In the News
PJ Media: Mike Bloomberg’s $500M Failure Busts Liberal Fears About Citizens United
By Tyler O’Neil
Every campaign cycle, Democrats come out swinging against the unpopular Supreme Court decision, warning that due to Citizens United, people will be able to buy elections outright. That’s not what Citizens United did, and Bloomberg’s embarrassing failure shows why Democrats’ fears are overblown…
Of course, this Supreme Court decision did have some impact on elections, but not when it comes to entrenching the powerful. Quite the reverse.
As Bradley Smith noted in The Wall Street Journal, “The decision made it easier to promote (or criticize) a candidate without help from party leaders or media elites.”
Cato Daily Podcast: Billionaires Bloomberg, Steyer Spent Big Money to Win and Came Up Empty
Featuring Scott Blackburn and Caleb O. Brown
Billionaires spent big to win the White House this election cycle and failed spectacularly. What’s the lesson for policymakers? Scott Blackburn of the Institute for Free Speech comments.
New from the Institute for Free Speech
Calling All Joke Police: Satire Is Not Disinformation
By Tiffany Donnelly
Since the days of ancient Greece, people have used satire to criticize political leadership and make biting social commentary. In the United States, parody, juxtaposition, exaggeration, and comparison have always been considered fair game in politics. But now, under the guise of deterring disinformation, some public officials want to change that tradition.
Two recent controversies illustrate how once-celebrated forms of political expression are being targeted by people in power.
Supreme Court
ACLU Blog: Will SCOTUS Protect the Right to Protest?
By Vera Eidelman
Since this country’s founding, when we’ve had something to say, we have taken to the streets. We’ve come together to celebrate our identities, to protect our land and our communities – and to push for change following injustice and tragedy. But if a recent decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals involving a Black Lives Matter protest is left standing, the right to protest will be in serious jeopardy.
That is why, today, we’re asking the Supreme Court to take the case.
The Courts
By Matt Miller
Activist Gene Stilp likes to show his displeasure with President Donald Trump by setting things on fire.
Usually, he torches flags.
A health and safety ordinance of the City of Harrisburg doesn’t allow him to ignite anything in a public venue, however.
That’s a violation of his free speech rights, Stilp claims in a federal lawsuit…
Stilp, who describes himself as a “prominent political activist,” contends in the U.S. Middle District Court complaint that his right to political expression should trump the restrictions of the city’s burn ordinance.
The case marks Stilp’s second legal attack on that measure.
Last month, he convinced a district judge in Harrisburg to throw out a citation he was issued for violating the burn ordinance during a one-man anti-Trump protest he staged at the state Capitol Complex in December. District Judge David O’Leary voided the citation after concluding the ordinance is so broad it could squelch political free speech.
JD Supra: New Jersey’s “Dark Money” Law is Effectively Dead
By Avi Klein, Genova Burns LLC
For more than a year now, New Jersey non-profits and politically active groups have been following the saga of S150, the so-called Dark Money law. This law would have dramatically increased the reporting obligations of 501(c)(4) social-welfare organizations and political organizations operating under Section 527 of Internal Revenue Code that engaged in a wide range of New Jersey political activity and advocacy.
Now, after a conditional veto from Governor Murphy and a host of court challenges, it appears that the registration and reporting obligations of S150 will not go into effect. To settle the ongoing litigation challenging the constitutionality of some of the law’s provisions, Attorney General Gurbir Grewal has agreed to a permanent injunction that would keep the state and the Election Law Enforcement Commission from enforcing the disclosure obligations contained in the law. These permanent injunctions would apply not only to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit but would be applied broadly.
New from the Institute for Free Speech
Calling All Joke Police: Satire Is Not Disinformation
By Tiffany Donnelly
Since the days of ancient Greece, people have used satire to criticize political leadership and make biting social commentary. In the United States, parody, juxtaposition, exaggeration, and comparison have always been considered fair game in politics. But now, under the guise of deterring disinformation, some public officials want to change that tradition.
Two recent controversies illustrate how once-celebrated forms of political expression are being targeted by people in power.
Supreme Court
ACLU Blog: Will SCOTUS Protect the Right to Protest?
By Vera Eidelman
Since this country’s founding, when we’ve had something to say, we have taken to the streets. We’ve come together to celebrate our identities, to protect our land and our communities – and to push for change following injustice and tragedy. But if a recent decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals involving a Black Lives Matter protest is left standing, the right to protest will be in serious jeopardy.
That is why, today, we’re asking the Supreme Court to take the case.
The Courts
By Matt Miller
Activist Gene Stilp likes to show his displeasure with President Donald Trump by setting things on fire.
Usually, he torches flags.
A health and safety ordinance of the City of Harrisburg doesn’t allow him to ignite anything in a public venue, however.
That’s a violation of his free speech rights, Stilp claims in a federal lawsuit…
Stilp, who describes himself as a “prominent political activist,” contends in the U.S. Middle District Court complaint that his right to political expression should trump the restrictions of the city’s burn ordinance.
The case marks Stilp’s second legal attack on that measure.
Last month, he convinced a district judge in Harrisburg to throw out a citation he was issued for violating the burn ordinance during a one-man anti-Trump protest he staged at the state Capitol Complex in December. District Judge David O’Leary voided the citation after concluding the ordinance is so broad it could squelch political free speech.
JD Supra: New Jersey’s “Dark Money” Law is Effectively Dead
By Avi Kelin, Genova Burns LLC
For more than a year now, New Jersey non-profits and politically active groups have been following the saga of S150, the so-called Dark Money law. This law would have dramatically increased the reporting obligations of 501(c)(4) social-welfare organizations and political organizations operating under Section 527 of Internal Revenue Code that engaged in a wide range of New Jersey political activity and advocacy.
Now, after a conditional veto from Governor Murphy and a host of court challenges, it appears that the registration and reporting obligations of S150 will not go into effect. To settle the ongoing litigation challenging the constitutionality of some of the law’s provisions, Attorney General Gurbir Grewal has agreed to a permanent injunction that would keep the state and the Election Law Enforcement Commission from enforcing the disclosure obligations contained in the law. These permanent injunctions would apply not only to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit but would be applied broadly.
FEC
Full Measure (Video): Cover Story: Busted and Broke
By Sharyl Attkisson
Editor’s Note: At 1:48, host Sharyl Attkisson discusses the Federal Election Commission with Issue One’s Meredith McGehee.
IRS
Mises Institute: The IRS’s History of Attacking Political Dissenters and Opponents
By José Niño
From a big-picture perspective, political advocacy in America is excessively regulated. Thanks to so-called campaign finance reform, now political organizations have to worry about complying with a whole set of new regulations-as if the IRS breathing down their necks wasn’t enough.
Just a minor slipup could have IRS or other regulatory agents storming an organization’s office. This is typical of the administrative state era we live in, in which filing the wrong paperwork could land someone behind bars…
Even after the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC-which ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting the ability of political organizations to use independent expenditures for political communications-government entities still find creative ways to stifle political speech. At the state level, governments have taken advantage of regulatory functions to poke and prod organizations that cause too much trouble…
The regulation of economic activity in this stage of American history has undeniably evolved into a mechanism of behavioral control. It’s no longer about whether an individual will have X amount of dollars left after the government takes its share of the loot. Now, people’s political activities, such as their speech, can be subject to political micromanagement.
Media
Fox News: Trump campaign sues CNN over ‘false and defamatory’ statements, seeks millions in damages
By Brian Flood and Brooke Singman
President Trump’s re-election campaign filed a libel lawsuit against CNN on Friday for publishing “false and defamatory” statements about seeking Russia’s help in the 2020 election.
“The complaint alleges CNN was aware of the falsity at the time it published them but did so for the intentional purpose of hurting the campaign while misleading its own readers in the process… the campaign filed this lawsuit against CNN and the preceding suits against The New York Times and The Washington Post to hold the publishers accountable for their reckless false reporting and also to establish the truth,” Senior Legal Adviser to Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. Jenna Ellis told Fox News.
New York Times: What Bernie Sanders Gets Right About the Media
By Ben Smith
Bernie Sanders has been searching for that alternative to for-profit media for a long time. Back in 1981, when he became mayor of Burlington, Vt., he turned to his staff and said: “We can’t survive. We have to develop our own media.”
And while some left-wing media outlets are now emerging, they’re not going to flower in time to save his campaign.
That became painfully clear last Wednesday when, after his stunning setback on Super Tuesday, Mr. Sanders bent the knee and submitted to a barrage of not particularly friendly questions from the most powerful progressive on TV, the MSNBC host Rachel Maddow.
He had been avoiding the network, suspicious of its wealthy hosts and corporate owners. He told Ms. Maddow in mild exasperation that one of his challenges was “taking on the corporate media, if I might say so.” …
At the same time, the events of the past week have validated much of his criticism of the media, the subject of a 1988 town hall with Mr. Sanders and the radical provocateur Abbie Hoffman. Mr. Sanders complained that Vermont’s television stations had been “prostituted by commercials.” …
His main point: “The media itself is as important a political issue as exists.”
Independent Groups
Washington Post: Mike Bloomberg plans new group to support Democratic nominee
By Michael Scherer
Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg has decided to form an independent expenditure campaign that will absorb hundreds of his presidential campaign staffers in six swing states to work to elect the Democratic nominee this fall.
The group, with a name that is still undisclosed because its trademark application is in process, would also be a vehicle for Bloomberg to spend money on advertising to attack President Trump and support the Democratic nominee, according to a person familiar with the discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to reveal internal deliberations.
Online Speech Platforms
Politico: ‘Manipulated media’: Twitter applies new label to edited video of Biden
By Rishika Dugyala
Twitter applied its new “manipulated media” label for the first time Sundayon an edited video of Joe Biden that a White House official posted and that President Donald Trump retweeted…
Twitter’s new policy, which went into effect on Thursday, defines manipulated posts as any photo, video or audio that has been “significantly altered or fabricated.” The company will remove the media if it is found likely to “cause serious harm,” and, regardless, at least label tweets as erroneous or doctored. In some cases, Twitter will also offer additional context about the video.
The Verge: Twitter now bans dehumanizing remarks based on age, disability, and disease
By Jay Peters
Twitter has updated its hate speech policies to cover tweets that make dehumanizing remarks, which are remarks that treat “others as less than human,” on the basis of age, disability, or disease. The changes follow updates to the company’s polices made last July that said Twitter would remove tweets that dehumanize religious groups.
Prior to that, Twitter issued a broad ban in 2018 on dehumanizing speech to compliment its existing hate speech policies that cover protected classes like race and gender. It has since been updating these dehumanization policies to take into account specific cases its original ruleset failed to address, based on user feedback.
Washington Examiner: Democrats’ new bill targeting ‘fake news’ threatens free speech
By Satya Marar
Rep. David Cicilline says he’s drafting a bill that would remove Section 230 liability protection for online platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, for publishing “demonstrably false” political advertisements. In threatening social media companies with punitive laws due to their alleged danger as “fake news” propagators, the Rhode Island Democrat joins notable members of his party, including presidential front-runner Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
While the full text of Cicilline’s bill isn’t expected until later this month, it’s nonetheless clear that these attacks on free speech and tech companies have unintended implications. Removing liability protections would be dire for free online discourse and could cause the greatest damage to those who challenge the narratives of those in power.
The first problem with these crackdowns on speech and political advertisements is that they’re likely to be unconstitutional…
The second problem is just as fundamental: Who decides what is “demonstrably false” and on what basis?
The Verge: NYU researchers say Facebook advertisers lied about their identity
By Kim Lyons
A yearlong analysis of Facebook’s Ad Library has revealed “significant systemic flaws” in the way the platform monitors and enforces its political ad rules, according to researchers at New York University.
The issues were uncovered as part of the NYU team’s audit of the Ad Library between May 2018 and June 2019, which found some $37 million worth of ads did not accurately disclose who was paying for them.
Researchers Laura Edelson, Tobias Lauringer, and Damon McCoy found more than 86,000 Facebook Pages that ran political ads with the misleading disclosures, the report states. More than 19,000 ads appeared to be paid for by “likely inauthentic communities,” with groups of Pages promoting near-identical images or messages targeted at swing state voters.
Wall Street Journal: Made-in-China Censorship for Sale
By Shan Li
For China’s tech companies, content-moderation tools are becoming a big business, and one that could spread Chinese-style censorship around the world.
U.S. tech companies already use content-moderation systems to screen out pornography, hate speech and extreme violence online, but they have largely resisted using them to filter political content.
Because of China’s demands that online platforms remove all objectionable content, including anything politically sensitive, Chinese companies are taking a much different road. Tech giants like Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. and Tencent Holdings Ltd. are developing sophisticated content-moderation systems that intentionally target political content-and are selling those systems to anyone who wants to use them…
The widening availability of such tools makes China’s largest tech companies bigger partners in Beijing’s censorship program and allows companies to more efficiently and cheaply police digital content on their own, based on regulators’ guidelines.
It also increases the odds other countries will use content moderation the same way, as Chinese systems become easier to obtain.
“The global norm is trending toward censorship over expression,” said Matt Perault, a former director of public policy at Facebook Inc. and now director of Duke University’s Center on Science & Technology Policy. “Many countries looking to import the tools and policy to govern their internet will pick China’s off-the-shelf technology.”
Candidates and Campaigns
Wall Street Journal: Bloomberg’s ‘100-Day Wild Ride’ Was a Campaign Like No Other
By Tarini Parti
For campaign veterans accustomed to tight budgets and constant fundraising struggles, being in the Bloomberg bubble meant entirely changing their mind-set and essentially removing money as a factor in any decision-making.
It also meant significantly higher salaries, relocation stipends, three catered meals a day, corporate housing in New York City, new MacBooks and iPhones, fancier hotels for those on the road with rooms they didn’t have to share, among other luxuries they are unlikely to get on any other campaign…
And all of that was possible without a campaign schedule that revolved around blocking off time for the candidate to make calls to major donors or to travel to wealthy enclaves for fundraising.
Several staffers said there were many moments-sometimes in a single day-when they were stunned by the ease with which decisions could be made and problems solved when money didn’t matter.
In certain cases, however, the lack of constraints made prioritizing what the campaign needed to do in a short period harder, some said.
Reason: Losers Bloomberg and Steyer Spent Millions. Stop Freaking Out About Money in Politics.
By Eric Boehm
It’s fashionable for Democrats-and, if polls are to be believed, many Republicans too-to believe that something must be done about the supposedly intolerable influence of money in American politics.
Indeed, there is a lot of money in American politics, as the ongoing Democratic primary (and every election in recent memory) makes clear. But after Super Tuesday, it seems clear that candidates cannot buy their way into the White House…
“We believe in old-fashioned democracy: one person, one vote, not billionaires buying elections,” Sanders said at a rally in mid-February.
Well, good news for Sanders. Billionaires aren’t buying this election.
Money, at best, buys you a ticket to the dance. It cannot make you the prom king.
Washington Post: Bloomberg is the latest rich politician to learn money can’t buy love – or votes
By Helaine Olen
It’s not quite right to say money can’t buy electoral love – we’ve got plenty of evidence that it can…
But the success of politicians purchasing a major political office with their own funds is not as sure a thing as people seem to think. Others who’ve attempted to buy their way to the presidency include Ross Perot and Steve Forbes. This cycle alone also offered up Tom Steyer and Howard Schultz’s flirtation with an independent bid. (President Trump, if you are wondering, doesn’t really count. His calling card was his celebrity, which is something else entirely. Just ask former two-term California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.)
The States
Washington State Wire: Legislature passes several bills Thursday
By Madeline Shannon
Several bills passed the state legislature Thursday…
Senate Bill 6152 would require campaign finance reports to include certifications that every entity that makes a financial contribution to that campaign that the ownership of that company, organization or group is composed of less than 50 percent foreign nationals, effectively limiting foreign interference in Washington political campaigns. Amendments added by the House also stipulate that non financial contribution, political advertisement or communication can be paid for or sponsored by a foreign national.
Providence Journal: R.I. senators file bill promoted by anti-gay activist to punish media
By Katherine Gregg
Several Rhode Island state senators have proposed a “Stop Guilt by Accusation Act” to ban the media from “selectively reporting” facts.
The legislation was proposed by Senators Sandra Cano, D-Pawtucket; Elizabeth Crowley, D-Central Falls; Ana Quezada, D-Providence; and Harold Metts, D-Providence.
In their legislation, the lawmakers acknowledge that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says the government “shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.”
But they make this argument in their bill:
“The state has a compelling interest to compel the press to promote the objective truth for the sake of the viability of democracy and for the safety, health, and welfare of our communities and in keeping with the spirit of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and to stop the press from serving as a slander machine.”
Most basically, the legislation would require the media to report the outcome of court cases. The potential fine for not doing this – or other transgressions: $10,000.
The filing prompted this response from Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island chapter of the ACLU: “Freedom of the press has never been more vital, but this bill is a direct attack on that freedom.
The State: South Carolina utility sues customer who complained about service
By Sammy Fretwell
A small South Carolina utility with a recent history of drinking water violations has taken the unusual step of suing a customer who complained about the quality of water piped to her house in rural Fairfield County.
In a lawsuit filed this past week, the Jenkinsville Water Co. says Bertha Goins has made false and reckless statements about water quality that have embarrassed the utility and damaged its reputation…
The water company’s case against Goins is a concern to free speech advocates, who question whether the suit could discourage complaints.
“As a general matter, this is pretty unusual,” said Sarah Matthews, an attorney for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Washington.
“For a utility company to sue a customer for complaining about the quality of the water – to sue them for libel – is extremely troubling. This is why the First Amendment is so important. It protects a person’s right to speak freely. That right is particularly important where people have information that should be shared with others, such as about public health problems.”
Matthews said South Carolina, unlike 30 other states, doesn’t have a law specifically discouraging lawsuits that are intended to curtail free speech.
Jay Bender, a lawyer for the S.C. Press Association who has represented The State and other newspapers, questioned why a public body would take legal action against a customer. The Jenkinsville Water Co. has said it is private, but research Bender said he has done indicates it is public. S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson also issued an opinion in 2011 that the water company is public.
“It is the government suing a citizen for speech,” Bender said. “That is entirely inconsistent with democracy.”
Inside Bitcoins: Political Campaigns in Minnesota May be Fined for Accepting Cryptocurrency Donations, New Bill Proposes
By Max Moeller
A group of lawmaking executives in the state of Minnesota is looking to ban political campaign donations done via cryptocurrencies instead of local fiat.
According to The Block, the bill was introduced in May, 2019…
While it didn’t appear to gain much ground since then, the group has renewed this push as of February 27…
This renewed version of the bill notes that any campaign which accepts cryptocurrencies “including but not limited to bitcoin” would be fined up to $3,000 by the board.
That, and “A person who knowingly accepts any digital unit of exchange in violation of this section is guilty of a felony.”
