In the News
Patriot Post: In Brief: Dems’ Anti-Voter Voting Bill
Nathan Maxwell at the Institute for Free Speech opens up another can of worms from [the Freedom to Vote Act] — its assault on free speech…
As usual, a bill this size has a lot of stuff in it that’s not related to the subject supposedly at hand.
“Instead, it’s devoted to producing politicians who are insulated from their critics and less responsive to their communities. Public communications that so much as mention a candidate, including nearly all elected officials, would be susceptible to regulation as campaign ads for more than 10 months out of any election year. That will prevent many nonprofit and community organizations from speaking out about key legislation or galvanizing the public to do the same. How is this better for democracy?”
Furthermore, the bill regulates online communication, political ads on web platforms, lobbyist groups, and so on. There are “bureaucratic investigations and debilitating fines” for unapproved speech, and a newly empowered Federal Election Commission “speech czar who will dictate many enforcement actions.” Obviously, says Maxwell, “The result would be censorship.” …
New from the Institute for Free Speech
This “Free Speech Week,” Senate Dems Vote for Political Speech Restrictions
By Nathan Maxwell
Some federal lawmakers have stopped at nothing this year to advance their bundle of political speech restrictions, first as H.R. 1/S. 1 (the “For the People Act”) and now as S. 2747, the so-called “Freedom to Vote Act.” When it fails, it’s reintroduced. When it’s criticized, it undergoes a superficial compromise. And when it’s Free Speech Week, it gets every Democratic vote in the United States Senate.*
Thanks to unanimous opposition from Senate Republicans, the measure failed to advance Wednesday, once again frustrating its direct attacks on free political speech. The bill’s “Honest Ads Act” is one such attack. Grassroots organizations and advocacy groups that rely on cost-effective internet communication would be harmed the most. Internet platforms hosting ads about legislation or political issues would have to maintain public databases detailing granular information about the ads, their reach, and their sponsors for any group or person spending over $500. It’s not an effort to rein in stray campaign speech, which is already aggressively regulated. The bill’s vague language would apply to issue ads that don’t mention a candidate at all. Any ad concerning a “national legislative issue of public importance” (an undefined term in the bill) will suffice. The increased cost and new liabilities for hosting such messages would discourage many internet companies from running them at all, and the result will be a much less vibrant political discourse online.
Supreme Court
New York Times: The Supreme Court Faces a Huge Test on Libel Law
By Floyd Abrams
Next Friday, the United States Supreme Court is scheduled to meet to consider whether to hear appeals from two libel cases in which the plaintiffs seek to persuade the justices to reconsider the single greatest First Amendment victory for the press in American history.
Two of the court’s justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, already have expressed a readiness to do just that, a disturbing turn that could weaken speech protections and threaten the country’s free and robust press.
Their focus is the court’s unanimous 1964 decision in the case of New York Times v. Sullivan, won by the paper in the midst of the civil rights revolution…
For news organizations, the threat the case presented was not only sizable if not crippling libel judgments. It was also that such a result would deter reporting critical of government and public officials.
Congress
Politico: Senate Dems hunt for new elections reform strategy after failed vote
By Marianne Levine and Zach Montellaro
Senate Democrats are searching for an elusive plan C on elections and ethics reform after facing yet another setback Wednesday.
In a 49-51 vote, the Senate failed to move forward on Democrats’ latest elections reform bill, which amounted to an intraparty compromise between Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and a group of seven Democratic senators. While Manchin spent weeks seeking GOP input, in the end no Republicans voted to begin consideration of the legislation, effectively killing the bill in the Senate…
“There are two possible next steps: one is negotiations, for the Republicans to say OK, here’s what we’ll go along with, here’s what we need, here’s what we want,” said Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who helped negotiate the intraparty compromise. “The other is to modify the rules in such a way that we can pass the bill.”
Wall Street Journal: Merrick Garland Gets Schooled
By The Editorial Board
Merrick Garland told Congress Thursday why he recently ordered the FBI and U.S. Attorneys to look into threats or violence against local school boards and school officials. Readers can decide if they believe him.
The Attorney General stated categorically that he “can’t imagine any circumstance in which the Patriot Act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children.” He further declared: “I do not believe that parents who testify, speak, argue with, complain about school boards and schools should be classified as domestic terrorists or any kind of criminals.”
That’s good to hear…
But his memo, with the reminder that the FBI will be watching, is bound to have a chilling effect. The AG would do better to withdraw his letter so his agents can pursue real offenders.
Wall Street Journal: Biden Signals Openness to Ending Filibuster on Some Issues
By Andrew Restuccia and Sabrina Siddiqui
President Biden signaled he is open to doing away with the filibuster to pass legislation to overhaul election rules nationwide and may be amenable to eliminating the 60-vote threshold for other bills as well.
Asked if he would consider establishing a filibuster carve-out to advance voting legislation, Mr. Biden said during a CNN town hall on Thursday night: “And maybe more.” …
Liberal activists have urged the president to come out in favor of eliminating the filibuster to pass the bill, arguing that doing so would put pressure on Democratic lawmakers to support the effort. Rep. Jim Clyburn (D., S.C.), a key ally of Mr. Biden’s, has also called for a filibuster carve-out for voting rights. But several moderate Democrats have defended the filibuster, resisting calls for a limited revocation of the procedure for high-priority bills.
FEC
PJ Media: FEC Complaint Seeks to Force Joe Biden to Officially Confirm He Is Running in 2024
By Stacey Lennox
The Committee to Defeat the President, the nation’s leading anti-Biden super PAC, has filed an official complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that President Joe Biden broke the law by illegally raising and spending millions in post-election campaign funds. On Monday, the FEC officially opened an investigation into the complaint.
Online Speech Platforms
Deadline: Trump Says He’s Launching His Own Social Media Network Called Truth Social
By Ted Johnson
Donald Trump said that he’s launching a new social media service, Truth Social, through a newly formed company called Trump Media and Technology Corp.
Truth Social will have a nationwide rollout in the first quarter of 2022, with a beta launch next month, according to a press release…
According to the announcement, the company’s mission is to “create a rival to the liberal media consortium and fight back against the Big Tech companies of Silicon Valley, which have used their unilateral power to silence opposing voices in America.” …
Users also have to agree not to “disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site.”
Wall Street Journal: Facebook Is Rebuked by Oversight Board Over Transparency on Treatment of Prominent Users
By Sam Schechner
Facebook Inc.’s oversight board said the company hadn’t been forthcoming about how it exempts high-profile users from its rules and said it is drafting recommendations for how to overhaul the system, following a Wall Street Journal investigation into the practice.
In a report released Thursday, the oversight board said Facebook had repeatedly failed to turn over, or provided incomplete, information about how it treats content from large numbers of prominent users. It made calls using a separate set of rules—different from those applied to regular users and known internally as “cross-check,” or “XCheck.” It was also referred to as “whitelisting,” the Journal previously reported.
The board, which Facebook created to provide guidance about the company’s enforcement systems and make binding decisions about specific enforcement actions, said the company had failed to mention XCheck when it referred its decision to ban former President Donald Trump from the platform to the board this spring. The company only gave limited detail when asked directly about it by the board. Facebook’s public disclosures about the program made at the board’s recommendation at the time were insufficient, the board said.
Political Groups
Puck: The $100 Million Plan to Completely Fix Washington
By Theodore Schleifer
One afternoon earlier this month, a source sent me a note on Signal asking an unexpected question. They wanted my take on an invitation they had received to meet with a political group that had a name so inscrutable that it sounded like a new moonshot from Google X: The Institute for Political Innovation. Had I heard of it? I cover the world of Silicon Valley fundraising pretty closely, but no, I apparently was not read in on the Peninsula’s latest, greatest innovation. I’d figure it out and get back to him. After all, with a name like that, how lame could this be?
But the group, whose strategy hasn’t been reported, is one of the most ambitious, if quixotic, political attempts to come through Silicon Valley—a Grand Unified Theory to fix everything that is wrong with American politics. With heavyweight co-chairs including Reid Hoffman and the Sobrato family, the billionaire real estate dynasty, the Institute has all the right connections as it sets out to raise $100 million over the next year to run ballot initiatives and legislative campaigns in up to a dozen states across the country. Next week, the group will be introduced at a private event to some of Silicon Valley’s biggest donors…
The animating idea of I.P.I. is that the American election system is broken. States and congressional districts over-produce extreme general-election candidates, I.P.I contends, because of flaws within the party primary system, which encourages hopefuls to appeal to their party’s fringes to capture nominations. Instead, these reformers want states to ditch party primaries and allow the five most popular candidates in an open contest to appear on a general-election ballot, and then to use ranked-choice voting to determine which of them has the broadest support…
The States
Los Angeles Times: California sets new rules for mystery donations made on behalf of lawmakers
By Melody Gutierrez
California regulators approved new transparency requirements Thursday for charitable contributions made on behalf of politicians with whom the donors may be trying to curry favor, an attempt to reveal wealthy donors who hide behind anonymous accounts.
The change comes after the Los Angeles Times revealed the little-known practice of unidentified donors routing charitable contributions through accounts that shield their identity, including $1 million given last year on behalf of Gov. Gavin Newsom and a $3-million donation requested by Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti.
California law requires that charitable donations of $5,000 or more requested by elected officials or their representatives — a practice known as “behested payments” — be disclosed to limit undue influence in government. However, the identities of those who use so-called donor-advised funds to make those payments are often shielded in state and local disclosure filings. The contributions are instead attributed to the nonprofit foundations and for-profit investment firms where the accounts were held.
That practice alarmed ethics watchdogs who said the maneuver allows the actual donors to skirt state laws intended to make their identities public.
Pasadena Now: School Board Member Sues PUSD Over First Amendment Rights
PUSD Board Member Tina Fredericks filed a lawsuit on Wednesday seeking to invalidate four board protocols on the ground that they violate the PUSD Board Members’ free speech, free petition, and free press rights.
The four board Protocols in question require board members to submit opinion pieces to the Superintendent and Board President before their publication, prohibit Board Members from collaborating on opinion pieces without approval of the full board, and restrict what board members may say in opinion pieces about other board members.
“I am having to protect the outside expressive rights of all board members,” Fredericks said. “The controversy has arisen because I wrote op-eds supporting a COVID vaccine mandate without clearing them with the Superintendent and the President – both of whom have refused to support a vaccine mandate, because l have appeared at a press conference with Pasadena Mayor Victor Gordo urging that PUSD adopt a vaccine mandate, and because I have solicited support for a vaccine mandate through a petition from PUSD residents But what is at stake is the right of all Board members to communicate to the public on important issues without restriction. If my rights can be restricted today, then every Board Members’ rights can be restricted tomorrow.”
