In the News
Washington Post: Liberal, conservative organizations unite against National Park Service proposal to charge protest fees
By Marissa J. Lang
In its first collective act, the coalition submitted a letter Monday to members of Congress, urging them to push the acting director of the Park Service to halt attempts to change how the agency handles demonstrations…
The group is led by the American Civil Liberties Union and comprised of organizations that include the left-leaning Public Citizen and the NAACP, as well as the conservative Charles Koch Institute and the March for Life Education and Defense Fund…
Though the Park Service outlined more than a dozen changes in its August announcement to how the agency facilitates protests, the coalition zeroed in on three proposals it said were “particularly troubling.”
The first is whether the Park Service should explore charging protest organizers additional fees for permitted demonstrations, vigils and rallies, such as the costs of supporting and securing the event – charges that could include the cost of additional police officers called in for large-scale demonstrations.
The coalition also opposes a Park Service proposal that would close off a significant portion of the sidewalk outside the White House, where protesters routinely gather to picket and air grievances…
The group’s third point of opposition centers on a proposal that coalition members said would stifle spontaneous demonstrations. Under the change, the Park Service would allow spur-of-the-moment demonstrations only if the agency has the resources and personnel readily available – rather than its current charge to make such resources available.
Daily Caller: From Rick Santorum To Beto O’Rourke, Federal Regulation Arbitrarily Criminalizes Candidates
By Eric Wang
The 2020 Democratic presidential primary has been notable not only for the multitude of declared candidates, but also for the others who may still run. But a vague Federal Election Commission regulation makes “testing the waters” a legal minefield for prospective candidates. A recently released FEC enforcement matter involving former senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum illustrates the danger…
The FEC’s “testing the waters” rule provides a limited exemption under which potential candidates may raise and spend money for exploring a run without having to report to the FEC. But all of those contributions must comply with the FEC rules if they become candidates. All pre-candidacy contributions and payments also become reportable after one becomes a candidate.
Although the FEC rule appears to be a shield, it often becomes a sword to investigate and punish candidates. If the FEC decides pre-candidacy activities were “for the purpose of” determining whether an individual should run, that can result in violations if they were not paid for or reported in accordance with FEC rules. However, the rule fails to clearly articulate which pre-candidacy activities are regulated.
More than 40 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a “for the purpose of” standard was unconstitutional. The court concluded an identically worded intent-based standard in the federal campaign finance statute was impermissibly vague. Under the standard, would-be speakers could not know what was legal and what was not…
The FEC should repeal this inherently vague and subjective regulation or replace it with clear standards.
ABA Journal: Catch and Kill: Can tabloids hide behind the First Amendment?
By Rebecca Beyer
Experts are divided on whether the government could have successfully proven a campaign finance violation against a media company or its publisher on the AMI/McDougal facts. They are also divided on whether the government should have even tried. Would such a prosecution have been merely a one-off effort to hold one specific man (Pecker) accountable for his actions to benefit another specific man (Trump) during a political campaign? Or would it be a step down a road that eventually leads to a whittling away of the First Amendment? …
Bradley A. Smith, a former FEC chairman and founder of the Institute for Free Speech, says the AMI/McDougal case would be “the easy case if you want to penetrate the press exemption.” He cautions against doing so because of the possibility that other, harder cases might then be pursued.
“If you’re going to have a press exemption to these laws, you kind of have to have a press exemption,” says Smith, now a professor at Capital University Law School. “The press exemption is lost if every time the press does something, you can file a complaint and do an investigation into their motives. That’s why I would be very loath to move on this.”
Kathleen Culver, director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, says codifying journalism ethics in case law would be dangerous for the profession. “We should be very concerned about the power that cedes to the government,” she says. “A lot of people would like to see the government sanction the press, but that flies in the face of free expression guarantees.”
New from the Institute for Free Speech
We, the undersigned coalition of organizations, write to urge the House Natural Resources Committee to secure a commitment from the Acting Director of the National Park Service (NPS), Dan Smith, to withdraw proposed rules restricting protesting and demonstration activities on the National Mall, on publicly accessible grounds surrounding the White House, and on other NPS areas in Washington, DC. We urge the Committee to inquire about the status of the rulemaking during the April 3rd oversight hearing and to press the Acting Director of the NPS to withdraw this unconstitutional proposal.
Our organizations do not agree on all issues, but one principle we unreservedly support is our right to gather together to express ourselves. The quintessential locations for these expressive gatherings in the United States are the National Mall and the public spaces surrounding the White House. These spaces are special to American public life. Their use for protests and demonstrations are “historic in our democratic society, and one of its cardinal values.” Yet, NPS, in a recent notice of proposed rulemaking, is considering restricting our rights of access to these spaces and limiting our ability to gather spontaneously to make our voices heard. We are very concerned that, should these rules go into effect, they will chill speech and harm our national discourse.
The proposed rules raise a number of First Amendment concerns. Three of the proposals stand out as particularly troubling and worthy of close attention from the Committee.
Online Speech Platforms
Fox Business: When you outsource censorship to the government it’s a bad idea: FCC Commissioner (Video)
FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr on Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s calls for more regulation of the Internet.
The Federalist: Mark Zuckerberg’s Plan For The Internet Would Be A Disaster For Free Expression
By David Harsanyi
It’s true that the skewed manner in which social media companies regulate political speech is already hurting them. Many conservatives have rightly grumbled about the double standards employed by social media giants. Just this week, Twitter “accidentally” deleted the account of “Unplanned,” a pro-life film, and then reportedly blocked people from following it…
Yet, does anyone really believe handing over Facebook’s speech codes to censors is going to yield better results for open debate in the long run? Do they not remember that the Citizens United decision was the result of bureaucrats attempting to ban political speech? Do they not remember what how easy it was for IRS officials tasked as arbiters of political speech to abuse their power? …
Zuckerberg also contends that we need speech codes to protect our “elections.” There’s nothing wrong with our elections-other than Donald Trump’s victory rankling Democrats. The left and their allies like to attribute election losses to nefarious “dark money,” fake news, and social media bots, all of which apparently have the ability to bore into the minds of Americans and induce them vote for Republicans. In the real world, there’s no evidence that a single vote had been altered because of a few hundred thousand dollars in Facebook ads.
There are, of course, already laws that make it illegal for Facebook to accept money from foreign nations attempting to inject themselves into U.S. elections…
And, in the end, having an occasional amateurish fake news piece drop into your social media feed is far preferable to having a government censor deciding what constitutes appropriate news…
In any event, it’s far more likely that Americans latch onto ads and news that already conform to their opinions. Political scientists at the University of Michigan and Princeton found that influence of fake news has been wildly over-hyped.
Washington Examiner: Free speech, Mark Zuckerberg, and the founders’ enduring glory
By Tom Rogan
Internet freedom is increasingly under threat. But one group has done far more than any other to defend it: the founders of the United States and their great enduring creation, the Constitution. Because faced with escalating global efforts to censor free speech online, the First Amendment stands resolute in guarding our freedom.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s Washington Post article last Saturday offering an extraordinary surrender to authoritarianism. Referencing Facebook, the CEO stated, “Lawmakers often tell me we have too much power over speech, and frankly I agree.”
Anyone want to spot the contradiction there? Facebook’s nominal raison d’etre is to serve as a space for empowering speech by people who might not have had a platform in ages past. That Zuckerberg would thus wish for government constraint over speech is deeply concerning. But the former Harvard student makes clear that that’s exactly what he wants. Zuckerberg continues his essay by calling for a “common global framework — rather than regulation that varies by country and state” to govern what can be posted online. This, Zuckerberg says, “could set baselines for what’s prohibited and require companies to build systems for keeping harmful content to a bare minimum.” …
Fortunately, the First Amendment ensures that even if a plurality of democratic governments support bans on controversial online speech, American speech will always remain protected. We should wish for that protection because healthy societies do not thrive by censoring and chilling controversial speech. They thrive by empowering individuals to write unpleasant things and thus freeing others to consider, if only to refute, controversial ideas.
Congress
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Election reform is needed, but Democrats’ bill isn’t answer
By Rep. Rodney Davis (R., Ill.)
A few weeks ago, the House voted on House Resolution 1, the Democratic election, campaign finance and ethics reform bill that misuses taxpayer dollars, takes power away from states to administer their own elections, and threatens to limit Americans’ constitutional rights. Members of Congress are elected to serve the people, not adhere to special interests of outside organizations or politicians. That’s why I couldn’t vote for H.R. 1. While they named the bill the For the People Act, if implemented it would do a lot more for the politicians than the people…
Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union opposed it because they believe it went too far in violating your constitutional rights. In a letter opposing it, the ACLU wrote, “There are also provisions that unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech rights of American citizens and public interest organizations. They will have the effect of harming our public discourse by silencing necessary voices that would otherwise speak out about the public issues of the day.” …
Not only is it overriding states’ authority, it’s also putting more money into politicians’ campaigns with the 6-to-1 government match on small-donor campaign contributions. Had this been in effect during the last election cycle, it would equate to approximately over $4 million per candidate. Whether you support that candidate or not, the federal government would be funding their campaign. Any member of Congress who voted for H.R. 1 voted to put corporate and eventually taxpayer dollars into their own campaign. I firmly believe the federal government should not be in the business of funding political campaigns.
Peoria Journal Star: Bustos: McConnell must allow Senate vote on For the People agenda
By Rep. Cheri Bustos (D., Ill.)
[W]hen voters entrusted us with the House majority, one of the first steps we took was introducing and passing H.R. 1 – known as the For the People Act – to confront Washington’s culture of corruption…
The For the People Act will unmask secret money and require more transparency from Super PACs – and also prevent the flow of foreign money into our elections…
At its core, this legislation takes power from Washington and the special interests and returns it back to the people. The U.S. House of Representatives took bold action – and now the ball is in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s hands. Unfortunately, entrenched politicians like him are clinging to power and protecting the special interests – and he’s refusing to bring our For the People Act up for a vote.
But we can’t back down from this fight to give Americans a voice in our democracy and to clean up the corruption in Washington. While there are some in our nation’s capital who will always protect the special interests, I’ll always fight for the people. Period.
Political Parties
Washington Free Beacon: Ocasio-Cortez: Democratic Donors Should Stop Donating Money to the DCCC
By Cameron Cawthorne
Ocasio-Cortez’s criticism of the DCCC is in response to Rep. Cheri Bustos (D., Ill.), the new chairwoman of the DCCC, announcing a new policy earlier this month that attempts to protect incumbent Democrats from primary challengers. The new policy bans Democratic consultants from working with primary challengers if they want to continue doing business with DCCC…
“The @DCCC’s new rule to blacklist+boycott anyone who does business w/ primary challengers is extremely divisive & harmful to the party,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. “My recommendation, if you’re a small-dollar donor: pause your donations to DCCC & give directly to swing candidates instead.”
Ocasio-Cortez’s legislative assistant, Dan Riffle, who goes by “Every Billionaire Is A Policy Failure” on Twitter, said on Thursday that Progressive Caucus members should stop paying dues to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee over its new policy…
Progressive Caucus co-chairs Mark Pocan (D., Wis.) and Pramila Jayapal (D.,Wash), and caucus member Rep. Ro Khanna (D., Calif.) met with Bustos on Wednesday to voice their opposition against the new policy and demanded that it be reversed, but Bustos said she would not change the policy, according to Politico…
“Let’s be clear. If this policy remains in place, it will mean that we will not allow new Ayanna Pressleys or AOCs to emerge. It’s simply wrong,” Khanna told the Intercept.
Free Speech
Washington Post: Forget the shouting and demonizing: College students organize civil discussions
By Laura Pappano
Tempers are flaring again over free speech. But while many people shout and tweet across the political divide, college students are organizing civil campus discussions – with both sides at the table.
In the wake of violent political protests on campuses, some students have stepped away from the fray to seek what’s been lacking: space for reasoned conversation, listening and middle ground. Their hunger for moderation comes with rules that emphasize facts, ban personal attacks and respect ideological opponents…
Students are forming clubs, reviving old ones, launching bipartisan journals and organizing events. It’s happening across the country at campuses large and small, public and private – from Washington State University to Tufts University – and getting a boost from organizations such as BridgeUSA. It started in 2016 at the University of Notre Dame and the University of Colorado at Boulder. (The University of California at Berkeley chapter began after violent protests around a planned visit by far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos in 2017.) In the past year, the group has grown to 24 campuses.
