The Courts
Washington Post: Can President Trump block his critics on Twitter? Federal appeals court weighs that issue.
By Ann E. Marimow
“Are you seriously urging us to believe the president isn’t acting in his official capacity when he’s tweeting?” asked Judge Barrington D. Parker Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
The appeals court is considering the novel question of whether the First Amendment prevents Trump – and other elected officials – from shutting off critics on a platform the president regularly uses to communicate with the public.
The Trump administration is appealing a district court judge’s ruling from May siding with seven people blocked on the @realDonaldTrump account after they posted disapproving comments of the president and his policies.
Trump’s decision to block individual followers from replying and retweeting his messages, Parker said Tuesday in court, “subtracts from that discussion points of view the president doesn’t like.”
“Why isn’t that a quintessential First Amendment violation?” the judge asked.
Justice Department lawyer Jennifer Utrecht in her reply acknowledged the president’s tweets are official government statements, but she said Trump is acting in his private, unofficial capacity when he decides to block followers from his personal account.
“You are here because he’s not a private individual,” Judge Peter W. Hall responded, noting that the president was being represented by the Justice Department and not a private attorney…
The First Amendment prevents the government from blocking or excluding views it disagrees with in what is known as “viewpoint discrimination.” Elected officials throughout the country are learning to navigate how those principles apply after the earlier decision over the Trump account and one dealing with a Virginia politician.
Fundraising
Bloomberg: Money Can’t Buy You Love – Not in Campaigns, at Least
By Jonathan Bernstein
We need to recalibrate our understanding of campaign fundraising. Far more money is available now than ever before in presidential politics. Exhibits A and B: Beto O’Rourke pocketed about $6 million in his first day of being an announced presidential candidate. Senator Bernie Sanders had a similar, but slightly smaller, first day. They are way ahead of the other candidates, the most successful of whom raised about $1 million.
But this early good news for Sanders and O’Rourke might not turn out to be much of an advantage in the longer run.
Skeptics can point to a long line of candidates who raised plenty of money and ended up with very few votes, from John Connally in 1980 to Phil Gramm in 1996 to Jeb Bush in 2016. On the Democratic side, Howard Dean initially raised tons of cash and benefited from plenty of grassroots enthusiasm in 2003, but fizzled once actual voters had their say in the primaries.
One reason that money is no guarantee of winning is that spending shows diminishing marginal returns. Voters are reluctant to choose a candidate they’ve never heard of, and they’re especially more likely to vote for candidates if they know and like something about them. That’s a major source of incumbency advantage in U.S. House elections; even normally straight-ticket voters may cross party lines to vote for a known incumbent against an unknown challenger. Learning who the candidate is and learning a few things about him or her makes it far more likely a voter will support that candidate. But after that, voters are unlikely to absorb a whole lot more. For congressional challengers, that means the first round of ads can really help level the playing field, but then there’s less and less that electioneering can do.
Event
National Review Institute: National Review Institute’s 2019 Ideas Summit
Ed. Note: This afternoon, IFS President David Keating will be speaking with National Review Senior Writer and National Review Institute Senior Fellow David French about donor privacy.
Congress
Washington Post: Senate Democrats push to match House’s ethics and election reforms
By Mike DeBonis
Responding to action in the House, Senate Democrats unveiled their own version of a sweeping election and ethics reform bill Wednesday – one that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has vowed never to bring to a vote…
The bill, according to its lead author, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), has the support of all 47 senators in the Democratic caucus. The House bill passed 234 to 193 this month with unanimous Democratic support, meaning every congressional Democrat is on record in support of the bill.
“Today we are seizing their momentum and the momentum of the American people,” Udall said at a news conference Wednesday. “Now the ball is in Senator McConnell’s court. . . . This should not be about Democrats versus Republicans, this is about people versus special interests.” …
“More than anything else, Washington Democrats want a tighter grip on political debate and the operation of elections, nationwide,” McConnell said when the House bill passed.
The Senate bill unveiled Wednesday is mostly identical to the House bill, also known as H.R. 1, but it expands the public financing mechanism to include Senate campaigns…
Acknowledging the Republican blockade, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said its good politics for Democrats to continue pushing the bill.
“We’re the minority, but we’re putting them on the defensive,” he said. “Where do they stand? Where do they stand on dark money cascading into the system? Where do they stand on making it easier, not harder, for people to exercise their right to vote? Where do they stand on cleaning up the swamp? . . . If you don’t agree with us, what’s your answer? They don’t have one.”
The Media
The Hill: How CNN misled its viewers
By Alan Dershowitz
Viewers enjoyed my feisty debates with legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and asked for more. Host Anderson Cooper enjoyed sparring with me, as did hosts Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon. CNN viewers benefited from evaluating my viewpoints against those of other guests and hosts…
Over the past half year or so, I have never once been asked to appear on a CNN program. Initially I wondered why, and I asked some of my friends at the network. They were evasive and studiously avoided any direct answer…
Then I received off-the-record information that an order had come from the very top: CNN executive Jeff Zucker didn’t want me on CNN any more. My centrist, nuanced perspective was anathema to CNN’s emerging brand as the anti-Trump network…
Being perceived as a Trump legal defender, even though I publicly disagreed with many of his policies, was a cardinal sin for a liberal Democrat. It would confuse CNN’s viewers at a time when one had to be either for or against Trump. It was as if I were a Red Sox fan on the Yankee network. Today, everyone has to pick a team – Trump or anti-Trump – and picking the side of the Constitution and civil liberties just doesn’t do it…
As my mother said to me when I defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill., back in the ’70s: “You’re either for the Nazis or the Jews.” When I tried to explain that I was for the First Amendment, not the Nazis, my mother replied: “I’m your mother. Don’t give me that legal stuff. You should be for the Jews.”
My mother, smart as she was, didn’t go to college. The CNN brass did. They should know better, but for them the bottom line is what counts. And the bottom line grew bigger when CNN began to be seen as the anti-Trump network. The brass didn’t want their viewers’ minds to be confused by the law or the facts. Trump was guilty; that’s all they needed to know.
The States
Goldwater Institute: Mississippi Is About to Become the Next State to Protect Non-profits and Their Donors
By Matt Miller
Mississippi stands ready to protect the free-speech and associational rights of non-profit donors by enacting H.B. 1205. The bill has passed both chambers of the state legislature and currently awaits the Governor’s signature to become law. Predictably, proponents of unlimited donor disclosure oppose the bill, implying that represents a radical departure from established norms. They want the government to be able to demand any and all information about how non-profit groups are funded, claiming a “right to know” who and what their neighbors are supporting.
In reality, H.B. 1205 simply codifies longstanding practice in the 501(c) community and protects charitable donors from having their names put on a government list, thus exposing them to potential harassment and intimidation by their ideological opponents.
Protecting donor privacy is the default position for-and a responsibility taken seriously by-almost all of America’s non-profit organizations. Charity Navigator is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that provides quality ratings for over 9,000 U.S. charities… Charity Navigator uses many metrics in assessing its overall quality ranking, from fiscal responsibility to program effectiveness. One of the most important metrics looks at a charity’s donor privacy policies. Charities that honor and protect donor privacy receive a higher rating on this metric than those that do not.
The Better Business Bureau also likewise incorporates a group’s donor-protection measures into its charity rankings. In fact, nonprofit groups typically consider it an ethical obligation to keep their donors’ identities confidential.
Beckley Register-Herald: Governor signs bills raising campaign contribution limits, cutting coal tax
By Erin Beck
Governor Jim Justice signed into law a bill on Wednesday that increases the limits on campaign contributions by individuals…
Senate Bill 622, sponsored by Sen. Eric Tarr, R-Putnam, increases campaign contribution limits to $2,800 for candidates, to $5,000 for political action committees, and up to $10,000 per year for party committees. Current limits for each category are set at $1,000.
Proponents of the campaign finance bill, such as West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner, had pointed to provisions of it that increase transparency in some ways.
Oregon Public Broadcasting: Oregon Takes 1st Step Toward Campaign Finance Limits
By Jeff Mapes
The Senate Campaign Finance Committee approved a measure for the May 2020 primary ballot. It would undo state Supreme Court rulings that have struck down previous limits as an infringement of free-speech rights.
Oregon voters in 2006 didn’t approve a measure that sought to narrow those free-speech protections and place caps on campaign money…
[T]he measure passed out of the panel on a 3-2 party-line vote with only the Democrats in favor.
Senate Joint Resolution 18 now goes to the Senate Rules Committee, which has jurisdiction over ballot referrals. Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, chair of the rules committee, said she would look at changes in an attempt to get bipartisan support.
The resolution includes wording that would allow legislators or citizens initiatives to place limits on contributions. It would also allow the disclosure of spending made to “influence the outcome of any election” and allow laws that force campaigns to disclose their donors in advertisements…
Burdick said in an interview after the vote that she wanted to add language to SJR 18 that would require any limits meet some sort of test for “reasonableness.”
“If you don’t do it right, you risk having a very draconian limit” enacted at some point, Burdick said…
Unlike the constitutional measure that failed in 2006, SJR 18 would not be inserted into the free-speech section of the constitution. Instead it would be added Section 8, Article II, which deals with elections.
In addition, legislators expect to work this session on contribution limits that would go into effect if the constitutional amendment is approved by voters.
