ICYMI
RealClearPolitics: Democrats Are Using the FEC as a Partisan Weapon
By Bradley Smith
Imagine you are accused of a crime. Fortunately for you, the jury rejects the prosecution’s case. But the judge disagrees with the verdict. He pretends the jury has not reached a decision, and announces that the trial will continue, but no sign of when. Sound fair?
Incredibly, something like this is happening at the Federal Election Commission. The FEC’s Democrats are regularly refusing to dismiss complaints and notify respondents that they are in the clear when the commission has voted not to prosecute. This is a violation of due process norms and suppresses lawful free speech about politics and issues.
Supreme Court
Fox News: Protecting donor privacy – Supreme Court has chance to protect charity supporters from harassment
By Colin Reed
As he was accusing Supreme Court justices of being bought and paid for by special-interest groups, [Senator Sheldon Whitehouse] was physically standing on their steps, vowing “to keep the spotlight on the six Republicans in the building behind me.”
If this seems like manipulation or downright intimidation, that’s because it is…
He may not realize it, but Whitehouse is making the best case for the importance of donor privacy. If justices on the Supreme Court are targets of political harassment from a U.S. senator, imagine what it is like for everyday citizen. They have the threat of a red-faced senator with subpoena power screaming at their doorstep. Literally. What a terrifying thought, and one that would send most folks scurrying out of the political arena.
No wonder such an ideologically diverse group has united around one of the remaining big-ticket items left on the Supreme Court’s docket. Known as “Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Xavier Becerra,” the suit attempts to overturn California’s blanket policy forcing charities to turn over the names and addresses of their major donors to the government.
Congress
The Hill: Obama says Senate will vote again on voting rights
By Rafael Bernal
Former President Obama said Monday he believes the Senate will hold a new vote on the Democratic voting rights bill that Republicans in the upper chamber blocked last week.
Speaking to supporters in his first fundraising call since the 2020 elections, Obama teamed up with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and former Attorney General Eric Holder to call for support for the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC), which organized the call.
“I have every confidence that Nancy working in conjunction with [Senate Majority Leader] Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden and others, including people like [Sen.] Joe Manchin, are going to figure out a way in which there’s an up and down vote on the For the People Act,” said Obama.
New York Post: Rep. Kevin McCarthy reveals GOP framework for Big Tech legislation
By Emily Jacobs
Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is offering a framework for what appears to be a counterproposal to the set of bipartisan bills to rein in Big Tech circulating in the House — saying House Republicans are ready to make tech behemoths “face the music.”…
“For the sake of preserving free speech and a free economy, it’s time Big Tech faces the music,” the top-ranking GOP lawmaker wrote. “House Republicans are ready to lead.”
The California Republican explained that their framework would be based on three principles: accountability, transparency and strengthening antitrust review…
Section 230, McCarthy wrote, “would be changed to limit liability protections for moderation of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment and would preclude Big Tech from discriminating against Americans based on their political affiliation.”
“We would also require regular reauthorization of Section 230 so Congress may update regulations of the constantly-evolving internet landscape.”…
On transparency, McCarthy said his bill will require social media platforms to list their content moderation or censorship practices, “with specificity, on a publicly available website.”
“[B]y requiring Big Tech to implement and maintain a reasonable user-friendly appeals process, our plan will empower conservatives and others whose speech rights have been infringed to challenge Big Tech’s attacks,” the letter added.
Washington Post: Sen. Wyden proposes new shield law to protect journalists’ phone, email records
By Devlin Barrett
Sen. Ron Wyden, a longtime critic of government surveillance programs, proposed legislation Monday designed to protect journalists’ data from government subpoenas in the wake of recent admissions by the Justice Department that investigators seized reporters’ records hoping to identify sources.
The bill, called Protect Reporters from Excessive State Suppression (PRESS) Act, goes further than past efforts to create a federal shield law for reporters and safeguard their phone and email records, which are often held by third-party service providers…
Calls for such a law increased in recent months after the Justice Department disclosed that it had seized phone or email records from reporters at The Washington Post, CNN and the New York Times as it sought to identify the sources for disclosures of classified information, angering First Amendment advocates who say such seizures have a chilling effect on a free press.
Disclosure
The Hill: Washington still needs more transparency
By Albert Hunt
More disclosure is one of the few steps that might marginally appeal to a deeply polarized and cynical electorate…
Start with the billions of dollars of dark, secretive money that special interests pour into federal elections. This is a scam where so-called social welfare non-profits can devote up to 49 percent of their spending on political causes and candidates. Because of the non-profit status, they don’t have to reveal which fat cats are picking up the tab. You can bet the political recipients know.
“Disclosure is not a panacea for campaign money,” acknowledges Noah Bookbinder, executive director of the Committee for Responsible Ethics in Washington. “But if we know where the money is coming from, people can make more informed decisions.” …
In its ill-advised Citizens United decision, which opened the spigots of special interest monies, the Supreme Court specifically said the corrective for any problems was disclosure.
One check on the corporate dark money is for the Securities & Exchange Commission to require publicly held companies to disclose their political contributions. If necessary, Congress should pass enabling legislation…
There also needs to be more media pressure on disclosures. When I read stories about Saudi Arabia or a Wall Street firm mounting a lobbying blitz, I want reporters and editors to name names: Who are the lobbyists?
Free Speech
Babylon Bee: The Censors Keep Coming For The Babylon Bee
By Seth Dillon
As Kyle announced in a recent email, we had a big win against The New York Times. In response to our demand letter, they removed their defamatory statements about us and updated the offending article with a correction. The significance of this can’t be overstated. If those statements had stayed in print, the social networks (and other vendors we work with) could have used them against us, citing them as cause for terminating our accounts. Instead, there’s now a ton of media coverage highlighting the fact that it was The New York Times—not us—that had been trafficking in misinformation.
Independent Groups
Axios: Scoop: Biden allies launch new advocacy group
By Lachlan Markay
Allies who spent tens of millions to get Joe Biden elected are now launching a nonprofit advocacy group aimed at promoting the president’s legislative agenda, Axios has learned.
Unite the Country Now will swell an already formidable stable of independent pro-Biden outfits trying to get his top policy goals past recalcitrant congressional Republicans and some tough-to-wrangle Democrats.
It also will provide an avenue for Biden’s top financial supporters to step up with large contributions to a group dedicated to backing the president…
Unite the Country Now is a 501(4)(c) nonprofit, commonly referred to as a dark-money group.
As such, it will not be required to disclose its financial supporters.
[A Democratic operative behind the group, Amanda] Loveday told Axios it was too early to say whether the group will do so voluntarily, or whether it would, like Biden’s campaign, refuse donations from certain industries or from registered lobbyists or foreign agents.
PACs
Axios: Toyota leads companies in election-objector donations
By Lachlan Markay
Nearly three-dozen corporate PACs have donated at least $5,000 to Republicans who objected to certifying the 2020 election, yet Toyota leads by a substantial margin…
“We do not believe it is appropriate to judge members of Congress solely based on their votes on the electoral certification,” a Toyota spokesperson said in a statement emailed to Axios.
“Based on our thorough review, we decided against giving to some members who, through their statements and actions, undermine the legitimacy of our elections and institutions.”
The spokesperson did not respond to a follow-up about the specific threshold for statements that cross that line.
The States
FIRE: 13 important points in the campus & K-12 ‘critical race theory’ debate
By Greg Lukianoff, Adam Goldstein, Bonnie Snyder and Ryne Weiss
After many, many requests for my thinking on the topic of bills that seek to regulate teaching of concepts related to race and gender (and facile accusations that by not commenting, I have revealed I am on the wrong side!), I have decided to hammer down my thoughts into these 13 points. Note that while the bills are popularly known as “anti-critical race theory” bills, that’s a misnomer I’ll address below. Instead, I’m calling them “divisive concepts” bills, which better captures what they seek to regulate.
Caveat: Some of what I discuss below, primarily issues relating to K-12 education, is beyond FIRE’s purview, which is limited to America’s colleges and universities, and accordingly — as per usual at ERI — what I say is my opinion and not an official FIRE position.
Baltimore Sun: Annapolis City Council approves new campaign finance requirements, introduces maritime zoning bill
By Brooks Dubose
In its final meeting before the public returns to City Hall next month, the Annapolis City Council approved Monday a bill requiring outside groups or people to report large expenditures made in support of or opposition to a political candidate or ballot question.
Under the ordinance O-15-21 sponsored by Alderman Rob Savidge, D-Ward 7, individuals or groups who spend more than $5,000 to advocate about an issue or political candidate that isn’t in coordination with a campaign, committee or related party will have to file an expenditure report with the city. The bill aligns with state election law, which has required such reports for years. It passed unanimously…
The bill was born out of a rancorous end to the 2017 city election cycle, which saw a set of controversial flyers sent throughout the city that contained crude language to describe the campaigns of Mayor Gavin Buckley and Alderwoman Elly Tierney, D-Ward 1, both Democrats.
The Capital later reported the flyers were funded by Preserve Annapolis Now, a group formed by Doug Burkhardt, a former Republican political candidate.
Burkhardt and other Republicans, including former County Executive Steve Schuh, whose campaign donated to Burkhardt’s group to help pay for the flyers, have criticized the bill saying it impinges on free speech.
Montana Free Press: Helena district court judge will block 11th-hour additions to campaign finance law
By Mara Silvers
A district court judge Monday said he will temporarily block the implementation of two sections of a law regulating campaign finance practices, political organizing on college campuses and campaign contributions to judges.
Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Michael Menahan told plaintiffs and state attorneys he intends to issue the written order before July 1, when the Legislature intended Senate Bill 319 to go into effect…
At issue were two provisions of SB 319 that plaintiffs said were not substantively connected to the title of the bill, “Generally revise campaign finance laws.” Late in the session, the bill was amended in a special committee to include a section revising how political committees can operate on college campuses. Another late-added section prohibited judges from presiding over a case if they had received campaign contributions of $91 or more from a party who appears before them, including lawyers and their clients, any time in the previous six years.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs argued that the lumping of three different topics into one bill violated the state Constitution…
The remainder of the bill relating to campaign finance regulation will not be affected by the preliminary injunction.
