In the News
Pluribus: E-Pluribus (March 29, 2022)
By Jeryl Bier
A round up of the latest and best writing and musings on the rise of illiberalism in the public discourse:
Alex Baiocco: When They Attack ‘Dark Money,’ They’re Really Attacking Free Speech
Nothing seems to bring out accusations of the nefarious nature of “dark money” quite like the confirmation of Supreme Court justices. Alex Baiocco at Reason says Republicans should stop imitating Democrats and recognize the risks to free speech they are encouraging. (Notably, as Baiocco mentions, even the ACLU is raising the alarm on this issue.)
“… In plain English, [the DISCLOSE Act] would transform speech about nominations into a regulated form of campaign speech, even if neither a candidate for office nor an election is mentioned. Organizations that trigger the ‘judicial nomination communication’ regulations would have to submit donor lists to the Federal Election Commission, even though judicial nominations and confirmation processes are not elections.
These invasive and misleading disclosure mandates would thrust the judicial nomination process even further into the realm of partisan politics. Organizations that have always maintained a nonpartisan position and have never participated in elections would likely be unwilling to engage in speech that may trigger the bill’s provisions. Nonprofits could fall silent because they prioritize their supporters’ privacy over their ability to call on lawmakers to support or oppose a nomination.”
Read it all.
DOJ
New York Times: Justice Dept. Widens Jan. 6 Inquiry to Range of Pro-Trump Figures
By Alan Feuer, Katie Benner and Maggie Haberman
[Federal prosecutors] are also asking about planning for the rallies that preceded the assault on the Capitol, including the rally on the Ellipse on Jan. 6 of last year, just before a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol…
A grand jury sitting in Washington is investigating the rallies that preceded the storming of the Capitol, a person familiar with the matter said.
One of the subpoenas, which was reviewed by The New York Times, sought information about people “classified as VIP attendees” at Mr. Trump’s Jan. 6 rally.
It also sought information about members of the executive and legislative branches who had been involved in the “planning or execution of any rally or any attempt to obstruct, influence, impede or delay” the certification of the 2020 election…
Another person briefed on the grand jury investigation said at least one person involved in the logistics of the Jan. 6 rally had been asked to appear.
The House committee’s investigators, like the federal prosecutors, have also been interested in the planning and financing of the Jan. 6 rally on the Ellipse and key figures involved in it.
Washington Post: Justice Dept. expands Jan. 6 probe to look at rally prep, financing
By Devlin Barrett, Josh Dawsey, Jacqueline Alemany and Spencer S. Hsu
The events of Jan. 6, 2021, are a legally fraught puzzle for federal investigators. Prosecutors and FBI agents must distinguish between constitutionally protected First Amendment activity, such as speech and assembly, and the alleged conspiracy to obstruct Congress or other potential crimes connected to fundraising and organizing leading up to Jan. 6.
The task is also complicated by the proximity of those two very different types of activities — speech and violence — that occurred within hours of each other and less than a mile apart.
FEC
Washington Examiner: Scoop: FEC fines DNC and Clinton for Trump dossier hoax
By Paul Bedard
The Federal Election Commission has fined the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign for lying about the funding of the infamous, and discredited, Russian “dossier” used in a smear attempt against Donald Trump weeks before he shocked the world with his 2016 presidential victory.
The election agency said that Clinton and the DNC violated strict rules on describing expenditures of payments funneled to the opposition research firm Fusion GPS through their law firm.
Politico: Federal campaign watchdog fines DNC, Clinton campaign over dossier spending disclosure
By Zach Montellaro
The DNC and the Clinton campaign collectively agreed to pay $113,000 in fines, according to separate conciliation agreements the agency made with both parties. The DNC will pay $105,000 and the Clinton campaign $8,000.
The FEC conciliation agreements were made public Wednesday after the Coolidge Reagan Foundation first shared a response letter from the agency with the Washington Examiner. POLITICO independently obtained a second, and similar, letter the agency sent to the CLC.
The Media
New York Post: Washington Post joins New York Times in finally admitting emails from Hunter Biden laptop are real
By Bruce Golding
The Washington Post on Wednesday became the second major news outlet to reverse course and admit that emails from the infamous Hunter Biden laptop are authentic — nine months after it obtained them and a year and a half after the New York Post first reported on them.
The paper said two security experts used cryptographic signatures from Google and other technology companies to validate nearly 22,000 emails from 2009 to 2019, including messages related to Hunter Biden’s controversial overseas business dealings.
Some verified emails involved a deal President Biden’s son pursued with the CEFC China Energy conglomerate for which he was paid nearly $5 million, according to the Washington Post.
Other verified emails related to his work for the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings, for which Hunter Biden was paid as much as $83,333 or a month, or $1 million a year.
In October 2020, the New York Post exclusively revealed the existence of Hunter Biden’s emails after being given a copy of the hard drive from a damaged MacBook Pro laptop that the owner of a repair shop in the Biden family’s hometown of Wilmington, Del., said was dropped off in April 2019 and never retrieved.
Free Expression
James Surowiecki: Slapping the Jester
The figure of the jester, or the Fool, has existed in many cultures in many different eras, and though that figure has taken many different forms, one of its key characteristics is that jesters do not have to follow the same rules everyone else does, particularly when it comes to speech. They can say the things that others may be thinking but are too afraid to say, and can say them (usually) without fear of punishment…
That’s why, when Smith slapped Rock, what he was breaking wasn’t some general social rule against responding to insults with violence. (There are lots of place in America where that norm isn’t really a thing.) Instead, he was breaking the bubble that we’ve let comedians exist in, and insisting that they can be punished for what they say. He was whipping the jester.
The States
California Globe: SJ City Council Passes Draft Proposal To Bar Political Donations by Foreign-Owned Corps
By Evan Symon
The San Jose City Council voted 9-1 on Tuesday on a piece of draft legislation to prohibit foreign-influenced corporations from making political contributions to any city elections in San Jose.
According to the passed draft proposal, the new campaign finance law would not allow corporations with one percent or more ownership by a single foreign national or 5% or more ownership by multiple foreign nationals from making political expenditures in city elections. While the proposal on Tuesday was only a policy memorandum on final draft ordinance language, its passage was seen as a major indicator that the San Jose City Council would pass the ordinance in the coming weeks.
CBS 8: Judge: Racist threats not protected by First Amendment
By David Gotfredson
A San Diego judge has ruled the First Amendment does not protect “racial threats, advocacy of violence towards minority groups, vulgar speech [or] speech that promotes killing other minority groups,” in a local gun violence restraining order (GVRO) case filed against an Alpine man…
Attorneys representing Caruthers, 23, argued the case should be thrown out because Caruthers did not threaten specific individuals, and the remarks were protected under the First Amendment.
