In the News
Washington Examiner: Senators embarrass themselves defending S.1 bill’s assault on free speech
By Luke Wachob
How do you defend a bill that would subsidize politicians’ campaigns, expose people to harassment for their beliefs, and impose a partisan takeover of the agency that oversees campaign funding and political speech?
Not very well.
At least, that is, if this week’s meeting of the Senate Rules Committee is any indication. Democratic sponsors of the bill continued to dismiss First Amendment concerns in their proposal to overhaul campaign finance and speech laws. But Republicans finally got an opportunity to confront them.
The hearing left one wondering whether the sponsors even understand their bill or the history of government efforts to control political speech. Either way, S. 1 needs to be sent back to the drawing board. Again.
Democrats defeated multiple amendments that would have diverted funds designated for campaigns to worthier public issues such as the opioid crisis and rural hospitals. Sen. Ted Cruz pointed out that if S. 1 were in effect, he would have received a whopping $24 million in taxpayer funds in the last quarter alone. Democrats argued those funds are not “taxpayer” dollars because they come from fines, but whatever you call it, the government’s money belongs to the people. Giving it to politicians is unpopular and wasteful.
The Center Square: Michigan lawmaker wants to license fact-checkers, experts say bill would violate the First Amendment
By Scott McClallen
A Michigan lawmaker introduced a bill Tuesday that aims to require “fact checkers” who publish physically or digitally in Michigan and are part of an international network to register with the state.
The bill sponsored by Rep. Matt Maddock, R-Milford, seeks to license fact-checkers on social media and to requires qualifying fact-checkers to file proof of a $1 million fidelity bond with the Secretary of State’s office.
The bill targets a paid fact-checking organization that is a member of the Florida-based journalism Poynter Institute’s International Fact Check Network.
An “affected person “could bring a civil action in any county district court if the party demonstrates to a judge “any wrongful conduct that is a violation of the laws of this state” to claim the $1 million bond…
David Keating, the president of the Washington-based Institute for Free Speech, said the bill was a “stupid idea” in a phone interview with The Center Square.
“The government isn’t in the business of licensing people who are publishing,” Keating said. “That’s why we have the First Amendment.”
Keating said the bill was vague, including definitions of “affected party” and “wrongful conduct.”
“By definition, any website in the world appears in Michigan unless the organization somehow blocks it from propagating in Michigan,” Keating said. “So any organization that’s a member of the IFCN might wind up inadvertently violating this bill if it were to become law.”
Keating advocated for the sponsors to drop the bill, saying that fact-checkers aren’t censoring people but are only publishing their views on whether something is factual or not.
“Fact-checkers don’t have the power to censor,” Keating said. “The only person trying to violate the First Amendment are the sponsors of this bill, not the fact-checkers.”
ICYMI
Wall Street Journal: Congressional Democrats’ Court-Picking (Not Packing) Scheme
By Alan Gura
Congress probably won’t pack the Supreme Court. But court picking poses a real threat to Americans’ rights.
Court picking is when Congress uses its authority over federal-court jurisdiction to stuff politically sensitive cases from throughout the country into one court that leans its way, to be buried there for as long as possible. Court-picking’s evil genius is its stealth. Americans would notice four new justices, but not changes to technocratic statutes that excite only civil-procedure professors. Despite featuring in Congress’s most radioactive bill—the so-called For the People Act, or H.R.1, which would transform elections and limit Americans’ rights to speak about them—court-picking has escaped notice.
It shouldn’t. H.R.1’s court-picking provision would shut courthouse doors throughout the country, attempt to game the outcome in critical cases, deny the Supreme Court the benefit of the federal judiciary’s broad and diverse perspectives, and repeal measures that expedite important lawsuits questioning government power.
State Anti-Riot Bills Must Respect Protest Rights
By Nathan Maxwell
Numerous state legislatures this year considered, or are considering, legislation that would threaten the right of citizens to peaceably assemble. The bills are problematic in that they open the door for innocent protesters to be lumped in as attendees of a “riot,” as narrowly defined, if found in the wrong place at the wrong time. That would chill protest activity, as speakers fearful of criminal charges would self-silence. While different states’ bills contain their own peculiarities, they are all largely founded on the same mistaken belief: that it is permissible to combat unacceptable acts of violence and destruction with aggressive measures that threaten First Amendment-protected protests.
Congress
CNN: Sen. Joe Manchin won’t support For the People Act, says path forward is John Lewis Voting Rights Act
By Lauren Fox, Fredreka Schouten, and Rachel Janfaza
Sen. Joe Manchin will not back the For the People Act, the sweeping elections and campaign finance overhaul sought by Democrats to blunt Republican state-level efforts to restrict voting access, a spokeswoman for the West Virginia Democrat confirmed Wednesday.
Manchin — who had previously expressed reservations about moving forward with a far-reaching measure without bipartisan support — suggested instead using the John Lewis Voting Rights Act as the path forward…
The West Virginia Democrat’s proposal Wednesday comes ahead of a Democratic-wide conference meeting on the For the People Act scheduled for Thursday.
Wall Street Journal: ‘For the People’ Is About Helping the Party
By Karl Rove
[The For the People Act would undermine] free speech by requiring companies and organizations to reveal all political spending that aggregates to more than $10,000, even if it’s limited to issues rather than campaigns. Democrats would impose no similar requirements for unions. The bill would also force nonprofits organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code to reveal donors of more than $10,000, ignoring a unanimous Supreme Court decision that said keeping such information private protected donors from intimidation and abuse.
S.1 would transform the Federal Election Commission. The body is politically balanced, composed of six commissioners of which no more than three can be from the same party. S.1 would limit the total number to five and each party to two commissioners—leaving one independent tie breaker. Given that the president appoints the commissioners, you can see where this would likely end up.
The bill would also create federal financing of Senate and presidential candidates with a 6-to-1 match for donations up to $200 and reverse longstanding policy by allowing a group’s ideology to be considered when the IRS decides on its tax-exempt status.
WV News: S. 1 would transform nonprofits into PACs
By Garrett Ballengee
Do Senate leaders want to infect nonprofits with partisan politics? Their signature legislation threatens to do just that.
Proponents claim S. 1 — otherwise known as the “For the People Act” — fights “dark money,” but the devil is in the details of its 800-plus pages.
The legislation aims to increase “transparency” by effectively forcing every group that speaks about government to act like a political action committee. That won’t restore trust in democracy. It will only further coarsen our politics.
In fact, the so called “For the People Act” is a gift to political insiders if it becomes law, any group that wishes to speak to the public about government, legislation, or judicial nominees will have to do it their way. That means hiring a lawyer, publicly exposing your supporters, and jumping through countless regulatory hoops.
Every American has the right to express their views and participate in democracy. Yet most can’t afford to hire an attorney every time they wish to speak. That’s why we don’t treat every group that ever names a candidate in its communications as a PAC-in-disguise. Nonprofits should be able to discuss the issues.
Senator Joe Manchin has pledged his commitment to bipartisan reform of our election laws. Yet his support for S. 1’s “DISCLOSE Act” and “Honest Ads Act” provisions undermine this goal.
These sections of the bill harm the First Amendment rights of nonprofits and small groups. By treating them like campaign entities, they threaten to crush their voices and spread the poison of partisan politics into civil society.
CBS News: Voting rights bill advances in Senate over GOP objections
By Grace Segers and Adam Brewster
The Senate on Tuesday advanced S. 1, the For the People Act, setting up a floor vote for the controversial bill…
Despite hours of contentious debate, most of the amendments offered by both parties failed due to the even split of the committee. Amendments that would have stricken provisions on public campaign financing and ethics reform, which have been criticized by Republicans, also failed.
McConnell offered some amendments, including one to undo a provision in S. 1 that would revamp the Federal Elections Commission so that it would have a 3-to-2 split, instead of being evenly divided. Unlike Schumer, McConnell attended the meeting for most of the day.
The FEC has not been able to appoint a general counsel in seven years because of the even division of the panel. McConnell argued that the current 3-to-3 partisan deadlock of the panel “is a decision.”
“I don’t think there’s any dysfunction at all,” McConnell said. However, his amendment failed along party lines.
Another amendment introduced by McConnell, which also failed, would have struck many of the campaign finance disclosure requirements. Democrats argued it’s about ensuring voters know who is paying for election-related expenses, while McConnell and other Republicans said it would infringe on protected political speech.
“That is precisely what this is about: quiet the voices of citizens, particularly who gather together in 501(c)4s in order to express their views,” McConnell said, referring to outside groups who don’t have to disclose their donors. “The founding fathers would be appalled, appalled to think that we’re trying to prevent political discourse at the heart of the first amendment.”
FEC
Axios: Scoop: FEC drops first of several election complaints against Trump
By Lachlan Markay
The Federal Election Commission has voted not to investigate allegations that Trump campaign representatives — including Donald Trump Jr. — solicited illegal foreign assistance in 2016, Axios has learned.
The commission deadlocked in a 3-3 vote on whether to probe potential campaign finance violations surrounding an infamous meeting with two Russian nationals at Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign…
An FEC spokesperson declined to comment on the Trump Tower matter. But Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, one of the groups behind the complaint, told Axios his organization had been notified that the case file had been closed.
“There was nothing surprising about the notification,” Wertheimer said. “Everyone in the system knows that the FEC will not enforce the law because the Republican commissioners do not want to enforce the law.”
A source with direct knowledge of the matter told Axios that the three Republican commissioners voted against finding “reason to believe” a violation occurred in the case.
Their reasoning, the source said, was largely procedural: the five-year statute of limitations for the law at issue expires in just a few months, and they argued there now isn’t enough time left to sufficiently adjudicate the matter.
The Courts
Daytona Beach News-Journal: Federal lawsuit challenging Florida anti-riot bill claims law targets Black protesters
By Frank Fernandez
.Several groups have joined to file a federal lawsuit on behalf of Black-led organizations challenging a recently enacted Florida law (H.B. 1) which the groups assert is intended to chill First Amendment rights.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., the ACLU of Florida, and the Community Justice Project filed the lawsuit in federal court in Tallahassee. The state Legislature passed so-called anti-riot bill in its recent session at the urging of Gov. Ron DeSantis, who championed the bill.
“The law targets Black protesters and their allies who demand racial justice and has already slowed protest activity among Black organizers in Florida,” according to a press release from the groups filing the lawsuit.
Fundraising
Axios: Lobbyists fill void after corporations cut off GOP cash
By Lachlan Markay
Lobbyists keep donating to members of Congress even after companies employing them cut off cash to protest the Capitol insurrection and 2020 election challenge, data show.
While the companies have gotten a PR boost for their good-governance statements, the policy advocates they employ have maintained relationships on their behalf and can still advance their goals on the Hill with the very members those companies disavowed.
Data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics shows that 124 lobbyists for companies that cut off objector donations after Jan. 6 made nearly 300 contributions — totaling nearly $300,000 — to those same 147 members…
Of note: There’s no indication the companies had any say in — or even knowledge of — these donations. Many employ dozens of lobbyists who give to members of Congress of both parties.
AP News: Dems reach new fundraising deal, with boost for GOP states
By Bill Barrow
National and state Democratic officials have reached a joint fundraising deal to increase aid to state parties, with an extra boost for those in Republican-dominated states.
The agreement, which follows weeks of negotiations, is intended to allow the party’s wealthiest backers to contribute up to $875,000 annually to a combined fund that, under federal campaign finance rules, can be distributed to party accounts around the country.
Top party leaders confirmed the arrangement to The Associated Press ahead of a planned call later Wednesday between the Democratic National Committee and state party leaders.
Online Speech Platforms
Wall Street Journal (LTE): Sen. Josh Hawley Sounds Like the Left on Big Tech
By Berin Szóka
Conservatives fought the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine for decades. Government, they insisted, had no business forcing broadcasters to carry the speech of others. Yet conservatives now want their own “fairness doctrine” for Big Tech sites they believe aren’t treating them “fairly.”
But the First Amendment isn’t a sword; it’s a shield against government meddling. There is no First Amendment right to speak on someone else’s private property. Telephone companies can be regulated as common carriers not because telephony is indispensable but because no one reasonably expects the telephone network to filter out objectionable content. When the Obama FCC declared broadband providers to be common carriers, conservatives howled. Then-D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh insisted broadband providers had a First Amendment right to decide what content to carry—long the conservative position from bakeries to parade organizers. “Net neutrality” rules survived only insofar as internet service providers promised to provide an “unedited service”—but not curated experiences.
The States
Tucson.com: Initiative targets ‘dark money’ in Arizona politics
By Howard Fischer
Former Attorney General Terry Goddard is making a third — and, he hopes, finally successful — pitch to put a measure on the Arizona ballot to outlaw so-called “dark money.”
The initiative would require the public disclosure of the true source of donations of more than $5,000 spent by organizations on any candidate or ballot measure. Current law exempts these “social welfare” organizations from having to list their contributors.
Goddard’s effort is worded to cut through any effort to hide the identity of the actual original donor by having the cash moved through a series of groups, a process Goddard calls “laundered.”
A similar 2018 effort he led failed after foes challenged some of the 285,000 signatures collected. And, under the terms of a law approved by the Republican-controlled legislature, the judge had to strike all of the signatures gathered by paid circulators who did not respond to a subpoena.
In 2020 Goddard moved to an all-volunteer effort to circumvent that problem. But the signature gathering faltered during the COVID-19 pandemic which included, for a period of time, a stay-at-home order.
This time around Goddard is choosing a course that may make reaching the goal easier.
AP News: Bill preventing disclosure of donor IDs passes NC Senate
The names of charitable donors to North Carolina-based nonprofits can’t be disclosed publicly by the group without a donor’s written permission under legislation approved Tuesday by the Senate.
The bill, backed by Republicans, also would make clear a donor’s identifying information is not a public record when held by a government agency, and that a government worker who uses or discloses it could be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Sen. Norm Sanderson, a Pamlico County Republican and chief bill sponsor, said the measure is designed to protect the privacy of donors in light of efforts by attorneys general in other states to obtain donor information from nonprofits as part of a fraud investigation. Sanderson said he’s worried the information could end up becoming public knowledge, and wants to prevent a similar situation in North Carolina.
With the legislation, “the state will have the ability to totally protect these lists from (going) into the wrong hands,” he said.
The bill states the confidentiality rules wouldn’t apply to campaign finance or electioneering disclosures, including electioneering communications. And a donor’s action to block disclosure doesn’t work when other state and federal law or a criminal investigation take precedence…
The bill passed on a 28-21 party-line vote and now heads to the House for consideration.
Bangor Daily News: Maine money-in-politics overhaul targets direct donations from businesses
By Jessica Piper
A measure moving through the Maine Legislature to restrict business contributions to legislative campaigns would weaken one path to influence for lawmakers, though businesses and nonprofits would still have ways to affect races.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Louis Luchini, D-Ellsworth, and also led by Senate President Troy Jackson, D-Allagash, would ban direct contributions from businesses and other corporations to candidates. It would also take aim at contributions to political action committees controlled by legislators that are not subject to the same contribution limits as candidate campaigns.
Those so-called “leadership PACs” account for a relatively small portion of the money that flows into Maine politics every year, but they are notable because they are affiliated with prominent lawmakers. Committees typically use their money to donate to candidates or pay for advertising or mailers in key races, though there are few restrictions on how the money can be used.
While the measure would sever direct links between corporate money in politics and state lawmakers, it may simply reshuffle how money enters races and has not encountered significant pushback from the state’s business community. No one testified against it at a public hearing in late April and it passed out of committee along party lines last week.
