In the News

Washington Examiner: Campaign finance limits take choices from voters

By David Keating

It happens every presidential election. A promising candidate joins the race, makes a splash, and surges in the polls. But they can’t sustain the momentum, and their popularity dips. With diminished media exposure, fundraising stalls and the campaign shuts down. All before a single vote has been cast.

Sen. Kamala Harris of California is the latest candidate to suffer from our misguided campaign finance laws. She ended her campaign for president on Dec. 3. “Ms. Harris said she would have needed to raise $5 million in two weeks,” the New York Times reported, “a goal she described as impossible…

While she was lamenting the inability to raise that much money now, consider what happened 52 years ago before contribution limits were imposed.

Sen. Eugene McCarthy, a Democrat from Minnesota, entered the race for president in November 1967, considered impossibly late today, and against an incumbent president in the Democratic primary. He raised about $10 million in today’s dollars from a handful of donors who opposed Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War. Thanks to that support, McCarthy quickly built a campaign. He capitalized on growing anti-war and anti-Johnson sentiments and performed so strongly in March’s New Hampshire Democratic primary that Johnson withdrew from the campaign.

No one has forced an incumbent president from the race since then.

Unfortunately for Harris, she can’t restart her campaign by raising money like McCarthy did and letting Democratic voters decide who they want as their nominee. Political campaigns are famous for the large amounts of money needed to advertise to the millions who vote in presidential elections. 

Supreme Court

Washington Legal Foundation: Delaware’s Judiciary In the U.S. Supreme Court

By Stephen M. Bainbridge

Delaware’s state constitution imposes two unique requirements on the state judiciary that differentiates its courts from those of all other states. Under the bare majority rule, no more than half of the total number of the members of the state Supreme and Superior courts and the Chancery Court can be from the same political party (50 percent plus one if there is an odd number of judges). Under the major party rule, those judges must be from a “major” political party.

James R. Adams is a Delaware lawyer who has been frustrated in his search for a Delaware judicial position because he is a political independent. Adams sued Delaware Governor Carney in federal court seeking to have the Delaware provisions declared unconstitutional. Delaware argued that Adams lacked standing and, in the alternative, that the judicial-selection provisions fell within the policymaker exception to the First Amendment’s ban on conditioning state government positions on membership in a specific political party. The district court ruled for Adams on both grounds.

On appeal, the Third Circuit held that Adams had sufficiently pled Article III standing. As to the merits, the Third Circuit addressed solely the major party rule. The court nevertheless struck down both it and the bare majority rule on grounds that the latter was not severable from the former.

Delaware’s filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review solely of the Third Circuit’s decision on the merits. In granting the state’s petition, however, the Supreme Court required the parties to also address the question of Adams’ standing.

The Courts

Reason (The Volokh Conspiracy): Judge Willett’s Change of Heart

By Jonathan H. Adler

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a revised opinion in Doe v. Mckesson, a tort suit against activist Deray Mckesson for allegedly inspiring protests that turned violent. The Fifth Circuit is allowing the suit to proceed, but Judge Don Willett has come to believe his colleagues are insufficiently sensitive [to] the First Amendment implications of letting the suit go forward.

His opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part begins:

I originally agreed with denying Mckesson’s First Amendment defense. But I have had a judicial change of heart. Further reflection has led me to see this case differently, as explained below. Admittedly, judges aren’t naturals at backtracking or about-facing. But I do so forthrightly. Consistency is a cardinal judicial virtue, but not the only virtue. In my judgment, earnest rethinking should underscore, rather than undermine, faith in the judicial process. As Justice Frankfurter elegantly put it 70 years ago, “Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late.”

On the First Amendment question, he writes:

Even assuming that Mckesson could be sued under Louisiana law for “negligently” leading a protest at which someone became violent, the First Amendment “imposes restraints” on what (and whom) state tort law may punish. Just as there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, “negligent” speech is also constitutionally protected. And under Claiborne Hardware (and a wealth of precedent since), raucous public protest-even “impassioned” and “emotionally charged” appeals for the use of force-is protected unless clearly intended to, and likely to, spark immediate violence. . . .

Capitol Fax: Proft loses appeal in bid to make unlimited direct contributions with his independent expenditure PAC

By Rich Miller

* Seventh US Circuit Court of Appeals…

“A provision of the Illinois Election Code limits how much money entities can contribute to political campaigns. But in some races, Illinois lifts these limits, allowing certain entities to make unlimited campaign contributions and coordinate unlimited spending with candidates. Illinois Liberty PAC, an independent expenditure committee, is not one of these entities; indeed, Illinois bans all independent expenditure committees from making campaign contributions and from coordinating spending with candidates.

Plaintiffs Dan Proft and the Illinois Liberty PAC do not attack the entire contribution and coordination ban enforced against independent expenditure committees. Rather, they seek to overturn the ban only when unlimited contributions and unlimited coordinated expenditures are allowed for others. Otherwise, plaintiffs claim, Illinois’s ban violates the First Amendment rights of free speech and free association and the Fourteenth Amendment right of equal protection.
Whether a constitutional violation exists here depends on if the contribution and coordination ban is closely drawn to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption.

Because striking down the ban would increase the risk of corruption and circumvent other election code sections that work to prevent political corruption, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of this suit and denial of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.”

NRA-ILA: First Amendment Defends the Second

By Staff

On April 24, 2019, shortly after the City of Los Angeles adopted an ordinance that was clearly designed to weaken support for the Second Amendment, NRA filed a lawsuit, calling the city’s outrageous action a violation of the First Amendment. Last week, U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson issued a preliminary injunction against Los Angeles, temporarily blocking it from enforcing the ordinance.

The ordinance required current and prospective contractors working with the city to disclose any relationships with the NRA: a shameless, McCarthy-like effort clearly designed to force those who would normally support NRA to drop any affiliation out of fear of losing business with Los Angeles.

Judge Wilson made clear in his ruling that the ordinance was an attempt to silence NRA, writing, “In this case, the text of the Ordinance, the Ordinance’s legislative history, and the concurrent public statements made by the Ordinance’s primary legislative sponsor evince a strong intent to suppress the speech of the NRA.”                              

Addressing NRA’s challenge, Wilson wrote, “The NRA believes the public is served by protecting First Amendment rights.” He also stated, “Plaintiffs have provided ample evidence of a likely First Amendment violation…”…

While this ruling is a tremendous victory for NRA and advocates of both the First and Second Amendments, it is by no means a final victory. Los Angeles could choose to appeal the decision, and the case itself is still pending. The injunction merely means Los Angeles cannot enforce the ordinance, for now. Of course, we will keep you apprised on any updates on this important case.

Albuquerque Journal: Lawsuit targets New Mexico law on disclosure

By Dan McKay

Two nonprofit advocacy groups – including the Rio Grande Foundation – filed a lawsuit Friday challenging a new state law that requires more disclosure of dark-money political spending.

The disclosure requirements, they argue, violate their donors’ First Amendment rights to anonymous free speech and freedom of association and would chill advocacy efforts on important questions of public policy.

The New Mexico-based Rio Grande Foundation and the Illinois Opportunity Project of Chicago are the plaintiffs. Both groups say they promote liberty and freedom.

“This law will silence important perspectives by discouraging our citizens from supporting issue-advocacy groups that promote thoughtful, rigorous debate around issues vital to our state,” Paul Gessing, president of Rio Grande Foundation, said in a written statement.

A spokesman for Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, a Democrat and New Mexico’s top election officer, expressed confidence in the legality of the new disclosure law. The lawsuit names Toulouse Oliver as defendant.

It’s “disappointing that these groups are seeking to roll back the strong accountability measures New Mexico now has in place,” Toulouse Oliver spokesman Alex Curtas said.

WisBar News: Federal District Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against the State Bar of Wisconsin

By Staff

 The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin has dismissed a lawsuit against the State Bar of Wisconsin. Two State Bar members filed the lawsuit, challenging rules that require all attorneys to be members of the State Bar.

Wisconsin Supreme Court (SCR) Rule 10.01 and 10.03 require all attorneys admitted to practice in Wisconsin to be members of the State Bar and pay State Bar dues and Supreme Court assessments in accordance with their particular class of membership.

Two attorneys, Adam Jarchow and Michael Dean – represented by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty – filed a lawsuit earlier this year, arguing that compelled membership and compelled dues violates their free speech and association rights because they do not agree with State Bar activities or lobbying efforts.

However, in Keller v. State Bar of California, 469 U.S. 1 (1990), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld mandatory dues so long as members are not compelled to fund activities not germane to regulation of the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services.

The State Bar maintains an annual Keller dues reduction process that allows members to withhold from their dues the amount used to fund activities that are not germane to the purposes identified in Keller.

Ballotpedia News: Four Oregon public school employees sue union over resignation restrictions

By Jerrick Adams

On Dec. 5, four Oregon public school employees filed suit in U.S. District Court alleging that their union has unconstitutionally denied their resignation requests, continuing to collect dues against their wishes.

Who are the parties to the suit? Plaintiffs Dori Yates, Claudia Strickland, Tonya Sevilla, and Linda Newton work for Hillsboro United School District. They are being represented by attorneys from the Freedom Foundation. The defendants are the American Federation of Teachers, the Oregon state chapter of the AFT, AFT Local 4671, and the school district…

What is at issue? The union’s membership agreement states that members may only revoke their dues deduction authorization during a 30-day period in June each year. The membership agreement also states that members must pay dues for a minimum of one year before resigning. The plaintiffs allege these provisions constitute compelled speech and association, a violation of the First Amendment and the precedent established last year in Janus v. AFSCME.

In Janus v. AFSCME, the Supreme Court ruled that unions cannot require non-member employees to pay agency fees covering the costs of non-political union activities. This overturned an earlier precedent, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which held that non-members could be required to pay fees to a union if those fees were not used for political purposes…

Case information: The case name and number are Yates v. American Federation of Teachers, 3:19-cv-01975-SB. 

Disclosure

Washington Times: IRS looks to prevent weaponization of donors’ information, doxxing

By Ryan Lovelace

The IRS is poised to implement guidelines that will allow a wide array of nonprofits to withhold the identities of their largest donors.

Many right-leaning advocacy groups have pushed for the Trump administration’s changes, but some watchdogs say the move will invite illicit foreign spending in American politics.

Under the new guidance, various tax-exempt groups would no longer have to publicly disclose the identities and addresses of donors contributing more than $5,000 on certain forms filed to the IRS.

The Trump administration has sought to implement the disclosure changes for tax-exempt organizations since summer 2018, but its efforts were slowed by a legal fight with the states of Montana and New Jersey.

A federal judge ruled against the Trump administration in July, forcing the federal government to continue collecting donors’ information during the public comment period, which ended last week. IRS spokesman Robert Marvin said the new guidance had not been finalized…

Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Zack Pruitt said the change shows that the federal government does not need the donors’ disclosure information to enforce the tax code.

Mr. Pruitt said the firm views the proposed changes as an effort to prevent the weaponization of donors’ information amid the doxxing culture that has emerged in the digital age. Doxxing involves the publication of private or personal information, usually online and often with malicious motives.

Sierra Sun Times: U.S. Senators Urge IRS to Reverse Decision Protecting Dark Money, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein Announces

By Staff

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) joined Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and a group of their colleagues to submit a comment to the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) urging the agency to reverse their decision to rollback transparency requirements for dark money groups. For decades, the IRS and the Treasury Department have required 501(c)(4) groups that engage in issue advocacy to identify, confidentially, the names of individual donors who make significant financial contributions ($5,000 or more). Last month, the agency announced it would be moving forward with the change and issued a notice soliciting comments on the proposed rule…

“Americans have a right to know who is paying to influence our democracy. Rolling back transparency standards is wrong and it undermines our political system, which rests on the idea that each voter has an equal say in our democracy. As foreign adversaries ramp up their efforts to target our elections and look for new ways to influence our democracy, we need stronger rules for transparency and accountability in campaign finance, not weaker ones. For these reasons, and the issues discussed below, we strongly urge you not to reject the proposed rule,” the senators wrote.

“Both Congress and executive agencies like the IRS should be focused on exploring ways to increase transparency in our political system. Instead of engaging in rule-making to increase the amount of dark money in our system, the IRS should require political nonprofits to record all of their donors over $5000 and share that information with the public.”

The full text of the letter can be found here.

Trump Administration

New York Daily News: Free speech for me, not for thee: The real problem with debate on college campuses

By Jonathan Zimmerman

Last week, pro-Palestinian student groups blasted President Trump’s order to withhold federal funding from universities that fail to combat anti-Semitism. If the White House decides that their denunciations of Israel are motivated by bias against Jews, the students warned, their voices will effectively be silenced.

“This poses a basic threat to free speech and academic freedom,” declared Raphael Eissa, a member of the steering committee of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). The real purpose of the order, Eissa added, was “to censor student criticism of Israel and Zionism.”

He’s right. But the SJP has engaged in its own brand of censorship, shouting down pro-Israel speakers. And that’s the real problem on our campuses right now, where the same voices demanding free speech are trying to deny it to others.

Witness the attack on pro-Israel activist Hen Mazzig last month at Vassar College, where SJP activists disrupted his speech by chanting “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “Stop the killing stop the hate, Israel is an apartheid state.” In a statement, Vassar’s SJP chapter added that Mazzig should not have been invited to the college in the first place. “We do not believe that Zionism should have a platform, especially not one funded by our student government,” the SJP wrote.

Got that? Zionism is a form of racism, so Zionist speakers should be barred from campus.

First Amendment

New York Times: Did Schiff Poke a Hole in the First Amendment?

By Marc Ambinder

The [House Intelligence Committee] chairman, Representative Adam Schiff, believed that a detailed description of Mr. Solomon’s contacts with Mr. Giuliani and with Ukrainians were germane to the core of the case for impeachment…

But those who care about the vitality of journalism should here take a pause and ask why they don’t feel disturbed…

[I]n revealing whom Mr. Solomon talked with, and when, Mr. Schiff and his committee have created a new pathway for the government to find and reveal a reporter’s sources and to question his or her motives. That is wrong. The legislative branch should not use its subpoena power to police journalism.

Mr. Schiff’s pathway could easily be considered a precedent. And the government does not need more encouragement to out a journalist’s sources. The executive branch, in the institutions of the Department of Justice and the F.B.I., has used metadata – call records and routing information not protected by the Fourth Amendment – to document reporters’ contacts with their sources in a number of cases in which the source has subsequently been imprisoned. The public interest case for prosecuting leakers is easy to make. But we should note that the government’s obligation to protect national security and a reporter’s duty to uncover abuses of executive power often clash…

And while I’m tempted to assert that Congress has no business ever poking its nose into reporting, I can’t deny the circumstances that collided here; Mr. Solomon is part of this story. But to deny him any First Amendment protection of his work is to fail to see beyond the immediate ramifications of Mr. Schiff’s decision. If Republicans regain control of the House, what would prevent them from using the same tactic to pummel the press for stories its members don’t like? 

Electronic Frontier Foundation: EFF Report Shows FBI Is Failing to Address First Amendment Harms Caused By National Security Letters

By Andrew Crocker and Aaron Mackey

EFF has long fought to end the FBI’s ability to impose gag orders via National Security Letters (NSLs). They violate the First Amendment and result in indefinite prohibitions on recipients’ ability to speak publicly about controversial government surveillance powers. Records and data released by the FBI earlier this year confirm that, despite congressional reforms in 2015, the vast majority of NSL recipients remain gagged. What’s more, the FBI has not taking meaningful steps to dissolve those gag orders.

Today, EFF is publishing “The Failed Fix to NSL Gag Orders,” a new report based on an in-depth analysis of records EFF obtained after we won a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit earlier this year. Our report is based on records we obtained that identified more than 700 NSL recipients that the FBI had freed from lengthy gag orders, the subject of a front-page New York Times story in September…

EFF’s analysis of the records obtained in our FOIA suit concludes that absent further judicial or legislative intervention, the FBI will continue to violate the First Amendment rights of NSL recipients. As we write in the report, “when left to its own discretion, the FBI overwhelmingly favors maintaining gag orders of unlimited duration.” Our findings suggest even though Congress directed the FBI to reduce the number of these gag orders, the Bureau’s internal procedures “do not meaningfully reduce the large numbers of de facto permanent NSL gag orders, failing First Amendment scrutiny…And as the records and data EFF obtained in its FOIA suit show, the FBI is unlikely to make progress in ending those gags without further direction by Congress or the courts.”

Reason: It’s Bill of Rights Day. Do Americans Still Care?

By J.D. Tuccille

Democrats continue their efforts to trim First Amendment protections for core political speech. Their proposed constitutional amendment would not only potentially choke off the speech rights of people banded together as incorporated entities, it would also empower government to regulate the raising and spending of money to influence elections-an outright gift to incumbent politicians…

Legislators from both major parties want to strip away protections for online speech…

What happens, though, when the public itself becomes iffy about personal freedom?

It’s now trendy, especially on the progressive left, to question the value of free speech protections. These skeptics argue that relatively unfettered discussion is a tool of the powerful and of the un-lefty. A version of the viewpoint is winning favor among mainstream types like former Time editor Richard Stengel, who went from heading the National Constitution Center to favoring laws against very loosely defined “hate speech.”…

Interestingly, the Campaign for Free Speech sees political polarization at work… 

The weaponized nature of the assault on speech rights becomes clearer when left-wing academics complain that “free speech law entrenches a social view at war with key progressive objectives,” and when social conservatives campaign against pornography, at least in part, as an exercise in “smashing the sacred cow of cultural libertarianism.”

Citizens United

Washington Post: The Daily 202: The 12 biggest storylines of the 2010s

By James Hohmann

Dark money flooded into politics after Citizens United

Arguably, the most consequential Supreme Court decision of the decade was handed down in January 2010: Citizens United v. FEC.

“Citizens United and the rising influence of the corporation has influenced everything this decade,” said Paula Fish. “The idea that money is speech and that corporate profits can sustain the economy over the purchasing power of the middle class has led us to a huge wealth gap.”

Ken Gilroy, a self-described “cynical Gen X guy” from Cleveland, sees “the Onset of Minoritarian Rule in the US” as a top contender for story of the decade.

Douglas Pascover recalled Ambrose Bierce’s definition of politics: “A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.”

“So, my argument is that, in politics, the big story from this decade is the masks coming off,” said Pascover.

Lobbying

Forbes: Lawmakers From Texas To Wisconsin Consider An End To Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying

By Patrick Gleason

Millions of taxpayer dollars are used every year to hire lobbyists who advocate for policies that often are not in taxpayers’ interest. Taxpayer-funded lobbyists frequently push for higher taxes and larger government. Recognizing this problem, state lawmakers and employers in multiple states are now working to advance reforms that would put an end to taxpayer-funded lobbying.  

Taxpayer-funded lobbying for policies that harm taxpayers is even a problem in red, relatively low-tax, Republican-run states, as Texas demonstrates…

Texas Representative Mayes Middleton (R-Wallisville) set out to fix this problem during the biennial session of the Texas Legislature that took place earlier this year. Representative Middleton introduced House Bill 281, legislation that would prohibit taxpayers dollars from being used to hire lobbyists. Predictably, local government officials who use taxpayer dollars to hire lobbying teams fought Middleton’s reform, which polling shows enjoys broad public support…

During a Senate committee hearing early this year on Senate Bill 2, the Texas Senate’s property tax relief bill, it was reported how “taxpayer-funded lobbyists showed up in droves to oppose the legislation while everyday citizen taxpayers unanimously supported the proposal.” 

While Middleton’s reform to ban taxpayer-funded lobbying died in committee, the Texas Legislature did approve a bill (Senate Bill 65) requiring local governments to disclose contracts with taxpayer-funded lobbyists. Representative Middleton’s office took action this week to make sure this new requirement is enforced. 

Fundraising

Fox 17 Nashville: Congressman’s bill targets political spending by for-profit corporations

By Adrian Mojica

A bill submitted by a U.S. Congressman from New York seeks to put an end to corporations using funds for political purposes.

The “Ban Corporate PACs Act” filed by Rep. Max Rose (D-NY11) would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 which allows for such spending by corporations as an expression of free speech.

The bill would change that, limiting the “authority of corporations to establish and operate separate segregated funds utilized for political purposes, including the establishment or operation of a political committee, to nonprofit corporations, and for other purposes.”

The bill targets for-profit corporations and companies, not nonprofit companies.

In a previous statement release, Rep. Rose stated such spending is the “root” of corruption in D.C. “Corporate PACs flood this city with contributions, but it’s not the American people’s priorities they have in mind-it’s their own bottom lines,” Rose said. “That’s wrong and at the root of Washington corruption. That’s why we must send a clear, unmistakable message to the American people that we are here to fight for them and only them-not the special interests and corporate PACs.”

ABA Journal: About a quarter of money spent on recent state supreme court races came from outside groups, report says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Special interest groups contributed 27% of the $39.7 million spent on state supreme court elections in 2017 and 2018, according to a report released Wednesday.

The money was spent on 48 judgeships in 21 states, according to the report by the Brennan Center for Justice, which was produced with research from the National Institute on Money in Politics. The report defines special interest funding as money that is not spent by the candidates themselves or by political parties.

The report is here, the Brennan Center has summaries here and here. Law360 has coverage.

The report names the top special interest groups providing judicial-election funding and notes that the source of the special interest money is often hidden or obscured.

Special interest groups that hide their donors’ identities tend to spend big on attack ads, said the report’s lead author, Douglas Keith, in a summary of the findings.

“We found that these groups spent $2 million in the 2017-2018 cycle on TV ads that attacked specific decisions by particular judges,” Keith said. “That pressure can make the candidates targeted by the ads more dependent on large donations in order to pay for their own ads, and research suggests this pressure can impact judicial decision-making. None of this is conducive to fair, unbiased jurisprudence.”

Online Speech Platforms 

Wall Street Journal: Peter Thiel at Center of Facebook’s Internal Divisions on Politics

By Emily Glazer, Deepa Seetharaman and Jeff Horwitz

Facebook’s senior leadership is increasingly divided over how to address criticism of the company’s effect on U.S. politics, with board member and billionaire investor Peter Thiel serving as an influential voice advising CEO Mark Zuckerberg not to bow to public pressure…

One flashpoint of late: political advertisements. Mr. Thiel has argued that Facebook should stick to its controversial decision, announced in September, to continue accepting them and to not fact-check those from politicians, the people said. However, some directors and executives are pushing for changes to the policy, including possibly banning political ads altogether, they said…

Facebook officials, including Mr. Zuckerberg, have vowed to fix the litany of problems confronting the company, but there is “pretty vigorous disagreement” among the leadership over how to tackle its political issues…

Some of Mr. Thiel’s views are shared by others within Facebook, including on political ads, with many current and former executives advising Mr. Zuckerberg that the company shouldn’t be in the position of deciding what claims are accurate, people familiar with the matter said. Others, including many rank-and-file employees, argue that Facebook’s decision cuts against its yearslong fight to combat misinformation, they said…

Mr. Thiel’s outspoken conservative and libertarian views have put him out of step with the largely liberal community of Silicon Valley. 

Daily Beast: Facebook Finally Coordinates with Instagram to Combat Misinformation

By Blake Montgomery

Facebook announced Monday it would expand its fact-checking work with Instagram to combat misinformation. Instagram will start labelling images that have been identified as false on Facebook via image recognition software, which it had not done before. When an image is identified as containing false claims, Instagram labels it as misleading, includes links to credible sources alongside it, and removes it from the Explore page and any page dedicated to relevant hashtags. Since many people use the Explore page and hashtags to discover content and accounts they don’t already follow, the removal has the effect of limiting the image’s reach. Instagram began working with third-party fact-checkers in May.

Forbes: Thousands Of Misleading Facebook Ads Help Conservatives To ‘Crushing’ U.K. Election Victory

By Simon Chandler

At the end of October, Twitter announced that it was banning political advertisements. The announcement came after its bigger rival Facebook ruled out the possibility of banning political ads on its own social network. But not only did Facebook refuse to ban political ads, it also refused to subject such ads to fact-checking, something which critics said was necessary in view of the often deceptive nature of posts from political sources.

Well, this controversial policy appears to have had the desired effect, as the incumbent Conservative government celebrated a “crushing” victory in Thursday’s U.K. general election…

According to research from fact-checking non-profit First Draft, 88% of the Facebook ads the Conservatives posted in the first four days of December were deemed misleading by Full Fact, one of the U.K.’s biggest fact-checking organisations. By contrast, First Draft said that it couldn’t specifically identify any of the Facebook ads posted by Labour over the same four-day period as misleading or false, although the party paid for fewer posts than its rivals…

In other words, the Conservatives’ social media election strategy involved subjecting hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of voters to false ad after false ad. Perhaps voters were swayed more by the desire to progress with Brexit when casting their votes, but the simple fact that the Conservatives paid for these “post-truth” ads indicates that the party believed they would have a tangible effect. If not, then why pay for them?

The States 

The Free Press: South Dakota governor plans revision of riot-boosting laws

By Stephen Groves

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem is planning to have another try at so-called riot-boosting laws next year, despite previously drawing criticism for supporting such laws ahead of protests related to the Keystone XL pipeline.

The Republican governor has written to lawmakers with proposed changes to laws passed earlier this year that were later blocked by a federal judge. The state eventually settled a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union by agreeing not to enforce parts of the laws.

Noem is proposing changes in the law to repeal parts that the judge deemed unconstitutional and change the definition of “incitement to riot” to meet constitutional protections of free speech, according to her memo. It would charge people with “incitement to riot” if they “urge” three or more people to force or violence. The proposed law defines “urging” as “instigating, inciting, directing, threatening, or other similar conduct,” but excludes oral and written advocacy that does not urge force or violence.

Noem drew criticism from Native American tribes in the state for pushing the laws last year ahead of expected protests on Keystone XL pipeline construction. The Oglala Sioux Tribe banned her from tribal lands after Noem signed the legislation.

Noem cast her proposals as a way to protect protesters in a secure environment, “free from the few violent criminals who would seek to abuse their rights.”