media to prevent the American people from learning about these stories and to punish anyone who dares discuss facts that are inconvenient to the political narrative big tech favors,” Cruz said.
“This poses the single greatest threat to free speech in America today,” Cruz added. “It poses the single greatest threat to democracy in America today.”
Politico: Senate panel delays vote to subpoena Twitter, Facebook CEOs as some Republicans waver
By Cristiano Lima
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday postponed plans to vote on subpoenas to compel the CEOs of Twitter and Facebook to testify on allegations of anti-conservative bias after some panel Republicans expressed reservation about the maneuver…
GOP Judiciary leaders had announced plans to hold a markup Tuesday on whether to subpoena Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to testify on allegations the company’s decisions on user posts stifle conservative viewpoints, which Twitter denies. Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)later said the planned vote would also target Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
The panel announced Monday it will now consider whether to authorize the subpoenas at a high-profile executive session Thursday where it is separately expected to approve Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. The committee said in a statement it will continue to negotiate with the companies “to allow for voluntary testimony” by the CEOs, but that if an agreement is not reached the panel will move ahead with a vote on the subpoenas “at a date to be determined.”
Fox News: Rep. Budd introduces bill to limit Big Tech’s Section 230 immunity amid censorship outcry
By Morgan Phillips
North Carolina Republican Rep. Ted Budd introduced a bill Friday morning limiting the Section 230 immunity of Big Tech…
The bill, which mirrors Missouri Republican Josh Hawley’s in the Senate, would allow Americans to file lawsuits against Big Tech companies who breach good faith user agreements by censoring political speech or suppressing content.
The bill also withholds Section 230 protections from Big Tech companies unless they change their terms of service to promise to operate in good faith. They would agree to be subject to a $5,000 fine, actual damages and attorney’s fees if they violate the agreement…
The companion bill in the Senate is led by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., along with Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Mike Braun, R-Ind., Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga. It was introduced in June…
Republicans on the House Oversight and Reform Committee have also called for an emergency hearing before the Nov. 3 election to hold Twitter and Facebook accountable for “election interference.”
Digital News Daily: House Democrats Blast FCC Chief Over Plan To Regulate Social Media
By Wendy Davis
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai is engaged in “a blatant attempt to help a flailing President Trump” by aiming to influence social media companies in the remaining weeks before the election, two House Democrats say.
“It is shocking to watch this supposedly independent regulatory agency jump at the opportunity to become a political appendage of President Trump’s campaign,” Reps. Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey), chairman of the energy and commerce committee, and Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania), chairman of the communications and technology subcommittee, stated Monday.
The lawmakers were responding to Pai’s statement that he aims to craft rules tying web publishers’ protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to the companies’ content moderation policies…
Numerous commentators — including Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and former Rep. Chris Cox (R-California), who authored the legislation — have said the agency doesn’t have any authority to weigh in on Section 230.
FCC
Vox (Recode): What the FCC can and can’t do to Section 230
By Sara Morrison
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced that his agency would “move forward with a rulemaking to clarify” the meaning of Section 230…
But legal experts – former FCC commissioners and staff among them – don’t think the FCC is allowed to regulate the internet in this way.
“I don’t think the FCC has the authority to be thought police over platforms,” former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, Pai’s predecessor and no fan of Section 230 himself, told Recode…
“The FCC cannot rewrite acts of Congress to suit its whims,” Kate Ruane, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. “Section 230 is critical to protecting free speech online and the FCC has no authority to change it, especially not in ways that will undermine free expression.”
“There’s nothing in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that gives the FCC authority either to interpret it or, even more importantly, set rules,” said Gigi Sohn, a distinguished fellow at the Georgetown Institute for Technology & Law Policy who was counselor to Wheeler from 2013 to 2016. “In fact, the legislative history is completely to the contrary.”
The law’s bipartisan co-authors, Sen. Ron Wyden and former Rep. Chris Cox, have said they intentionally wrote the law to prevent the FCC from having this authority in the first place.
Online Speech Platforms
Search & Performance Marketing Daily: Facebook Blocked 2.2 Million Ads For Breaking Political Campaign Rules
By Laurie Sullivan
Facebook said it has removed 120,000 pieces of content for violating its voter interference policies prior to the U.S. election.
The social media site tagged warnings to 150 million misleading posts related to the election, and 2.2 million ad submissions have been rejected because they failed to complete the political advertising authorization process…
“Last year we removed 6.5 billion fake accounts,” [Nick Clegg, Facebook vice president of global affairs and communications,] said…
In just 12 weeks, Facebook removed 2.2 million pieces of hate speech, he said.
CBS News: Anti-abortion rights group SBA List claims Facebook blocked its ads for using “debunked” facts
By Kate Smith
The Susan B. Anthony List, one of the biggest anti-abortion rights groups in the U.S., said Friday that Facebook blocked its political advertisements for including information about abortion later in pregnancy, citing a third-party that marked the ads’ claims as “partly false.” That fact-checker, conservative blog The Dispatch, has since posted an apology and retracted its fact check.
Candidates and Campaigns
Washington Post: ExxonMobil responds to Trump’s hypothetical bribery call: ‘It never happened’
By Teo Armus
ExxonMobil wants to get the record straight: The oil producer did not bribe President Trump with campaign donations.
The energy giant offered a clarification Monday evening after Trump described a detailed – but strictly theoretical – fundraising call involving the company’s chief executive at a rally in Prescott, Ariz., earlier in the day.
“We are aware of the President’s statement regarding a hypothetical call with our CEO,” the company wrote on Twitter, “and just so we’re all clear, it never happened.”
Trump first invoked the company’s name onstage while claiming he could raise more money than Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, who in recent months has gained a significant cash lead over the president.
“I call the head of Exxon. I don’t know, you know, ‘How are you doing? How’s energy coming? When are you doing the exploration? Oh, you need a couple of permits?'” Trump told supporters. “I say, ‘You know, I’d love [for] you to send me $25 million for the campaign.’ ‘Absolutely sir, why didn’t you ask? Would you like some more?'”
Trump went on about how he could be the greatest fundraiser in U.S. history. Yet the fastest way to do so – offering favors to friends on Wall Street and in corporate headquarters across the country – would compromise his own job in the White House, he acknowledged.
It is also illegal: Under federal law, soliciting these kinds of donations in exchange for specific policy outcomes is enough to land someone in prison.
New York Times: The Big Role That Big Donors Still Play, Quietly, for Joe Biden
By Shane Goldmacher
While Mr. Biden’s campaign has trumpeted the small donations flooding in at record rates, the elite world of billionaires and multimillionaires has remained a critical cog in the Biden money machine. And as the size of checks has grown, the campaign has become less transparent, declining so far to disclose the names of its most influential check collectors, known as bundlers.
From Hollywood to Silicon Valley to Wall Street, Mr. Biden’s campaign has aggressively courted the megadonor class. It has raised almost $200 million from donors who gave at least $100,000 to his joint operations with the Democratic Party in the last six months – about twice as much as President Trump raised from six-figure donors in that time, according to an analysis of new federal records…
This parade of industry giants delivered a surge in donations even as the progressive base of the Democratic Party agitates against the influence of billionaires and corporate titans. A group of progressives, including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, signed a letter last week that reads like a warning shot to a potential Biden administration, urging the Senate to reject any future executive branch nominations of corporate lobbyists or corporate executives.
National Review: The Biden Protection Racket
By Rich Lowry
Never before has the media been so openly fearful of asking or reporting something that might hurt a presidential candidate. What are supposed to be the animating values of our adversarial press – informing the public, getting answers, holding the powerful to account – have all been subordinated to the protection racket that is coverage of Joe Biden.
The States
Fox Business: Washington AG to file second campaign finance disclosure lawsuit against Google
By Lucas Manfredi
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a press release Monday that he intends to file a second campaign finance disclosure lawsuit against Google.
“My office will file a lawsuit against Google for violating Washington campaign finance disclosure laws,” Ferguson said. “I take repeat violations of our campaign finance laws seriously.”
The attorney general’s office first filed a campaign finance disclosure lawsuit back in 2018, accusing the company of not complying with campaign finance laws related to “making required information about political advertisements available to Washington voters.”
Google ended up paying the state of Washington $217,000 after King County Superior Court ruled that the company did not provide access to documents filed with the state’s Public Disclosure Commission in which Washington candidates and political committees reported about $1.5 million in payments to Google related to political advertising on its platform since 2013.
A spokesperson for Google told FOX Business that the company “does not accept Washington state election ads.”
“Advertisers that submit these ads are violating our policies and we take measures to block such ads and remove violating ads when we find them,” the spokesperson added…
“In 1972, the people of Washington passed Initiative 276 requiring transparency in our elections,” Ferguson added. “We will continue working to ensure that our elections are transparent”.
The Post and Courier: Charleston dark money group spends more than $306,000 on upcoming school board race
By Jenna Schiferl
The Charleston Coalition for Kids, which keeps its backers private, is behind five so-called reformer candidates [for Charleston County School Board].
The 501(c)4 nonprofit has spent more than $306,000 for television advertising, and there is still just over two weeks to go before Election Day.
These records present only a glimpse into the coalition’s total spending, since South Carolina’s campaign finance law does not require nonprofits and other groups that spend money on independent advertising campaigns to reveal how much money they raised and spent or who their donors are…
“The Coalition for Kids, we watched them essentially last time buy over half of the board,” state Rep. David Mack, D-North Charleston, said last week, referring to the group’s effort in the 2018 election…
The coalition’s spending on TV ads alone eclipses what all the other 16 candidates have reported raising for their campaigns combined…
That’s because people can’t contribute more than $1,000 to candidates in local political races in South Carolina.
Meanwhile, the Charleston Coalition for the Kids can raise unlimited sums of money from a single person if they wanted to. Because of a 2010 federal court ruling, the state Ethics Commission doesn’t even try to police that type of political spending, which has exploded in South Carolina in recent years.
New York Times: Facing a Deluge of Misinformation, Colorado Takes the Offensive Against It
By Nick Corasaniti and Davey Alba
To prevent deceptive tweets, doctored videos and other forms of misinformation from undermining Colorado’s elections, [Secretary of State Jena] Griswold is starting a new initiative that will run ads on social media and expand digital outreach to help voters identify foreign misinformation…
She hired Nathan Blumenthal, a former counterterrorism official at the Department of Homeland Security, to run the three-person operation, which in turn has hired outside vendors to help identify misinformation online, whether it is going viral on social media or lurking on obscure message boards.
The office will also buy Google ads against relevant search terms whenever a piece of misinformation begins to gain attention in an effort to help slow its spread.
Valley News: School Board fires Windsor principal over BLM Facebook post
By Anna Merriman
The Mount Ascutney School District Board this week affirmed its decision to fire Windsor School Principal Tiffany Riley following a Facebook post she made that was seen as critical of the Black Lives Matter movement, calling the post “hostile” in nature.
“However, speech need not rise to the level of ‘hostile’ in order for the disruption it causes to outweigh any First Amendment protections which might attach to that speech,” the board wrote in its decision, dismissing arguments from Riley and her attorney that the loss of her job over a Facebook post would violate of her free speech rights.
The unanimous decision, signed Wednesday but released Friday afternoon, detailed the circumstances leading up to Riley’s June 10 post as well as the aftermath. In the decision, board members said the post caused “severe disruption” within the K-12 school and led to extensive media coverage and complaints from members of the community, with some students and parents questioning whether the school was a “safe space” for students of color.
In the June post Riley wrote, “I firmly believe Black Lives Matter, but I DO NOT agree with coercive measures taken to get this point across; some of which are falsified in an attempt to prove a point.”
