Supreme Court
Wall Street Journal: Biden Commissions the Supreme Court
By The Editorial Board
President Biden on Friday announced his Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court, which is better understood as the commission on packing the Supreme Court. The White House is trying to make this seem like routine political business, but don’t be fooled.
Time: A Surprising Opinion From Justice Thomas May Signal an Ominous Shift on Free Speech
By David French
A curious thing happened at the Supreme Court a few days ago. One of the justices, Clarence Thomas, broke from his traditional judicial role and weighed in on a matter of public policy. He tried to put his thumb on the scales of a political dispute and floated legislative ideas that would profoundly and negatively impact First Amendment rights.
The issue is so-called Big Tech censorship. Thomas wrote a concurrence to a Supreme Court decision vacating a court of appeals opinion that had held that Donald Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked Twitter users from following his account. But since Trump was no longer president (and indeed had been kicked off Twitter entirely), the case was moot…
Make no mistake, social media moderation decisions are free speech. Even the way in which social media companies design algorithms to feature certain kinds of content at the expense of others is a form of free speech. They have created communities that reflect their own private visions of what a marketplace of ideas should look like and how it should function, and the result is a series of apps and websites that have different cultures, different customer bases, and different moderation rules.
And that’s what makes Thomas’s opinion so constitutionally unsettling.
The Courts
Courthouse News: Federal Election Commission
A federal appeals court upheld a ruling in favor of the Federal Election Commission, which was sued for not pursuing an enforcement action against nonprofit New Models. The plaintiff government watchdog group alleges the “now-defunct” nonprofit violated the registration and reporting requirements for political committees, but the commission relied on “prosecutorial discretion” so its decision is not subject to judicial review.
Congress
Wall Street Journal: What’s in the Democrats’ Voting-Rights Bill
By Alexa Corse and Siobhan Hughes
The [For the People Act] takes aim at a range of politically active outside groups, including super PACs, which are unaffiliated with campaigns but can support candidates with money from undisclosed donors…
Under the bill, the groups would have to disclose donors who give more than $10,000. Examples include Senate Majority PAC, which is associated with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), and Senate Leadership Fund, which is run by a former aide to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), as well as groups known as 501(c)(4)s, such as the National Rifle Association, the Sierra Club and the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU opposes the disclosure provision, saying it would expose the private associations of an overbroad number of donors, but has said it supports many of the bill’s other proposals.
The measure would establish a program to provide federal matching funds for campaign contributions of up to $200 at a 6-to-1 ratio, so that a $200 dollar donation would bring in an additional $1,200. The matching funds would be available only to campaigns that agree to a $1,000 limit for all individual contributions and to limit the use of personal funds to $50,000…
Under the measure, large online platforms such as Twitter and Facebook would have to maintain a publicly available database of all ad-purchase requests of more than $500. The database would have to include a copy of the ad, a description of the audience targeted by the ad, and the number of views generated by the ad.
Politico: No, the GOP and the Dems Haven’t Actually Swapped Brains
By Charles Sykes
Even after the lunacy of the past four years, the GOP’s recent behavior is jaw-dropping, an extraordinary transformation that feels like the Republican Party has experienced some sort of bizarre brain swap.
After years as the pro-business party, Republicans have formed an anti-corporate chorus. Republicans who only recently railed about “cancel culture,” now loudly demand the cancellation of critics, opponents and politically incorrect foes…
Conservatives who once claimed they favored limited government, now push an ambitious array of state mandates and interventions. Senators like Josh Hawley have called for the creation of new bureaucracies to audit and monitor speech on social media platforms. “Constitutional conservatives” like Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee threaten to use government power to retaliate against private organizations for their political speech.
And until about five minutes ago, GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was the Senate’s chief defender of the free speech rights of corporate America…
But last week, after the CEOs of major companies spoke out against Georgia’s voter suppression laws, he declared: “My advice to the corporate CEOs of America is to stay out of politics. Don’t pick sides in these big fights.” And he matched that with a threat: “Corporations will invite serious consequences if they become a vehicle for far-left mobs to hijack our country from outside the constitutional order.”
Fundraising
Washington Post: Rep. Greene’s fundraising haul alarms detractors, who warn she represents a dangerous side of American politics
By Marianna Sotomayor
[Georgia Republican] Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene announced earlier this week that she raised a staggering $3.2 million during the first quarter of the year with more than 100,000 individual donations. Her campaign team adds that 98 percent of the donations were under $200…
Greene’s total amounts to a historic record in fundraising for a House freshman during an off-year election quarter, and it is the latest and clearest sign that she has tapped into a vein of support that goes well beyond her Georgia district…
“Money offers politicians power and influence; she had a record take. This shows undeniable influence. Her anti-establishment approach to politics is what allowed her to really successfully fundraise, especially off of the January 6th insurrection,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.
“Nevertheless, I think it comes with an asterisk that influence comes with a negative side with her colleagues and party leadership, and certainly further harms her ability to work with Democrats. And it’s not like she is just a stellar fundraiser with an ability to churn donors. It was a confluence of events.”
Greene’s bombastic style has contributed to her ability to draw attention, and the money flowed after some of her more controversial statements or actions, according to Greene and her aides.
Center for Responsive Politics: Trump has 10 times more campaign cash than he did four years ago
By Karl Evers-Hillstrom
Former President Donald Trump has amassed 10 times more campaign cash than he had four years ago, and he’s already resuming fundraising efforts ahead of intra-party clashes in the 2022 midterms and a potential 2024 presidential run…
[Trump is] bolstered by a constant stream of online donations from diehard supporters…
In addition to his leadership PAC — which can spend money to support candidates and freely funnel cash to Trump-owned properties — Trump is reportedly planning to launch a super PAC to influence midterm races. During the 2016 campaign, Trump railed against super PACs, calling them “corrupt” and accusing his primary opponents of being “puppets” of wealthy donors.
Trump’s former aides are also attempting to build a “dark money” network, Politico reported. Some GOP strategists reportedly are alarmed by Democrats’ striking dark money advantage in the 2020 election. OpenSecrets reported last month that secret donors spent $514 million to boost Democrats and just $200 million to back Republicans. President Joe Biden received nearly six times more dark money support than Trump.
Online Speech Platforms
The Markup: Google Blocks Advertisers from Targeting Black Lives Matter YouTube Videos
By Leon Yin and Aaron Sankin
Last June, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki made a big promise to help Black YouTubers.
“We’re committed to doing better as a platform to center and amplify Black voices and perspectives,” she wrote in a blog post, announcing a $100 million fund to support them. “At YouTube, we believe Black lives matter and we all need to do more to dismantle systemic racism.”
But an investigation by The Markup found that YouTube parent company Google blocks advertisers from using dozens of social and racial justice terms, including Black Lives Matter, to find YouTube videos and channels upon which to advertise.
At the same time, Google offered advertisers hundreds of millions of choices for YouTube videos and channels related to White supremacist and other hate terms when we began our investigation, including “all lives matter”—a phrase frequently used as a dismissive rejoinder to Black Lives Matter—and “White lives matter”—which the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as both a neo-Nazi group and “a racist response to the civil rights movement Black Lives Matter.”
Google’s ad buying platform Google Ads also blocks the term “Black power,” a phrase associated with the African American civil rights movement but offered more than 100 million YouTube videos and channels it said were related to the White supremacist phrase “White power.”
Wall Street Journal: YouTube’s Assault on Covid Accountability
By The Editorial Board
To hold elected representatives responsible for decisions they make, Americans need to know what those officials and their advisers are saying. That’s an essential democratic principle, and it’s as true for coronavirus response as any other policy challenge. So it’s chilling that Google’s YouTube, through its “medical misinformation policy,” appears to be systematically undermining the ability to access material in the public interest.
Last September, YouTube scrubbed a Hoover Institution interview with Scott Atlas, then one of President Trump’s coronavirus advisers. In January it censored a U.S. Senate committee hearing on unapproved coronavirus treatments. Now it has taken down a video of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis holding a policy discussion with Dr. Atlas and the three creators of the Great Barrington Declaration, a group of physicians and scientists critical of strict lockdowns to fight the coronavirus.
The States
Carolina Journal: Senators move to make nonprofit donor names private
By Andrew Dunn
A new bill supported by influential N.C. senators would protect the confidentiality of donors to nonprofit organizations and charities.
Senate Bill 636 would prevent the disclosure of the names of people giving money or property to nonprofit corporations, making their identities confidential…
No federal laws require public disclosure of donors to charitable organizations. However, state laws can require nonprofits to disclose donor names…
“Laws and administrative orders that impose donor disclosure requirements on nonprofit organizations make people afraid to exercise their expressive rights, which is why the fight for donor privacy is so important,” wrote Jon Guze, senior fellow for legal studies at the John Locke Foundation, in a research paper arguing for the adoption of donor protection law in North Carolina.
“Donor privacy protects our expressive rights, especially with regard to matters of public policy.”
West Virginia and Mississippi have passed laws to protect donor privacy. Arkansas, Nebraska, Tennessee and Wyoming are considering similar laws this session.
North Carolina’s bill now sits in a Senate committee.
Capital Gazette: Maryland House advances bill reforming campaign financing
By Patrick Hauf
A bill reforming public financing of gubernatorial campaigns — raising the amount of matching money a campaign can get from $250 to $800 per donor, but eliminating corporate donations — continues to advance in the General Assembly, but time is running short.
Senate Bill 0415, sponsored by Sen. Paul Pinsky, D-Prince George’s, would allow the state government to match more funding for qualifying gubernatorial campaigns that only take donations from individuals, and of $250 or less.
Maryland is one of five states in the nation that has a program in place to match donations of certain qualifying candidates, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures — a policy intended to minimize the influence of corporations on elections.
Jared DeMarinis, director of candidacy and campaign finances for the Maryland State Board of Elections, said Pinsky’s bill keeps the program intact, for the most part…
The bill would expand how much the state can match donations of under $250, from a simple 1-to-1 ratio to matching the first three $50 donations from an individual by 8 to 1, 6 to 1, and 2 to 1. The final $100 would not be matched.
The bill would only allow the donations of $250 or less to be made by individuals, meaning candidates qualifying for these funds could no longer take these small donations from corporations or PACs, which are currently allowed but not matched.
The program would be available for two candidates in the primary election and one candidate in the general election…
The state legislature must pass the bill by Monday, its last day of the 2021 session.
