Ed. note: Beginning tomorrow, August 13, I will be on maternity leave until the end of September. While I’m out, the Daily Media Update will be in the capable hands of Policy Analyst Alex Baiocco and Communications Fellow Nathan Maxwell. If you would like to see a story included in the Update during my time away, please send to Alex at abaiocco@ifs.org or to Nathan at nmaxwell@ifs.org. The Update will follow a Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday schedule until I return.
New from the Institute for Free Speech
How Ted Cruz’s Fight with the FEC Could Benefit Free Speech for Everyone
By Luke Wachob
Senator Ted Cruz’s recent victory over the Federal Election Commission in a loan-repayment case clarified important First Amendment principles. Late last week, the Institute for Free Speech asked the Supreme Court to make those principles the law of the land. Our amicus brief urges the Justices to not merely affirm the district court’s ruling in favor of Cruz but, in order to give precedential weight to the affirmance and provide guidance to lower courts, potential litigants, and others interested in campaign finance law, also to adopt its reasoning nationwide in a brief memorandum opinion.
Cruz challenged a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, otherwise known as McCain-Feingold, that restricts candidates’ ability to use campaign donations received after the election to pay back personal loans to their campaign. The D.C. District Court’s decision in the case should serve as a model for other courts in two respects. First, the decision focuses on the real-world effect of restrictions on political speech…
Facebook Makes its Community Standards Worse for Speech, Again
By Alec Greven
Facebook is the largest social media platform in the world and host to a breathtaking amount of political speech. The company markets itself as a fierce defender of democracy, free expression, and human rights. However, Facebook recently made further revisions to its Community Standards that threaten a sweeping amount of political speech across the ideological spectrum. These new standards are problematic, excessively broad, and could exclude a massive amount of political speech if they are enforced literally.
Congress
New York Times: As Congress Recesses, Democratic Successes Do Not Include Voting Rights
By Nicholas Fandos
Before dawn on Wednesday, Senate Republicans blocked last-minute attempts to debate a trio of elections bills, but Democratic leaders vowed that more votes would be the “first matter of legislative business” when they return in mid-September. First up is likely to be a scaled-back version of the party’s far-reaching Senate Bill 1, the For the People Act…
[Sen. Joe] Manchin, the only Democratic senator who does not support the original For the People Act, appears to be on the cusp of endorsing a somewhat narrower alternative that he has spent weeks negotiating with fellow Democrats. The new bill is likely to maintain many of the pillars of the original legislation, but include for the first time a national voter identification requirement and lop off new ethics requirements and a public campaign financing program for senators.
The Courts
South Florida Sun-Sentinel: Federal judge clears way for challenge to Florida protest law
By Dara Kam
A federal judge has refused to toss out a legal challenge to a controversial new law that creates a host of crimes and enhances existing penalties for protests that turn violent or block traffic, a priority of Gov. Ron DeSantis during this year’s legislative session.
[Chief U.S. District Judge Mark] Walker’s order allowed the challenge to proceed on four sections of the law. Those provisions create the new riot definition; make it a noncriminal traffic infraction to obstruct public streets; establish a new crime of “cyberintimidation by publication,” which could be used to prohibit sharing contact information of government officials; and require people arrested for the misdemeanor offense of “unlawful assemblies” to be held without bail until their first appearances in court…
The part of the law creating the new riot definition, which is the focus of the lawsuit, is “perhaps the most pernicious,” Walker wrote.
“This is because it arguably criminalizes mere presence at a protest where violence occurs — even if that violence is caused by counter protesters,” he wrote.
FEC
ProPublica: Inspector General Urges Ethics Review at Federal Election Commission Following ProPublica Report
By Jake Pearson
The inspector general for the Federal Election Commission is calling on the agency to review its ethics policies and internal controls after a ProPublica investigation last year revealed that a senior manager openly supported Donald Trump and maintained a close relationship with a Republican attorney who went on to serve as the 2016 Trump campaign’s top lawyer.
The report by ProPublica raised questions about the impartiality of the FEC official, Debbie Chacona, a civil servant who oversees the unit responsible for keeping unlawful contributions out of U.S. political campaigns…
In its findings, the inspector general said Chacona…did not improperly intervene in a review of the Trump inaugural committee’s fundraising and acted “consistent with relevant law and policy” by allowing career analysts to handle the filings.
But the inspector general said “it is important to address the ethical principle that federal employees should avoid even the appearance of impropriety.” It added that the FEC’s “unique mission raises heightened concerns when allegations of personal or political bias are raised against FEC senior personnel that could undermine the public’s confidence in the agency” and recommended the commission “evaluate the current agency policies on ethical behavior and update them, as may be appropriate.”
Independent Groups
National Review: Jane Mayer’s Conspiracy Theory of Lies
By Art Pope and Rick Graber
Jane Mayer, author of Dark Money, purports to expose another plot by the Right to take over American politics and governance. This time, the so-called “dark money” trail leads to The Bradley Foundation, a private grant-making organization that we lead as chair and president.
Mayer paints a story in The New Yorker that The Bradley Foundation is orchestrating and funding an “aggressive assault on democracy.”…
[She] states that “since 2012, the foundation has spent some eighteen million dollars supporting eleven conservative groups involved in election issues.”…Mayer appears to include all funding to a grantee even if election issues play a relatively small role in their work.
In addition, the Foundation does not make “dark money” grants. All grants are publicly disclosed on a quarterly basis…
Bradley’s grants can never be used for political purposes — much less to overturn elections. All grants are made to nonprofits that are required to meet IRS guidelines that prevent them from engaging in political activity.
Online Speech Platforms
The Verge: Oversight board orders Facebook to restore post criticizing Myanmar coup
By Russell Brandom
The Facebook Oversight Board has ordered Facebook to restore a post from a user in Myanmar criticizing the country’s new regime and its ties with China…
Issued on Wednesday morning, the decision turned on how Facebook moderators translated a specific Burmese word, rendered in the post as “$တရုတ်.” Facebook had translated the word as “fucking Chinese” and classified it as Tier 2 hate speech under the platform’s community standard. The user appealed the decision, describing the post as advice to elected leaders…
After reviewing the post, the Oversight Board sided with the user… “As the same word is used in Burmese to refer to a state and people from that state, context is key to understanding the intended meaning,” the board’s decision reads…
In an interesting twist, no user ever flagged the post as offensive. According to Facebook, the post came under scrutiny after it was “automatically selected as a part of a sample and sent to a human reviewer to be used for classifier training,” part of the company’s ongoing efforts to improve algorithmic flagging. When the reviewer flagged the post as hate speech, it was routed through Facebook’s normal moderation system.
The States
The Sacramento Bee: Some political campaigns trick California donors into recurring payments. That must end.
By Richard C. Miadich and Catharine Baker
Imagine you feel so strongly about a candidate that you decide to contribute some of your hard-earned money to their campaign online. Imagine then discovering the candidate has tricked you into contributing more money without your consent by using a “pre-checked” box or setting on their donation website that automatically signs you up for recurring contributions…
Such practices are legal under existing state and federal law. The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), California’s nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog agency, wants to outlaw this practice. Assembly Bill 775 would do that…
Under the bill, recurring contributions would only be allowed after a donor affirmatively consents to it and is plainly told how to cancel the recurring contribution in the future…
Our research shows California would be one of the first states — if not the first — to address the issue. Really, California should be first.
Politico (Massachusetts Playbook): Gig Economy Fight Escalates
By Lisa Kashinsky
The coalition mobilizing against a proposed ballot initiative to classify drivers for companies like Uber, Lyft and DoorDash as independent contractors plans to file a complaint today asking state campaign finance regulators to investigate whether proponents of the measure violated the law…
The “Flexibility and Benefits for Massachusetts Drivers” committee checked a box on its filing paperwork that said “no money had been raised or spent prior to the organization of the ballot question committee with [the Office of Campaign and Political Finance].” That paperwork was received by OCPF shortly before noon on Aug. 3.
But the Coalition to Protect Workers’ Rights argues that’s a “false claim.” Pointing to a section of state law that requires the disclosure of “all expenditures” to promote or oppose a ballot question, including “certain expenditures made in anticipation that a question will appear on a ballot,” the coalition alleges that its rivals spent money on consultants to gear up for its ballot-question campaign launch; on signs and stickers for an Aug. 3 press conference; and on digital advertisements in certain publications starting that same day.
The Hill: New York county executive vetoes bill to let police sue protesters
By Mychael Schnell
A New York county executive on Wednesday vetoed a local bill that would have allowed police officers and first responders to sue protesters who harass, attack or injure them because of their job…
“The guidance provided by the New York State Attorney General raises issues about the constitutionality of the proposed law, which would inhibit residents’ rights to free speech and protest,” [executive Laura] Curran wrote in a statement.
“The proposed bill is well-intentioned, but should not come at the costs of the basic First Amendment freedoms that we all enjoy as Americans,” she added.
