In the News
RealClearPolitics: A Decade Later, Citizens United Yields Election Benefits
By Matthew Petersen
[The For the People Act of 2021], which passed the House of Representatives on a party-line vote and is now in the Senate, calls for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, contending that the opinion and its progeny “have empowered large corporations, extremely wealthy individuals, and special interests to dominate election spending, corrupt our politics, and degrade our democracy through tidal waves of unlimited and anonymous spending.” …
But if we stick with the facts, we can see some major upsides to Citizens United.
Alarmist predictions that powerful businesses would buy elections have not materialized. For-profit corporations have largely avoided contributing to super PACs or making direct expenditures for fear of angering their consumers, employees, and lenders. So far, most companies have decided that directly intervening in elections is bad for business.
Also, little evidence suggests that Citizens United has led to a deluge of corruption. In fact, an Institute for Free Speech study shows that, while independent political spending has exponentially increased in the opinion’s wake, public corruption prosecutions brought by the Department of Justice have declined. Data suggesting that outside spending buys legislators’ votes is scant.
New from the Institute for Free Speech
Groups Across Political Spectrum Unite to Fight Anti-Citizen Privacy Provisions in H.R. 1 and S. 1
By Tiffany Donnelly
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently told reporters that the Senate will vote in late June on Democrats’ sprawling bill package that will radically upend current rules and regulations governing speech about public affairs. Known as H.R. 1 in the House and S. 1 in the Senate, the bill is a direct assault on free speech, devoting about 300 pages to suppressing citizens’ ability to criticize government by – among other radical provisions – exposing civically engaged Americans to harassment and intimidation for their beliefs.
Thankfully, a large, diverse coalition has been speaking out about these threats to free speech. Groups positioned along the political spectrum, including the American Civil Liberties Union, National Right to Life, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and over 130 nonprofits oppose the bills’ anti-speech measures. Along with a wide range of elected officials and media outlets, these groups are sounding the alarm on the dangerous legislation.
Supreme Court
Reuters: U.S. Supreme Court rejects white supremacists’ challenge to anti-riot law
By Andrew Chung
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a free speech challenge to a federal anti-riot law brought by two members of a militant white supremacist group who pleaded guilty to crimes related to a deadly 2017 rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
The justices declined to hear appeals by the two California men, Michael Miselis and Benjamin Daley, of a lower court ruling that upheld their convictions under the 1968 Anti-Riot Act but also deemed some parts of the law a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.
Congress
People United for Privacy: How the DISCLOSE Act Chills Speech
Over the past decade, Congressional Democrats have introduced 13 iterations of the “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act.” Also known as the DISCLOSE ACT, sponsors of this complex yet vague legislation claim that it would “increase transparency” and “end corruption” in America’s elections. The bill’s sponsors also purport that the DISCLOSE Act would “put the power back in the hands of the American people.”
Politicians and activists pushing this “enhanced disclosure” legislation have one goal: to permanently silence those who disagree with them and their policies. By micromanaging what political speech is allowed and when it is allowed, by requiring an intense amount of reporting by groups that communicate about public policy, and by forcing groups to disclose the names and home addresses of their donors, the DISCLOSE Act in effect would deter both individuals and groups across the political spectrum from engaging in speech that pertains to an issue or elected official. In other words, the DISCLOSE Act seeks to violate Americans’ rights to free speech and freedom of association.
Reason: The PRO-SPEECH Act Is Anything but First Amendment-Friendly
By Elizabeth Nolan Brown
It may be dubbed the “Promoting Rights and Online Speech Protections to Ensure Every Consumer is Heard” (PRO-SPEECH) Act, but a new bill from Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker is anything but First Amendment-friendly. Wicker’s measure would ban huge swaths of online content moderation, forcing private internet forums to host speech that may currently violate their terms of service and be considered hateful, harassing, vulgar, or otherwise undesired…
Introduced Thursday, the so-called PRO-SPEECH Act strikes at the heart of First Amendment protections, compelling companies under threat of sanction from the government to platform messages they otherwise wouldn’t…
The bill would also explicitly ban taking action against a user based on “political affiliation.” Tech companies could no longer choose to ban, for instance, Nazi content or decline to host web forums devoted to white supremacist political groups. Web forums couldn’t choose to be exclusively for conservative users, or progressive users, or so on.
“Approximately zero people actually want” the Internet this bill would create, Daphne Keller of the Stanford Cyber Policy Center commented on Twitter.
Notably, the bill would exempt from some provisions any company that “publicly proclaims to be a publisher.”
National Review: Debunking Sheldon Whitehouse’s Supreme Court Propaganda
By Aron Ravin
This past Wednesday, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) again attempted to take an axe to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. He called the “six Republicans” on the bench “servants of right-wing dark money interests.” In one fell swoop, he both accused several justices of being partisan hacks and of being corporatist enemies of democracy…
In addition to the attacks on the current composition of the Court, he went on to lambast the Left’s favorite boogeyman, Citizens United. But Citizens United has not disproportionately benefited the GOP. In fact, in recent races, the ruling that corporate money constitutes speech has aided Democratic candidates far more than their Republican counterparts.
Whitehouse’s, along with much of the Left’s, primary concern about Citizens United is its allowance of “dark money.” … Organizations and companies can bypass the typical financial restrictions faced by PACs and Super PACs so long as their “primary purpose” is not political. But Democrats are the overwhelming benefactors of this exception.
The Hill: GOP senator introduces constitutional amendment to ban flag burning
By Joseph Choi
GOP Sen. Steve Daines (Mont.) on Monday reintroduced a constitutional amendment to bar the “physical desecration of the American flag.” …
Daines has introduced this amendment two times before.
The measure was co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.) and Kevin Cramer (N.D.)…
Flag burning, an often controversial form of protest, is considered to be a protected form of self-expression under the First Amendment.
By Dave Levinthal, Warren Rojas, and Kimberly Leonard
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat from Washington state, will introduce a bill in the US House that in part would bar members of Congress, as well as other top federal officials, from buying and selling individual stocks, her office told Insider.
Jayapal’s confirmation comes days after Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, told Insider she would introduce legislation in the Senate that would do the same…
The two lawmakers also teamed up in late 2020 to introduce companion bills — styled the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act — that targeted lawmakers’ stock trades and introduced various lobbying, ethics, and conflict-of-interest reforms. Both bills died in committee without even receiving votes.
Much, however, has changed in the months since. Stock trades by several members of Congress — from Republican Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina to Democratic Rep. Tom Malinowski of New Jersey — have come under significant scrutiny. And Democrats, who generally appear more eager this session than Republicans to advance government-reform bills, control both chambers of Congress.
FEC
Politico: Weekly Score
By Stephanie Murray
The FEC is appealing up to the Supreme Court a decision that eliminated a relatively obscure campaign finance provision that prevented lawmakers from paying back more than $250,000 worth of personal loans with money raised after the election… Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) challenged the provision, and a three-judge panel ruled earlier this month it was unconstitutional. The high court will still need to decide whether to hear the case or not.
Online Speech Platforms
Axios: Scoop: YouTube to ban some ad verticals from buying masthead ads
By Sara Fischer
YouTube will stop accepting ads for its masthead ad unit from certain verticals, including alcohol sales, gambling, prescription drugs, and election and political ads, Axios has learned.
YouTube’s masthead, a highly visible rectangle across the top of the homepage, is often the platform’s most expensive and sought-after ad unit.
Beginning Monday…[a]ds that are endorsing a candidate for office will be banned. Ads that are political in nature, like issue ads, will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis…
Other top publishers have received criticism for hosting political ads on their homepage, including the Washington Post.
“We believe this update will build on changes we made last year to the masthead reservation process and will lead to a better experience for users,” a Google spokesperson told Axios.
Google has been modifying its ad policies for years as it’s sought to minimize confusion, misinformation and manipulation, especially surrounding sensitive events.
The States
New York Post: Adams to hit Yang with campaign finance complaint over YouTuber aid
By Julia Marsh and Aaron Feis
Democratic mayoral hopeful Andrew Yang has benefited throughout the primary race from the help of an influential YouTuber and podcaster without properly disclosing the partnership, front-running rival Eric Adams is set to allege to the city’s Campaign Finance Board.
Adams’ campaign will file a formal complaint against Yang to the CFB on Tuesday in a last-minute effort to have Yang investigated over the tireless work of online personality Matthew Skidmore on his behalf, The Post has learned…
Skidmore’s YouTube channel, which boasts nearly 56,000 followers, and Twitter account, which has more than 25,000, are dominated by pro-Yang videos and messages…
The sheer volume and quality of Skidmore’s work on behalf of Yang suggests “significant apparent coordination and lack of disclosure between these two entities,” Moore alleged in the complaint. “This failure to disclose and report suggest a scheme to evade the contribution and spending limitations of the New York City Campaign Finance Act.”
Portland Press Herald: Maine Senate passes bill to reform political action committee finance laws
By Dennis Hoey
The Maine Senate voted unanimously Monday to pass a bill that changes how political action committees make payments to legislators who are connected to the PAC in a leadership role or as a primary fundraiser.
The bill sponsored by Sen. Chloe Maxmin, D-Nobleboro, goes to Gov. Janet Mills for her signature…
The bill would change laws governing payments to a legislator by a PAC if the legislator is a principal officer or treasurer of the PAC or is one of the people primarily responsible for raising contributions or making decisions for the PAC.
The changes include bans on compensating a family member of a legislator or a business owned by a legislator for services provided to the PAC, reimbursing a legislator for expenses that will be reimbursed by the Legislature and paying a legislator for unnecessary vehicle repairs.
A PAC or legislator violating these laws may be subject to a penalty of up to $500 or the amount of the unlawful payment or reimbursement, whichever is greater.
