In the News
Cleveland.com: Oversight or overreach? Voting bill sparks controversy in Congress
By Sabrina Eaton
At a Wednesday Senate Rules and Administration Committee hearing, witnesses and legislators debated whether the “For the People Act” would make it easier to administer the nation’s elections and vote, or easier to cheat.
“This 800-page bill is not for the people, it’s for the politicians,” declared former FEC Chair Bradley Smith, a Columbus Republican who chairs the Institute for Free Speech. Smith argued the bill would produce “partisan enforcement of campaign finance laws” and “unconstitutionally regulate speech that mentions a federal candidate or elected official at any time under a vague subjective and dangerously broad standard.
“Senate Bill 1 would subsidize the speech of politicians while suppressing the speech of the people,” Smith’s testimony said.
New from the Institute for Free Speech
By Luke Wachob
At a March 24 hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Institute for Free Speech Chairman Bradley A. Smith warned that S. 1, and its House counterpart H.R. 1, would violate the First Amendment and damage American democracy. Watch Smith’s opening statement below, and click here to read his full written testimony.
“The cynicism of the ‘For the Politicians Act’ is highlighted by two provisions,” Smith said. “The bill claims not to use taxpayer money to fund elections. It then immediately sets up a system using taxpayer money to fund elections. The bill provides that the system will be paid for with fines, penalties, and the sale of government assets, but all of this is taxpayer money, and all of us know that. How cynical is it to claim that the funds of the U.S. government are not taxpayer money?”
“Next is the change in the FEC from a bipartisan organization to an agency under partisan control,” Smith continued. “How cynical is this? All morning long through the first panel, I listened to one member after another of this Committee insist that we had to pass S. 1 to do away with partisan redistricting. But apparently, we need to pass S. 1 to get partisan enforcement of campaign finance laws.
“If I wanted to foster distrust in American elections, I could think of few better ways to do it than to change the FEC from a bipartisan to a partisan organization. S. 1 would put the FEC under effective partisan control of the Democratic Party through at least the 2026 midterms – longer if a Democrat is elected president in 2024.” …
All of the Institute’s analyses and resources related to H.R. 1 and S. 1 are available here.
Congress
RNLA: Senate Rules Holds Hearing On The Corrupt Politicians Act
By Elizabeth Bradford El-Rassy
Earlier today, the Senate Rules Committee held a hearing on the Corrupt Politicians Act. As Senator Cruz pointed out, Democrats have made keeping themselves in power their #1 priority for this Congress despite the myriad of important issues facing the country…
The second half of the hearing focused on the effects of the Corrupt Politicians Act on campaign finance and the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The Democrats called former FEC Chair and President of Campaign Legal Center Trevor Potter, Director of Democracy 21 Fred Wertheimer, and President and Executive Director of End Citizens United/Let America Vote Action Fund Tiffany Muller.
The Republicans called RNLA Board member Lee Goodman and Chairman of the Institute for Free Speech Brad Smith. Both formerly chaired the FEC.
The testimony submitted to the Committee by Goodman highlights the far-reaching effects the the Corrupt Politicians Act would have on the current campaign finance system and, most importantly, Americans’ freedom of speech:
“Indeed, S. 1 proposes many restrictions on the right of the American people to speak about issues and politicians, hear ideas, and associate freely. It exposes Americans to an unprecedented system of mandatory public doxing and exposure when they desire to spend as little as $500 to discuss sensitive policy issues. It likewise imposes new civil and criminal liability on American media companies, which will push many media companies to eliminate low-cost online advertising platforms from populist organizations for political messages. Some already have closed their platforms to political advertising. S. 1 would hasten more such closures and deplatforming of populist political speech…”
RealClearPolitics: ‘Corrupt Politicians Act’ Rigs Elections for the Radical Left
By Sen. Ted Cruz
Fresh off of ramming through a $1.9 trillion monstrosity of a stimulus bill stuffed with pork spending and liberal pet projects, Democrats are gearing up to try to radically transform our election system and lock in majorities at every level of elected government for decades to come.
Democrats call this bill the For the People Act, or HR 1, but a more appropriate name would be the Corrupt Politicians Act because it’s designed by the politicians, of the politicians, and for the politicians…
It funnels millions of federal dollars to Democrat campaigns and candidates. This law would be federal welfare for politicians; it provides a 6-to-1 public subsidy for grassroots, small-dollar donations. For every dollar raised by a politician, they get $6 from the federal government. So the $200 you donate to a qualifying candidate will actually become a $1,200 donation from the federal government. Democrats always talk a big game about getting small-dollar donations. Turns out that what they really want is a cut of federal spending for their campaigns.
Wall Street Journal: Facebook’s Zuckerberg Proposes Raising Bar for Section 230
By Ryan Tracy
Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg said Congress should consider forcing digital platforms to earn the legal immunity they enjoy hosting third-party content, a legal change that could affect a range of online businesses.
In written testimony submitted ahead of a House committee hearing Thursday, Mr. Zuckerberg suggested changes to Section 230, the law that says platforms such as Facebook generally aren’t liable for what their users post.
“Instead of being granted immunity, platforms should be required to demonstrate that they have systems in place for identifying unlawful content and removing it,” he said.
The comments were the most detailed yet from Mr. Zuckerberg on the issue. He had previously signaled openness to changing Section 230 in more general terms.
Both Democrats and Republicans are concerned that Section 230 gives large tech companies too much leeway to decide what information Americans see, though the parties have different concerns…
In other issues likely to be aired at Thursday’s hearing, Democrats are expected to ask about the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and Covid-19 misinformation. Republicans are likely to press the CEOs on their decision to suspend or remove former President Donald Trump’s social media accounts after Jan. 6.
Politico: Lawmakers rebuff Facebook’s proposed internet rules
By Cristiano Lima
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle on Wednesday denounced Zuckerberg’s proposal as a political sideshow and a bad faith attempt to give the giant a competitive edge.
“Mark Zuckerberg knows that rolling back section 230 will cement Facebook’s position as the dominant social media company and make it vastly harder for new startups to challenge his cash cow,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who co-wrote Section 230 as a member of the House in the 1990s and has resisted efforts in Congress to pare back the law…
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who has proposed rolling back the protections to address concerns about alleged anti-conservative bias by tech companies, called Zuckerberg’s proposal self-serving. And she said Facebook should brace for broader changes — whether it likes them or not.
“Section 230 reform will hit Facebook regardless of what these self-interested Silicon Valley CEOs want,” Blackburn said. “Big Tech only wants reform when it bolsters their power at the expense of competitors.”
Reps. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.), who on Wednesday reintroduced legislation to make companies liable for amplifying certain types of illegal content like civil rights abuses and foreign terrorism, told reporters on a call that Congress shouldn’t fall for Zuckerberg’s gambit…
Smaller platforms and other tech companies including Twitter and Google…have voiced concern that weakening Section 230 protections could disproportionately harm smaller businesses.
“The law’s flexibility has allowed companies of all sizes to flourish and tackle the harms that are unique to their platforms,” Internet Works, a coalition of smaller companies including Reddit, Tripadvisor and Etsy, said in a statement Wednesday.
DHS
Politico: DHS looking at tracking travel of domestic extremists
By Betsy Woodruff Swan
The Department of Homeland Security is considering monitoring the travel of domestic extremists and expanding its use of the No Fly List, law enforcement sources said…
The department could begin analyzing the travel patterns of suspected domestic extremists, monitor flights they book on short notice and search their luggage for weapons, a senior law enforcement official told POLITICO. There have also been discussions about putting suspected domestic violent extremists — a category that includes white supremacists — on the FBI’s No Fly List, the official said. When suspected extremists travel internationally, officials may be more likely to question them before they pass through customs and to search their phones and laptops.
A second law enforcement official told POLITICO that conversations about monitoring domestic extremists’ travel have involved multiple federal agencies at the interagency level, including the FBI…
One challenge that DHS and FBI officials are weighing is how to distinguish between people traveling to exercise their Constitutional rights — by attending a protest, for instance — and those traveling to commit crimes…
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other civil rights groups have long lambasted the feds’ use of the secretive No Fly List. Americans on the list don’t have the right to know why exactly they’re on it, and it can be difficult or impossible to get removed once they’re there. The ACLU has called it “an indefinite Kafkaesque nightmare.”
Online Speech Platforms
Wall Street Journal: Bernie Sanders’s Censorship Wisdom
By The Editorial Board
For the last year progressives have been demanding that corporations censor or remove a wider and wider range of unapproved political speech. But in a New York Times interview this week, Mr. Sanders criticized Twitter’s January ban on Donald Trump.
The Senator prefaced his comments by saying that Mr. Trump is “a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a xenophobe, a pathological liar, an authoritarian.” But he added, “do I feel particularly comfortable that the President, the then-President of the United States could not express his views on Twitter? I don’t feel comfortable about that.”
Mr. Sanders said he worries about conspiracies spreading online. But as an old-school socialist, he recognizes there’s no guarantee that the tools of political muzzling will always be in the hands of people who agree with him. “Yesterday it was Donald Trump who was banned and tomorrow it could be somebody else who has a very different point of view,” he said.
Socialists and radicals in the U.S. have not fared well under censorship, even when it is administered by the progressive establishment—think of Woodrow Wilson’s clampdown on antiwar activists in the early 20th century.
Candidates and Campaigns
Axios: Exclusive: Key House Republican says he won’t take Big Tech money
By Ashley Gold
Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), the lead Republican on the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee, will stop accepting donations from Google, Facebook and Amazon, he said Wednesday.
Buck (R-Co.) is declining Big Tech donations as regulatory scrutiny on tech companies heats up in Washington.
Generally tech companies give to individual candidates through their political action committees. Many of those PACs are currently on pause following the Capitol riots.
Buck for Colorado received $2,500 each from Google LLC Netpac and Amazon Pac in 2020, according to Federal Election Commission records.
“As the lead Republican on the antitrust subcommittee working to hold Big Tech accountable for their anticompetitive and monopolistic behavior, I cannot continue to accept campaign donations from Facebook, Google, or Amazon,” Buck said.
The States
Colorado Sun: In record year for Colorado campaign finance complaints, Republicans cry foul over enforcement
By Sandra Fish
Republicans are crying foul over campaign finance decisions by a deputy secretary of state who rejected recommendations by the Campaign Finance Enforcement team organized a year ago by Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat.
A record number of complaints were filed in 2020 along with the second highest fine issued in recent years. But it’s possible the system created in 2019 could be tested, as some Republicans challenge the claims filed against them.
In at least two instances, the office’s Campaign Finance Enforcement team recommended dismissing complaints but the deputy secretary of state reversed the recommendations.
Nearly double the number of campaign-finance complaints were filed in 2020 compared with past years, although 58 of the 87 were dismissed…
The first case filed by the office’s Campaign Finance Enforcement team in January 2020 accused the Colorado Stop the Wolf Coalition of failing to file as an issue committee. That resulted in a $22,000 fine the nonprofit’s leader said the group can’t afford. Nor can it afford to continue paying its lawyer, Republican former Secretary of State Scott Gessler, to appeal the case in court…
Administrative Law Judge Matthew Norwood…recommended a $1,000 fine. But in early February, then-Deputy Secretary of State Ian Rayder increased the fine to $22,000, noting that late filings are subject to a $50-per-day penalty…
Griswold touted the new enforcement team as part of her efforts to target dark money in politics and to more rigorously enforce campaign finance laws.
