The Courts

New York Times: How Can You Destroy a Person’s Life and Only Get a Slap on the Wrist?

By The Editorial Board

We know about all this because the professors sued the city in federal court, claiming that the secrecy law infringes on the First Amendment. How could it not? If someone tells a Times reporter about a prosecutor’s misconduct, the reporter is free to write a story addressing those allegations for all the world to see. But if the same person files a formal grievance about the same misconduct with the state, she’s barred from talking about it. It’s not even clear what the punishment for violating the law would be — as evidenced by the fact that dozens of prominent lawyers, including former New York judges and even prosecutors, went public with grievances they filed against Rudy Giuliani over his role in Donald Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election and encourage the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. To date, none of these lawyers have faced public sanctions for speaking to the press.

In theory, the secrecy law exists to protect lawyers from being smeared by frivolous complaints, but that rationale makes no sense when applied to prosecutors, who are public officials doing the state’s work. In the Queens cases, their misconduct is already a matter of public record. Even if it weren’t, there is no principled reason to prevent the public airing of complaints — not to mention public hearings — against officials who have the power to send people to prison. Certainly the defendants they face off against in court don’t enjoy such privileges.

Washington Post: Hate speech lawsuit against Facebook gains powerful ally: D.C.’s attorney general

By Cristiano Lima

Now, D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine is throwing his support behind the civil rights group’s lawsuit by arguing against Facebook’s efforts to get it tossed, according to a legal brief shared exclusively with The Technology 202…

The suit alleges that Facebook violated the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, under which it is illegal for a company to make material misrepresentations about goods or services, or in this case, misleading users about how effectively it cracks down on hateful material.

The social network rejected the allegations in a motion to dismiss the case in September, arguing in part that the tech giant is shielded from the claims under Section 230. The company disputed the assertion that its executives had made any misleading statements and argued the lawsuit sought to circumvent Section 230 by misinterpreting the law. 

But in a rare amicus brief filed Monday, Racine pushed back on Facebook’s argument and urged the court to hear the case. 

While Racine isn’t taking a position on the merits of the case itself, he argued the tech giant shouldn’t be able to escape a trial over whether it violated D.C. consumer protection laws against unfair and deceptive trade practices by claiming immunity under Section 230.

New York Post: Man sentenced for running fake Biden, Trump PACs

By Mark Lungariello

A Las Vegas fraudster was sentenced Monday to four years behind bars after he allegedly ran a scam through phony PACs for Joe Biden and Donald Trump during the 2020 election.

James Kyle Bell, 44, allegedly raised at least $346,000 for the supposedly pro-Trump “Keep America Great” PAC and the purported Biden-backing “Best Days Lie Ahead” PAC — both groups which he registered with the Federal Election Commission, according to the Department of Justice…

“This prosecution is the first in the District of Columbia involving the creation of scam political action committees,” said Matthew Graves, US Attorney for the District of Columbia…

More than 2,000 people thought they were making political donations when they donated to the PACs and would have their contribution “5x matched,” authorities said. Bell had sent more than 4,000 fundraising solicitations as part of the scam, they said.

Online Speech Platforms

The Hill: Facebook’s Oversight Board asks for public comment on review of cross-check program

By Rebecca Klar

Facebook’s quasi-independent Oversight Board is asking the public to weigh in with comments on the social media platform’s cross-check program for some high profile users.

The Oversight Board opened up public comments on Wednesday as part of its probe into the cross-check system, which reportedly kept certain public figures on the platform, including former President Trump, from facing the full extent of Facebook’s content moderation policies.

The board is asking individuals and organizations to submit comments regarding whether a cross-check system is needed and whether it strengthens or undermines the protection of human rights. The board is also asking for comment as to what additional resources Meta, Facebook’s parent company, should dedicate to improving the cross-check system. 

Public comments are due by Jan. 14. 

New York Post: Twitter employees give to Democrats by wide margin: data

By Conor Skelding

A stunning 99 percent of online political contributions made by Twitter employees in 2021 went to Democrats, according to Federal Election Commission data.

Twitter workers made 561 contributions through Actblue, the Democratic Party-linked payments processor, vs. just eight through its Republican counterpart, WinRed.

“The one percent shocks. They have somebody who actually gave to the GOP. I’m stunned,” cracked Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center, the non-profit conservative watchdog.

The 561 contributions made through Actblue in 2021 totaled $14,848.98.

“Their day to day actions also contribute to that political party,” Gainor said of Twitter staffers, who have been accused of censoring conservative commentary. “There was a time when you could give to one political party and still be fairhanded, but that time is long past.”

Independent Groups

ABC News: 34N22? NNH? Super PACs with cryptic names raise transparency concerns

By Soo Rin Kim

“When super PACs name themselves using simply an assortment of letters and numbers, it’s harder for people to understand the super PAC’s ideological leanings without additional digging,” said Michael Beckel, research director with bipartisan political reform group Issue One.

“Few people will take the time to research the name of a super PAC after seeing its ads — if they can ever remember the right mix of letters and numbers the super PAC is using as its name,” Beckel said…

34N22 is just the latest example of a new super PAC with an obscure name. Other groups this election cycle are using such names as NNH PAC, NJH PAC, NTC PAC, TAS PAC, GMI Inc and KSL Inc — odd monikers that, as campaigns heat up, may lead to TV ads ending with uninformative or confusing taglines regarding who they’re “paid for by.” …

Under federal law, there are very few restrictions on how a political committee should be named, other than that an outside political group that is not a candidate’s authorized campaign committee cannot use a candidate’s name in its official name.

Brendan Fischer, the federal reforms director of the good-government group Campaign Legal Center, said that “plenty of PACs use innocuous or generic names” and that obscure names made up of initials are “not necessarily too concerning” as long as “the ad disclaimers are clear and accurate.”

“What’s most important is that a voter can identify the PAC running a particular ad, and then be able to use FEC records to figure out where the PAC’s money is coming from and where it is going,” Fischer said, referring to both regular PACs and super PACs.

That, however, isn’t always possible.