In the News
One America News: Institute For Free Speech President Analyzes Impacts Of H.R. 1 (Video)
House lawmakers passed the H.R. 1 legislation also known as the For the People Act of 2021. One America’s Jennifer Franco spoke with David Keating, the President of the Institute for Free Speech, to discuss the legislation further.
One America News: Dark Money, Free Speech Addressed By H.R.1?
“[H.R. 1] would allow the sitting president to effectively appoint a majority at the FEC in his party,” explained David Keating, President of the Institute for Free Speech…
“There’s about half of the bill that would restrict speech about campaigns, would restrict speech about members of Congress, would restrict speech about legislation coming up within Congress,” Keating explained. “It would also get rid of the internet exception where organizations are allowed to speak to the public using websites like YouTube or social media.”
Free speech advocates like Keating have warned that advocacy groups ranging from the Chamber of Commerce to the Sierra Club to pro-gun groups will likely be impacted. It would make their work more difficult. Opponents of H.R. 1 are urging Congress against passing the legislation and, instead, consider reworking it to uphold free speech.
TVEyes: CSPAN – U.S. House of Representatives (Video)
[Rep. Rodney] Davis: Madam Speaker, I’d like [to] ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a summary of letters submitted yesterday by the Institute for Free Speech and others opposing H.R. 1.
New from the Institute for Free Speech
House Passes Direct Assault on Free Speech
The Institute for Free Speech released the following statement in reaction to today’s vote by the House of Representatives to pass H.R. 1, a nearly 800-page overhaul of the nation’s political speech, elections, and ethics laws. The bill passed on a narrow vote with bipartisan opposition this evening after only one committee hearing, which did not address the legislation’s threats to free speech.
“Members of the House just voted to make life easier for themselves and harder for their critics. Under H.R. 1, members of Congress can receive cash subsidies for their campaigns, but Americans will have to hire a lawyer to figure out how they can speak truth to power. Many of the new rules aren’t just bad – they’re also unconstitutional,” said Institute for Free Speech President David Keating.
“H.R. 1 would transform the independent, bipartisan Federal Election Commission into a partisan agency controlled by the president. The FEC was created after President Nixon’s attacks on his political ‘enemies.’ With today’s vote, the House threatens to turn back the clock to the pre-Watergate era,” said Institute for Free Speech Chairman and Founder Bradley A. Smith, who served on the FEC between 2000 and 2005.
Smith and eight other former FEC commissioners sent a letter to House leaders explaining the problems with H.R. 1’s changes to the Commission in February. The bill now moves to the Senate where its fate is uncertain. The Senate version of the bill, S. 1, has not yet been released.
To read the Institute’s letter to the House Administration Committee on H.R. 1’s harms to speech and assembly rights, click here. For all of the Institute for Free Speech’s resources, analysis, and commentary on H.R. 1, click here.
ICYMI
Letter to U.S. House of Representatives in Opposition to H.R. 1
By David Keating
The Institute for Free Speech strongly opposes H.R. 1, the Orwellian “For the People Act.” More appropriately known as the “For the Politicians Act,” this radical bill would, in fact, greatly harm the ability of the people to freely speak, publish, organize into groups, and petition their elected representatives in pursuit of a better government.
In particular, H.R. 1 would impose onerous and unworkable standards on the ability of Americans and groups of Americans to discuss the policy issues of the day with elected officials and the public. Certain sections of the bill would violate the privacy of advocacy groups and their supporters, limit political speech on the internet, and compel speakers to recite lengthy government-mandated messages identifying some of their supporters by name in their communications.
Importantly, these restrictions would reach far beyond campaign speech to regulate discussion of legislative issues and public affairs. For advocacy groups, unions, and trade associations, several of the limits proposed in H.R. 1 would operate as a total ban on speech.
Congress
Politico: House passes sweeping bill on election, government reforms
By Sarah Ferris
The House on Wednesday approved a sweeping package of election and government reforms…
“This reminds me of what it must have felt like at Valley Forge,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at a news appearance on the steps of the Capitol earlier Wednesday. “Everything is at stake. We must win this race, this fight for this bill.” …
The measure passed 220-210…
Earlier this week, a group of moderates negotiated changes to one aspect of the bill – the public financing of elections – after facing intense criticism in their districts, in part because of a barrage of GOP attack ads that falsely claimed taxpayer funds would be paying for campaigns.
“If signed into law, H.R. 1 would be the greatest expansion of the federal government’s role in our elections than we have ever seen,” Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) said.
Roll Call: HR 1 overhaul would set new holiday and new rules for lobbyists, elections and justices
By Kate Ackley
“This is a sprawling piece of legislation, and it’s a real mishmash,” said Republican Michael Toner, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, who is now a partner in the firm Wiley and opposes [H.R. 1.]. “Because of its length and complexity and because there’s been no committee markup and review, there’s no question there are going to be surprises in this bill.” …
Given its sweeping scope, here are the details on five lesser-known provisions:
A hallmark of the package would set out an optional system to finance congressional campaigns with public money…The bill establishes something called a Freedom from Influence Fund…
Rep. Rodney Davis, the Illinois Republican who serves as the ranking member on the House Administration panel and has led opposition to the bill, said that once these new assessments flow into the U.S. Treasury, the money belongs to the public, or to taxpayers.
“So anyone who votes for this, this is a vote for corporate money to be laundered into public dollars, and then they’re going to take that corporate money, which would be taxpayer money,” Davis said. He said congressional candidates could fill their campaigns with up to $7.2 million in such money…
Provisions in the bill seek to dial back so-called shadow lobbying, the behind-the-scenes guidance that formerly elected officials often make their post-government living on without having to register as a federal lobbyist and disclose who is paying for their knowledge and influence.
Spectator: HR 1 must be stopped
By John Fund
[HR 1] is the worst piece of legislation I have ever seen in my 40 years reporting from Washington…
[Hans von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission] consulted other former members and assembled a short summary of the worst provisions of HR 1: …
– Destroys the bipartisan composition of the Federal Election Commission and places a partisan majority in control of every aspect of our federal elections…
– Forces disclosure of names of Americans who donate to nonprofit organizations thus subjecting them to political harassment…
– [E]ffectively bans nonprofits from contacting a member of Congress or their staff about pending legislation – a direct assault on the right of Americans to petition their government…
Should the power grab masquerading as HR 1 become law it will represent only the latest distortion of democracy. It will undermine confidence in the system far more than anything Donald Trump attempted.
“When reforms don’t work as advertised, or politicians make end runs around them, Americans get cynical,'” write David Primo and Jeffrey Milyo, the co-authors of the book Campaign Finance and American Democracy: What the Public Really Thinks and Why It Matters. Should HR 1 pass, its so-called ‘reforms’ would likely send that cynicism to levels that make America increasingly resemble a banana republic.
Center Square: H.R. 1 Threatens Donor Privacy and Free Speech
By Daniel Savickas
In 1958, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in NAACP v. Alabama that the state of Alabama’s proposal to force the NAACP to reveal their membership lists violated the organization’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. This case is still hailed today as a landmark decision for civil rights and privacy. Unfortunately, the spirit of that decision has come under threat in Washington. The proposed government reform bill H.R. 1, cynically named the “For the People” Act, would force all political organizations to disclose private donor information to the government…
Today, there are thousands of interest groups across the United States striving to advance their lawful private interests. Scores of people across the political spectrum donate to these groups and causes knowing that their resources are more efficiently pooled together…
The need and desire for anonymity is not as distant as 1787 or even 1958. As recently as 2013, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) came under scrutiny for having targeted conservative groups. These groups were subject to intensive investigations by the IRS merely for having conservative or libertarian phrases in their organization’s name or mission statement. Imagine if these groups had been simultaneously forced to disclose the personal information of their members and donors. The government has demonstrated it is not above targeting its citizens for political reasons. There is no reason to trust they won’t do so again.
Wiley’s Political Law Podcast: H.R. 1 – The Impact on the FEC
By Lee Goodman and Eric Wang
This is the fourth episode in a series of podcasts on H.R. 1, a bill that has been introduced in Congress that would affect campaign finance, lobbying, ethics, and voting laws. In this episode, Election Law Partner and former Chairman and Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) Lee Goodman and Special Counsel Eric Wang discuss the provisions in H.R. 1 that would restructure the FEC.
Politico: Illinois Playbook
By Shia Kapos
A law firm that represents the Democratic National Committee and political candidates across the country, including Gov. J.B. Pritzker, issued a memo Monday casting doubt on Rep. Robin Kelly’s ability to chair the Illinois Democratic Party while also serving in Congress.
Perkins Coie partner Brian Svoboda says Kelly “would need to resign from federal office” or curtail her duties as a party chair so she “does not establish, finance, maintain or control” of party funds “for purposes of federal campaign finance law,” according to a memo he sent to acting party Chair Karen Yarbrough…
Kelly offered her own legal opinion from Illinois election attorney Michael Dorf. “There is no legal obstacle” to Kelly serving as party chair, Dorf wrote, while acknowledging that the Federal Election Commission may have to clarify some duties about raising or spending “soft” money if she became party chair.
Dorf points to Georgia Congresswoman Nikema Williams as an example. She “served as chair of the Georgia Democratic Party as a federal candidate and continues to serve now as a federal elected official.” …
Some Democrats, however, have a nagging concern about Pritzker’s control over the party’s checkbook. The billionaire governor’s deep pockets would allow him to dictate which races get more attention than others.
Yes, but isn’t that the case already?
Online Speech Platforms
Politico: Facebook lifts political ad ban
By Elena Schneider
Facebook will lift its ban on political ads on Thursday, ending a self-imposed prohibition that began immediately after the November 2020 general election and remained active for months…
Last week, Google announced that it would be lifting its own ban, which it had reimposed after the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol…
Digital strategists in both parties have been sharply critical of Facebook’s decision to eliminate access to voters for the last several months, arguing that it cut off the largest pipelines to potential supporters who fuel fundraising and organizing across the country, particularly during the leap to remote campaigning in a pandemic. It also froze out candidates and groups during a crucial fundraising window, when party committees and candidates could have drafted support off of the second impeachment of then-President Donald Trump, the inauguration and the beginning of a new administration, all potentially profitable moments…
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee also released a scathing statement on Wednesday, ahead of Facebook’s announcement, attacking the company for its “misguided ban” – a sign of just how surprising the timing of the reversal was.
A complaint regularly circulated by Democratic digital strategists, in particular, is that Facebook is punishing advertisers instead of targeting those who generate disinformation in the organic space. A similar concern was raised on Wednesday, when Facebook’s date to lift its ban comes at the same time when the U.S. Capitol Police issued security warnings that the Capitol building was, once again, under threat from “militia violent extremists” seeking to seize control of the complex on or around March 4.
North State Journal: Facebook should stop banning speech, but not the kind you think
By State Rep. Jason Saine and Donald Bryson
As Americans are still practicing social distancing, online speech has become more critical than ever. Bans on online political advertising have removed a vital tool for those wanting to find an audience for their message.
Many people are skeptical of paid ads as a way to speak to the community, but for those without sizable followings, digital ads are a lifeline. Online ads can reach a large audience without extensive technical know-how and funding. For just a few dollars, you can make sure your message is put in front of the very people with who it will resonate. Civic engagement is a critical component of a free society. Educating audiences about the issues that impact them is vital…
[D]igital advertising has become fundamental for nonprofit and issue groups engaging in the vital work of educating the public on pressing issues in communities…
Banning political ads will not fix our political discourse any more than preventing the placement of yard signs. But these bans will ensure that speech on the issues that matter to people in their communities will be more challenging to hear.
Independent Groups
Washington Post: The far right’s big money strategy has poisoned our politics
By Marc C. Johnson
While campaign cash has long fueled elections – the California Democratic power broker Jesse Unruh is credited with calling money “the mother’s milk of politics” – outside money, spent independently of candidates, began to take on an outsize role only 40 years ago. The result has been more ideological parties, incessant fundraising, an explosion of campaign spending and less functional governance…
The unprecedented independent fundraising and spending that began in earnest in 1980 created a new political reality in every subsequent Senate election, and the effects played out in Georgia this year. A politically connected housewife in Missouri or a business executive in Oklahoma, encouraged by partisans controlling independent expenditure campaigns, became directly involved in efforts to defeat senators in states where they did not live or vote. Moreover, their principal, and perhaps only, motivation was ideological. As independent spending on attack ads has grown exponentially, every Senate election has effectively become nationalized, a choice less about state-level issues or even the abilities of an individual senator, but rather a battle for party control of the Senate.
The States
We the Governed: The State’s Creepy Persecution of Tim Eyman
By Glen Morgan
I was in the Thurston County Courtroom listening to Superior Court Judge Dixon announce his ruling (full video linked here) against Tim Eyman two weeks ago. Washington State’s Attorney General Bob Ferguson appears to have successfully completed the first stage of his eight-year effort to destroy initiative activist Tim Eyman. However, it is still worth studying the Eyman drama, this case, and understanding how it matters to the rest of Washington State. Ultimately, this story is not about Tim Eyman the activist so much as it is about the abuse of political power, the disintegration of equal protection under the law, and the corruption of the decaying Washington State legal system.
For the first time in American history, as far as I know, a person has been defined by the state as a walking, talking Political Action Committee. Not an activist, not an officer of a PAC, but a PAC itself. This was just one part of a very disturbed ruling by Thurston County Superior Court Judge Dixon which reads like a rubber stamped, cut-and-paste ruling written by Attorney General Bob Ferguson himself. The judge’s signature was just the afterthought and formality of the event. The ruling can be found linked here… After reading the ruling, it is hard to pretend anyone involved in drafting this document is aware the First Amendment or Free Speech actually exists in Washington State at all, even if only as a theory rather than a right.
