In the News
Roll Call: What’s in a disclaimer? The curious case of Dr. Oz’s ads
By Nathan L. Gonzales
After spending nearly $10 million on television in the Pennsylvania Senate race, Republican Mehmet Oz has made a slight change to his ads in the weeks before the primary: He added his first name to the portion of the ad where he makes clear he approved the message…
According to part of the explanation of the “stand by your ad” provision on the FEC website, “the candidate must deliver an audio statement identifying themself and stating that the candidate has approved of the communication…
“Neither the statute nor the regulations specifically require the use of a first name or full name,” according former FEC chairman Bradley A. Smith, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton to fill a Republican-designated seat. “So the question would be whether or not it adequately identifies the candidate. That would depend on particular facts, possibly including things such as how well known the candidate is.”
Even without a first name, it’s possible that Oz complied with the regulations that say a candidate must be “clearly identified.”
“My quick read is that this is fine,” explained Smith, who is now a law professor at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio. “Dr. Oz is pretty well known, and a person wondering who the heck this ‘Dr. Oz’ is could easily find out with a quick web search. It probably wouldn’t be considered ambiguous.”
The Courts
CNN: Judge appears likely to allow January 6-related candidacy challenge against Marjorie Taylor Greene
By Marshall Cohen
A federal judge signaled Friday that she’ll likely allow a group of Georgia voters to move forward with their constitutional challenge against GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, which claims she can’t run for reelection because she aided the January 6 insurrectionists.
Federal Judge Amy Totenberg of the Northern District of Georgia said during a lengthy hearing that she has “significant questions and concerns” about a recent ruling in a similar case, which blocked the same challenge against Rep. Madison Cawthorn, a North Carolina Republican…
Lawyers for Greene say she isn’t an insurrectionist and that disqualifying her would violate her First Amendment rights. She previously told CNN that she had “never encouraged political violence and never will.” A spokesman said she wasn’t involved in planning any protests on January 6.
FEC
New York Times: Donations Steered to Trump Super PAC by Canadian Are Found to Be Illegal
By Eric Lipton
A Canadian steel industry billionaire illegally helped steer $1.75 million in donations to a pro-Trump super PAC and has agreed to pay one of the largest fines ever levied by the Federal Election Commission to settle the case, the commission said on Friday…
The $975,000 fine is the third largest in the history of the Federal Election Commission, and the largest ever imposed in a case associated with an illegal foreign contribution.
“It is a strong message to anybody out there who is confused about this,” said Ellen L. Weintraub, a member of the commission, which voted to confirm the settlement. “You cannot have foreign nationals involved in any way in political contributions in this country.”
Free Expression
Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): “Should We Regulate Foreign Speech?”
By Eugene Volokh
Rick Hasen’s book identifies a tremendously serious problem; and it offers only modest solutions. And rightly so, I think: As the book correctly points out, more aggressive restrictions (such as bans on supposedly “misleading” advocacy) will likely be cures that are worse than the disease, however serious the disease might be.
I therefore have little quarrel with many of Rick’s suggestions. But I do want to talk briefly about the problem of foreign speech that may influence election campaigns, which Rick suggests should be even more restricted than it is now (see pp. 102-09).
Protecting American self-government from undue foreign influence is of course quite appealing, especially for people (like me) who have a mindset that’s more nationalist than universalist…
At the same time, much important information relevant to American political debates comes from foreign citizens. Some are people living in the U.S. on temporary work or student visas. Many are in foreign countries; they could be ordinary citizens, political activists, scholars, or politicians. They may be able to convey important facts and ideas about the effects of American foreign policy; or about American actions bearing on world problems (such as climate change or telecommunications technology or artificial intelligence or food production); or about foreign problems that might call for American help.
The Atlantic: Free Speech for Me but Not for Thee
By David French
The American right has lost the plot on free speech. The passage of Florida’s House Bill 1557, which bans “classroom instruction” on “sexual orientation and gender identity” in kindergarten through third grade and in a manner that isn’t “age appropriate or developmentally appropriate” in all grades, K–12, is merely the latest in a string of what the free-speech-advocacy organization PEN America has called “education gag orders” that have been proposed by Republicans and passed by red-state legislatures from coast to coast.
As the Republican Party evolves from a party focused on individual liberty and limits on government power to a party that more fully embraces government control of the economy and morality, it is reversing many of its previous stances on free speech in public universities, in public education, and in private corporations. Driven by a combination of partisan animosity and public fear, it is embracing the tactics that it once opposed.
AZCentral: Why silencing speech, even hurtful speech, makes us more intolerant
By Jacob Mchangama
[T]he long and seesawing history of free speech demonstrates clearly that free speech depends as much on a civic culture of tolerance as on legal protection. Moreover, the historical record shows that free speech is among the most potent weapons of the oppressed and marginalized, whereas censorship and repression – official and informal – has ever been the instrument of oppressors and supremacists.
The Atlantic: Obama: I Underestimated the Threat of Disinformation
By Jacob Stern
When they last sat down for an interview, in November 2020, Barack Obama told Atlantic editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg that disinformation is “the single biggest threat to our democracy.” The threat was not a new one, he said, but it was accelerating. It has continued to accelerate since…Yesterday, at Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy, a conference hosted by The Atlantic and the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics, Obama and Goldberg spoke once again about the threat of disinformation and what we can do to stop it. Their conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and concision. It can be heard on an episode of the podcast Radio Atlantic here:
Online Speech Platforms
New York Times: Elon Musk Will Not Join Twitter’s Board, Company Says
By Mike Isaac
On Tuesday, Twitter announced that the billionaire would be appointed to its 11-person board for a term that expires in 2024. The invitation to join the board followed Mr. Musk’s accumulating a 9.2 percent stake in the company, making him its largest shareholder.
But Parag Agrawal, Twitter’s chief executive, tweeted late Sunday that the situation had changed. On Saturday morning, Mr. Musk — who is a heavy Twitter user with more than 81 million followers — told the company he would no longer become a board member, Mr. Agrawal said…
No reason was given for the reversal. But Mr. Musk had been tweeting erratically throughout the weekend, polling his followers with barbed questions about the future of the social media company…
By not joining Twitter’s board, Mr. Musk will also no longer be bound by a previous agreement he had signed with the company. Under a “standstill” agreement last week, he had pledged not to purchase more than 14.9 percent of Twitter’s stock and not to take over the company. That suggests Mr. Musk could now keep adding to his stake in the company.
The States
State Journal-Register: After partisan fight, lawmakers approve bill limiting donations in judicial elections
By Andrew Adams
The proposal, House Bill 716, was introduced by Senate President Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, on Wednesday. It passed the Senate on a party-line 40-18 vote Thursday afternoon, with the House approving it on a 71-43 vote Friday evening.
The bill lays out three attempts to reform judicial elections in Illinois.
The first is to form a task force to study the feasibility of implementing public financing of campaigns…
Harmon’s bill also caps the contributions from individuals if a judicial candidate is self-funded…
Finally, the bill introduces a new $500,000 limit on donations to independent campaign committees.
Chicago Sun-Times: Gov. Pritzker’s camp grapples with Dem Party Chair Rep. Kelly: Coordinated campaign an issue
By Lynn Sweet
Accounts of what happened at that meeting vary regarding the views of Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s political team on the role of Democratic Party of Illinois Chair Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Ill., on the coordinated campaign…
The Pritzker team — in 2021 and now — continues to have fundamental reservations about the role Kelly can play because, as a federally elected official, she is subject to strict fundraising rules and contribution caps that restrict her ability when it comes to raising and spending funds for non-federal candidates.
Kelly’s allies said they have devised — using Federal Election Commission legal guidance they requested — various ways for Kelly to function as state chair while avoiding legal problems. They also say this is about Pritzker’s camp wanting to relitigate the DPI contest they lost.
