Free Speech
Reason: Government Will Protect Us From Bad Speech? That’s the Fakest News of All.
By J.D. Tuccille
The folks from the government are here to protect us from extremism, fake news, and hate speech, and they’ve strong-armed some media company friends to help.
“Twitter is sending out messages to people telling them that, for their own good, they are documenting that the user has either followed, cited or re-tweeted an account Twitter decided is linked to Russia & its propaganda efforts,” journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted over the weekend. “That’s not creepy at all.”
The thread to which Greenwald linked featured an example of such an email, which is connected to Twitter’s promise last fall to the U.S. Congress to cooperate “with congressional investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” The company was caught up in the frenzy in Washington, D.C. to pin the country’s political turmoil not on angry Americans, but rather on Russia’s clumsy, low-rent news-spinning through social media.
“As previously announced,” Twitter notes on its blog, “we identified and suspended a number of accounts that were potentially connected to a propaganda effort by a Russian government-linked organization… Consistent with our commitment to transparency, we are emailing notifications to 677,775 people in the United States who followed one of these accounts or retweeted or liked a Tweet from these accounts during the election period.”
Supreme Court
SCOTUSblog: Symposium: Nothing undignified about political messaging – in America, we call that democracy
By Rodney Smolla
The Supreme Court should strike down the Minnesota statute at issue in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky. The law provides, “A political badge, political button, or other political insignia may not be worn at or about the polling place on primary or election day.” The sweep of the statute is breathtaking, encompassing virtually all political messages. It precludes not only direct advocacy of a candidate’s election, but even the communication of an ideological message, such as “Please I.D. Me” buttons, or promotion of the identity of groups with recognizable political views…
There are plenty of laws on the books to preserve order, or to prevent voter intimidation or fraud. The First Amendment poses no bar to their enforcement. But Americans voters are not so squeamish, frail or fragile as to be intimidated or defrauded by a fellow voter’s T-shirt or button. Nor are they so hot-tempered that they will be reflexively driven to fisticuffs or undignified outbursts at the mere sight of the very opposing views to which they have been unrelentingly exposed in the weeks and hours and minutes leading up to their vote.
My instinct is that most Americans, unschooled in constitutional law and its myriad multi-part tests, but amply educated with street smarts, would assess the Minnesota restriction as somewhere between uncommonly silly and unaccountably stupid.
The Courts
Washington Times: Trump releases 10th round of judicial nominees
By Alex Swoyer
President Trump announced Tuesday his intent to nominate 12 federal judges, his 10th round of judicial nominations since he took office one year ago and faced an unprecedented amount of vacancies on the federal bench.
His list Tuesday included one circuit court pick, attorney John B. Nalbandianfor the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as eight district court nominees.
The announcement also comes less than a week after the Senate Judiciary Committee cleared 17 judicial nominees, setting them up for a confirmation vote on the Senate floor.
In his first 12 months in office, Mr. Trump had 20 federal judges confirmed, outpacing President Obama, who only had 14 judges confirmed during his first year.
The Media
Washington Post: Americans and the Media: Sorting Fact from Fake News
On Tuesday, January 23, The Washington Post brought together top journalists, scholars and thought leaders to discuss how Americans view the media’s role in our modern democracy.
The program built upon a survey of more than 19,000 adults in the United States, conducted by Gallup, Inc. and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, that reveals the most comprehensive picture to date of Americans’ usage and attitudes toward the media. The program explored what makes people trust some news sources over others, the debate about regulating digital and social media platforms, and whether the concept of a neutral press can survive in an era of hyper-partisanship.
BuzzFeed News: This Is Facebook’s News Survey
By Alex Kantrowitz
Last week, Facebook said its News Feed would prioritize links from publications its users deemed “trustworthy” in an upcoming survey. Turns out that survey isn’t a particularly lengthy or nuanced one. In fact, it’s just two questions.
Here is Facebook’s survey – in its entirety:
Do you recognize the following websites?
Yes
No
How much do you trust each of these domains?
Entirely
A lot
Somewhat
Barely
Not at all
A Facebook spokesperson confirmed this as the only version of the survey in use. They also confirmed that the questions were prepared by the company itself and not by an outside party.
Facebook is overhauling its News Feed amid ongoing criticism of its platform, which has come under fire for enabling foreign manipulation of US elections, giving rise to fake news, and making people feel bad.
The States
Washington State Wire: Campaign Finance Bill Shouldn’t Undermine Anonymous Philanthropy
By Sean Parnell
America has a rich tradition and culture of philanthropic giving, which helps to explain why charitable giving in our nation far exceeds that of any other country. A key part of that culture of philanthropy has been allowing donors to decide for themselves whether to publicize their giving or keep it private. Unfortunately, the state legislature is currently considering campaign finance legislation that would not only undermine this bedrock principle but would also jeopardize important First Amendment rights…
A bill known as the Washington State Disclose Act of 2018 would force nonprofits to reveal their donors if they even mention a candidate’s name in many of their communications, such as newsletters or fundraising appeals. This would include a 501(c)3 charity that is not at all attempting to influence an election (charities are in fact prohibited by the federal tax code from intervening in candidate elections), but is simply communicating with donors, clients, or the public on policy or legislative matters.
The Columbian: Local Democratic PAC plans to disband after complaints
By Jake Thomas
According to a statement from the party, though, the political action committee affiliated with the party called the 49th Legislative District Democrats has decided to formally deregister.
The statement blames the decision to deregister on Morgan, a Thurston County resident who serves as the executive director of the Citizens Alliance for Property Rights, who last year filed a lawsuit and complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission, the state’s election monitor, alleging that the committee failed to properly report its finances.
The statement accuses Morgan of having “weaponized Washington’s well-intended but seriously flawed” campaign finance law. It also says that volunteer-run political committees, such as the 49th Legislative District Democrats, “have found it impossible to operate without being repeatedly accused of having failed to comply with all of the requirements of the law.”
Concord Monitor: Empower voters through ‘Civic Dollars’
By Olivia Zink
The Legislature is currently considering a bipartisan solution, House Bill 1773, which would dilute the power of wealthy donors by strengthening the voices of all voters. In election years, we registered voters would get four $25 certificates apiece to donate to participating candidates of our choice. To participate, candidates would have to agree not to accept large donations, and face penalties if they did. Civic Dollars would focus candidates for governor, state Senate and Executive Council on the needs of everyday people rather than the wishes of wealthy donors.
Washington Post: Fledgling effort to regulate dark money starts in New Mexico
By Morgan Lee, Associated Press
New Mexico lawmakers are considering a non-binding resolution called a “memorial” to urge Congress to restore greater federal and local regulation of political spending that influences elections and governance…
The effort seeks to reverse Supreme Court actions including the 2010 Citizens United decision that cleared the way for unlimited independent elections spending…
Memorials do not require the governor’s signature. Republican New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez last year vetoed state campaign finance disclosure rules that came under criticism as an infringement on free speech from several conservative-backed groups.
The newly proposed memorial includes brief instructions for separating political spending from free speech guarantees…
Heather Ferguson, legislative director of the New Mexico chapter of the watchdog group Common Cause, noted that New Mexico and at least 19 other states already have asked Congress to overturn the Citizens United decision. The new initiative aims to start from scratch with specific, uniform instructions, she said.
“This takes it that one step further,” Ferguson said. “Here is not only a request but also a directive on how to do it.”
Courthouse News: Wisconsin Senate Votes Out Ethics, Elections Chiefs
By Emily Zantow
Wisconsin state senators voted 18-13 along party lines Tuesday to reject confirmation of the heads of the state’s ethics and elections commissions because of their connection to an investigation into Republican Governor Scott Walker’s campaign.
Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said he did not have confidence in Ethics Commission administrator Brian Bell and Elections Commission administrator Michael Haas’ ability to be nonpartisan in the posts they’ve held since 2016.
Bell and Haas were accusing of being involved in leaking secret material to British newspaper The Guardian from the 2012 John Doe investigations into alleged campaign-finance violations by Republican Governor Scott Walker and conservative groups. The investigations were led by prosecutors and the state’s now-disbanded Government Accountability Board, which Bell and Haas served on.
In 2015, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the John Doe probes were unfounded and ended the investigations, which drove Walker and other Republicans to get rid of the accountability board and replace it with an ethics commission and an elections commission. Both bodies consist of three Republicans and three Democrats.
Portland Press Herald: Maine Democrats file ethics complaint accusing Republicans of spreading ‘fake news’
By Steve Collins
The Maine Democratic Party filed an ethics complaint Tuesday accusing the state’s Republican Party of working hand-in-hand to spread bogus claims through a secretive website masquerading as a news organization.
Democrats asked Maine’s ethics commission to investigate possible campaign finance violations by the Maine Examiner and Maine’s Republican Party in their publication of “fake news stories” about Lewiston mayoral candidate Ben Chin before December’s runoff election.
“To put it plainly, this is the worst of politics: pushing misleading or outright false claims while hiding behind the safety of anonymity,” Maine Democratic Party Chairman Phil Bartlett said in a prepared statement.
Bartlett said the Republican Party “decries fake news, but then happily turns around and peddles it to achieve their political goals” by spreading tales from the online Maine Examiner, which provides no information about its ownership or leadership.
U.S. News & World Report: SOS: New Mexico Lawmakers’ ‘Donate’ Button on Websites Legal
By Associated Press
New Mexico state lawmakers aren’t supposed to raise money or campaign while they are in Legislative Session.
But the New Mexico Secretary of State’s Office said this week nothing in the state’s campaign finance laws prevents them from having a “donate” button on their campaign websites.
New Mexico Secretary of State spokesman Joey Keefe says the state law doesn’t bar state lawmakers from having the “donate” button where supporters can actively give money to a campaign. But he says those lawmakers can’t send out emails asking people to visit their websites to donate.
Keefe says Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver encourages state lawmakers to remove the donate buttons as a “best practice.”
A number of state lawmakers are running for other offices.
Detroit News: Community college agrees to resolve free speech lawsuit
By Associated Press
A Michigan college says it has reached an agreement to resolve a federal lawsuit filed by three people arrested while distributing copies of the U.S. Constitution outside a campus building.
Kellogg Community College in Battle Creek says Tuesday that it has agreed to a financial settlement. Monetary figures were not released.
The plaintiffs said they were arrested in 2016 while talking to students. The prosecutor dropped the case.
Their lawsuit accused the school of violating free speech rights and other protections. A group called Young Americans for Liberty also was a plaintiff.
The school says they were arrested for trespassing and attempting to recruit students for Young Americans for Liberty.
The school says the policy at that time required prior approval of such solicitation by the Office of Student Life.
Lynchburg News & Advance: Corporate Money and State Politics
By Editorial Board
Though they are few in number, the message of the People’s Caucus in the Virginia House of Delegates is one that resonates with many voters these days.
Comproised of three newly elected delegates and one veteran delegate (Sam Rasoul of Roanoke), their goal is simple one: Get corporate money out of state politics and put government on the side of average, everyday Virginians. They’ve agreed to vote as a bloc on campaign finance reform and consumer protection bills and will not take any contributions from public-service corporations – think Dominion Energy, American Electric Power, Comcast, Verizon and the like. A political action committee they’ve formed won’t accept any contributions from corporate donors, only from individuals…
Typical of the “You’ve got to start somewhere” approach caucus members have taken is their support of Senate Bill 10, introduced by Sen. Chap Petersen, D-Fairfax. The bill would have prohibit any candidate for state office or campaign committee from accepting donations from public-service corporations. SB10, however, met the fate of many campaign reform bills – on Jan. 16, the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee tabled it indefinitely, all but killing it for this session. Both Republican and Democratic senators joined ranks to kill the proposal.
