We’re Hiring!
Summer Associate Legal Fellowship
The Institute for Free Speech Summer Associate Legal Fellowship is a unique opportunity for law students to explore a career in public interest and First Amendment law. The program is open to students who will finish their first or second year of law school by the summer of 2021.
Fellows are expected to work full time for 10 weeks in our Washington, D.C. area headquarters, but other arrangements may be available to especially outstanding candidates. In light of the ongoing pandemic, the possibility remains that fellows will work remotely for some or all of the summer fellowship.
Fellows are eligible to earn $10,000 in salary for their 10 weeks of employment.
During the fellowship, students will work with Institute for Free Speech attorneys for a portion of their time. Each fellow will also be expected to complete a project. Applicants are encouraged to be creative in suggesting a project as part of their application. While many projects may produce papers suitable for publication, we will consider any project related to protecting or advancing First Amendment rights.
Congress
Bloomberg Tax: Democrats Ask Treasury To Probe Non-Profits Tied to Capitol Riot
By Laura Davison
Democratic members of the House Ways and Means Committee are asking Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to look into tax-exempt organizations that helped organize the protest-turned-violent-attack on Capitol Hill last week.
- While the exact role these organizations played is yet unknown, “the insurrectionist activities witnessed last week, and the loss of life incident to these activities, are wholly contrary to any permissible tax-exempt purpose,” said lawmakers in a letter sent to Mnuchin on Wednesday.
- Separately, the lawmakers ask the agency to issue guidance clarifying what activities are permissible and whether any actions or investigations may be appropriate.
The Hill: House Democrats reintroduce bill to reduce lobbyist influence
By Alex Gangitano
Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) and Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), the chairwoman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, have reintroduced a bill to reduce the influence of lobbyists and to close the so-called revolving door.
The bill, the Executive Branch Conflict of Interest Act, was first introduced by the late Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) in 2019. The bill would ban companies from making “golden parachute” payments that reward former employees for joining the government and strengthen recusal requirements to stop senior government officials from acting in ways that benefit former employers or clients.
The bill was included in H.R. 1, the Democrats’ wide-ranging bill that passed the House in March but was not taken up in the Senate. Gomez introduced it again in May.
It would also strengthen restrictions prohibiting former federal officials from joining a private sector contracting firm after participating in awarding a contract to that company and prohibit senior government officials from lobbying the agencies they worked for once they leave for two years. Restrictions are currently in place for one year.
Free Speech
FIRE: So to Speak podcast: Free speech after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot
By Nico Perrino
On today’s episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, we are joined by Reason Magazine Senior Editor Robby Soave and FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff to discuss the Washington, DC Capitol riot of Jan. 6, 2021 and the effect it has had – and will have – on free speech, particularly speech on the internet.
The Hill: Abandoning free expression won’t solve America’s problems
By Jeffrey M. McCall
Political speech is by nature raucous, fact-challenged and bare knuckled. The nation should not fear the rough and tumble. Political arguments have to be tested if they are ever going to be accepted through debate rather than force. Silencing people removes the test by rhetoric. American civilization hinges on deciding things through debate and public deliberation. When those rhetorical processes are limited or choked off, less desirable options for engagement enter the arena. Citizens who are made to think they have been excluded from the rhetorical sphere will not just go away.
Online Speech Platforms
New York Times: Google bans political ads until the inauguration.
By Daisuke Wakabayashi
Google said it would not allow political ads on its platforms until after Inauguration Day because of last week’s violent uprising at the Capitol.
In a letter to advertisers on Wednesday, the company said the suspension covered any ads that referred to candidates, the election or its outcome, the upcoming presidential inauguration, the impeachment process, the Capitol riots, or planned protests about any of these subjects. There will not be exceptions for news or merchandise advertisers.
The pause will go into effect on Thursday and extend until at least Jan. 21. Google is the biggest seller of advertising on the internet. In addition to displaying advertising on its own services, such as its search engine and YouTube, it runs a powerhouse ad platform and exchange relied on by other websites and publishers.
Axios: Snapchat will permanently ban Trump’s account
By Sara Fischer
Snapchat will permanently ban President Trump’s account on Jan. 20, Axios has learned, after locking it indefinitely last week following the Capitol siege…
“In the interest of public safety, and based on his attempts to spread misinformation, hate speech, and incite violence, which are clear violations of our guidelines, we have made the decision to permanently terminate his account,”[a spokesperson said.]
The Hill: Twitter CEO says platform ‘faced extraordinary and untenable circumstance’ before banning Trump
By Jordan Williams
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said Wednesday that the social media platform faced an “extraordinary and untenable circumstance” before banning President Trump…
The company made the decision, which has since become controversial, after it determined that his posts posed “the risk of further incitement of violence.”
In a lengthy Twitter thread on Wednesday, Dorsey said the platform “faced an extraordinary and untenable circumstance, forcing us to focus all of our actions on public safety. Offline harm as a result of online speech is demonstrably real, and what drives our policy and enforcement above all.”
Dorsey recognized, however, that having to ban an account has “real and significant ramifications,” adding that doing so is a “failure of ours ultimately to promote healthy conversation. And a time for us to reflect on our operations and the environment around us.”
Dorsey also noted that in the long-term, the actions of Twitter and other companies would be “destructive to the noble purpose and ideals of the open internet.”
Protocol: We need Section 230 now more than ever
By Berin Szóka
Many conservatives are outraged that Twitter has banned President Trump, calling it “censorship” and solemnly invoking the First Amendment. In fact, the First Amendment gives Twitter an absolute right to ban Trump…
The law here is clear. In 1974, the Supreme Court said newspapers can’t be forced to carry specific content in the name of “fairness,” despite the alleged consolidation of “the power to inform the American people and shape public opinion.” …
Republicans battled the Fairness Doctrine for decades, and for good reason: The Kennedy and Johnson administrations really did weaponize the FCC to keep conservatives off the airwaves. Republicans’ 2016 platform (recycled for 2020) blasted the (by then, long-dead) Fairness Doctrine, demanding “free-market approaches to free speech unregulated by government.”
Sadly, most elected Republicans have since abandoned those free market principles as they have increasingly come to see themselves as the victims of censorship by Big Tech.
Biden Transition
The Hill: Misinformation fueled the Capitol riots – a Biden commission could chart a path forward
By Bill Adair and Philip M. Napoli
In his first week in office, President-elect Biden should announce a bipartisan commission to investigate the problem of misinformation and make recommendations about how to address it. The commission should take a broad approach and consider all possible solutions: incentives, voluntary industry reforms, education, regulations and new laws.
CNS News: Biden Wants To Amend Constitution To Limit Political Speech
By Terence P. Jeffrey
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos – whom National Public Radio called in December “by far the wealthiest person on the planet” – used a small sliver of his vast fortune in 2013 to buy The Washington Post.
In 2020, this newspaper endorsed Joe Biden for president.
“Mr. Biden’s competence and honor are more important in this cycle than any particular stand on any particular issue,” the Bezos paper said in a Sept. 28 editorial.
Did it have a right to make this endorsement?
The First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Therefore, the answer is yes.
But under a constitutional amendment Biden is proposing, the question could become: How much, if anything, could the Bezos paper – or any other organization – spend on speech that is for or against a politician?
Candidates and Campaigns
New York Times: ‘An Epiphany Moment’ for Corporate Political Donors May Have Arrived
By Andrew Ross Sorkin
The companies speaking out in recent days – American Express, Facebook, Marriott and Morgan Stanley, to name a few more – may deserve credit for pulling back from political donations amid accusations that some funded sedition. A genuine example of leadership would be to go even further and declare that they will get out of the business of political donations completely.
“This could be an epiphany moment” for corporate chiefs, said Bruce F. Freed, the president of the Center for Political Accountability, a nonpartisan organization that tracks political spending. “How should they engage in the political process? What do they get out of political spending? They have to take a look at the cost. Today the costs have gone way up.”
At IBM, the [longtime] ban on donations to candidates hasn’t prevented it from having a seat at the table in Washington…“I don’t believe it puts us at a disadvantage,” IBM’s current chief executive, Arvind Krishna, told me. “I think it’s actually done us a service,” he said, because the company isn’t seen as partisan or buying access…
“You’re doing business in their localities, states, cities, neighborhoods,” he said. “The people you’re hiring are in their localities, states, cities, neighborhoods. Hopefully all of that has an impact. Maybe I’m an optimist, but I hope all those things that impact them matter more that millions of dollars from a PAC.”
And he made an important point about government regulations: A company’s political donations can’t necessarily buy its way out from under them. A year before the U.S. government brought an antitrust case against IBM in 1975, the government brought a case against AT&T that led to its breakup into seven Baby Bells.
“I believe they used to spend a fair amount of money on politics,” Mr. Krishna said.
Center for Responsive Politics: Big tech employees rally behind Biden campaign
By Krystal Hur
Employees at big tech companies, including Google parent Alphabet and Facebook, funneled millions of dollars into Democrats’ campaigns during the 2020 election cycle – a move that could pay off for conglomerates hoping to stymie the implementation of internet regulation…
Erik Gordon, a professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, said that while the Biden administration and new Congress won’t be completely “lax” with big tech firms, they will likely drag their heels over instituting big tech regulation so as to not alienate their biggest donors.
“The classic move is you slow stuff down, maybe you’ll hold the hearings later but you have people working on reports,” Gordon said. “And you hope something else moves into the news cycle so that slowing it down can mean you never get to it.”
The States
Sacramento Bee: After anonymous donation to Newsom recall, Democrat revives campaign finance proposal
By Lara Korte
A California Democrat is reviving his effort to force more large political contributors to disclose their identities after an Orange County investor kicked in $500,000 to a campaign seeking to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom and remained anonymous for weeks.
Assembly Bill 236, introduced by Assemblyman Marc Berman, D-Menlo Park, would require limited liability companies, or LLCs to disclose their sources of funding in the event the LLC contributes $50,000 or more to political campaigns in the state in a given year, or a total of $100,000 in four consecutive years.
The bill would effectively require companies to “pierce the corporate veil” and identify funders and investors who contributed more than $1,000 to the LLC in a given year and whose monies were used in political donations, Berman said.
Under California law, an LLC can make campaign contributions or expenditures in the name of the LLC without disclosing any information about the source of the funds expended by the LLC or the individuals responsible for operating the LLC. Berman, chair of the Assembly Committee on Elections, introduced a similar bill last year, but it was shelved.
“The bill is closing a pretty glaring loophole that currently exists in the law that does allow people to… hide their involvement,” he told The Sacramento Bee.
