We’re Hiring!
Media Manager – Institute for Free Speech – Washington, DC
The Institute for Free Speech is searching for a detail-oriented, intellectually curious, and driven Media Manager with strong writing skills, impeccable judgment, and media savvy to assist with various outward-facing initiatives in support of the Institute’s mission to promote and defend our First Amendment rights to free political speech, press, assembly, and petition.
The Media Manager will be in charge of compiling and distributing the organization’s signature Daily Media Update publication, an e-mail newsletter consisting of topical political speech-related stories and legal developments as well as notable commentary from various viewpoints that is distributed to hundreds of journalists, allies, and interested parties every weekday. The Media Manager will also be responsible for the content of the Institute’s social media posts and will have the opportunity to contribute significantly to the Institute’s catalog of commentary championing First Amendment speech freedoms. The combined nature of these duties positions the Media Manager as a front-facing member of the organization with an ability to build a considerable contact base. This role will be based at IFS’s headquarters in the Washington, D.C. area.
[You can learn more about this role and apply for the position here.]
The Courts
NJ Spotlight: Legal Challenge to NJ’s Contentious New Dark-Money Law
By Colleen O’Dea
Americans for Prosperity, an influential conservative politically active nonprofit is seeking an injunction in U.S. District Court to prevent the law from taking effect. It contends the law is unconstitutional, saying the “breathtaking sweep” of its coverage of elections, legislation and other political advocacy puts “First Amendment liberties at stake” and will do “irreparable harm to donors nationwide.” …
When he signed the measure into law two weeks ago, Gov. Phil Murphy had called on legislators to quickly send him another bill that would roll back much of the disclosure law, addressing at least some of the concerns AFP raised in its suit. An Assembly bill was introduced immediately and briefly scheduled for a vote, but never voted on. No such bill has been offered in the Senate yet.
Austin Graham, state and local campaign finance attorney with the Campaign Legal Center, said that while a number of other states have laws requiring some disclosure by groups involved in grassroots advocacy related to legislation, New Jersey’s bill is unique in that it “grouped issue advocacy in with elected-related spending.” As a result, he said, existing case law is unclear as to the odds of the courts upholding New Jersey’s law.
“It’s hard to speculate,” Graham said. “There is no spot-on precedent.” …
Good-government organizations supported the effort. A broad spectrum of other organizations, including ACLU-NJ, pro-environment groups and the Latino Action Network, opposed it, stating in a letter to legislative leadership last week that the law “poses a threat to progressive ideals and should be immediately amended.” Those groups had threatened a lawsuit over the new law, but AFP filed its action first, last Tuesday.
Congress
NPR: Pelosi’s Relationship With Big Tech Shifts As Privacy And Antitrust Questions Mount
By Tim Mak
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been leaving Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg hanging.
Following Facebook’s decision not to take down an altered video of Pelosi that suggested the speaker had been drunk, Zuckerberg reached out personally to the speaker, which was first reported by The Washington Post last month.
In the time since, Pelosi has still not returned the powerful executive’s call, according to a source familiar with the speaker’s views. While spurning Zuckerberg, the speaker has since taken a meeting with Chris Hughes, an original Facebook founder who has made waves recently by calling for Facebook to be broken up.
And with the speaker’s blessing, the House Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust subcommittee launched a probe into whether too much power has been concentrated in a small number of U.S. tech firms. The investigation was launched just days after the altered video of Pelosi was circulating.
“We are living in a monopoly moment. And if you look at in particular the digital marketplace … there’s tremendous market concentration – and that presents special implications for workers and consumers and users of those platforms,” said Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., who is leading that investigation as chair of that subcommittee…
These meetings with Hughes and the launch of what is expected to be an 18-month antitrust investigation are signals that Democrats on Capitol Hill are serious about curbing the power of Facebook and other big tech firms.
And it’s a reflection of how the once-cozy relationship between top Democratic leaders and social media companies have become increasingly strained as Silicon Valley grapples with how to deal with fast-growing concerns about privacy, disinformation and allegations of censorship.
“It’s very clear these technology companies cannot be trusted to regulate themselves,” Cicilline said.
Independent Groups
Wall Street Journal: Super PACs Set Sights on North Carolina to Boost House GOP Women
By Lindsay Wise and Kristina Peterson
Republican Joan Perry wants to be clear: She isn’t playing “the gender card” in the primary runoff for an open congressional seat in North Carolina…
But gender is one reason the closely fought GOP primary to replace the late Rep. Walter Jones is being watched carefully on Capitol Hill. Republican super political-action committees that support women candidates have spent more than $1 million to boost Mrs. Perry’s candidacy-and bash her male opponent.
The North Carolina race could test national Republicans’ ability to replenish the ranks of GOP women in the House and underscores the role that super PAC money will play in that effort.
The 2018 midterms swept 35 Democratic women freshmen into the House but only one Republican woman. Now there are 13 female House GOP lawmakers compared with 89 Democratic women.
The biggest hurdle GOP women face in the House is that there are “too few of us,” said Rep. Kay Granger of Texas, the top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee…
Republicans have struggled to assemble an effective counterpoint to the liberal EMILY’s List, which wields tens of millions of dollars each election supporting abortion-rights women candidates-at times helping them win competitive Democratic primaries over male opponents…
Republican PACs helping women candidates are trying to step up their game this election cycle, particularly in primaries, and the North Carolina contest is an early proving ground…
Mrs. Perry says she’s grateful for the PACs’ support and for the encouragement of the 13 House Republican women. Many of them have spoken with her and donated to her campaign…
“What we know historically is that it’s the primaries where women have difficulty emerging,” she said.
Candidates and Campaigns
The Hill: Democracy reform subtly defines the presidential primary
By Adam Eichen
Though it largely did not come up during the debates, many Democrats are now noticeably campaigning as democracy reformers, promising to tackle issues ranging from voting rights to campaign finance to basic representation…
At least eleven candidates have endorsed public financing of elections, arguably the most effective way to reduce the outsized influence of wealthy donors in our political system. The policy augments the political power of ordinary Americans and makes it easier for those without big money networks to run for office.
To be sure, candidates disagree on what such a system would look like. Former Vice President Joe Biden, Sens. Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bennet, former Sen. Mike Gravel, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Rep. Eric Swalwell and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke support matching funds. Author Marianne Williamson favors a constitutional amendment to guarantee public financing, but the details of her plan are unclear. And entrepreneur Andrew Yang and Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand have advocated for democracy vouchers based on Seattle’s program, in which every potential voter receives money to donate directly to eligible candidates.
Gillibrand, to her credit, took time during the debate to highlight her public financing plan, which, she claimed, “the experts agree is the most transformative plan to actually take on political corruption [and] to get money out of politics.”
Fundraising
Center for Responsive Politics: Trump, RNC leverage digital dominance to raise unprecedented $105M
By Karl Evers-Hillstrom
President Donald Trump on Tuesday reported raising a stunning $105 million in the second quarter, with $54 million going to his campaign and $51 million headed to the Republican National Committee.
The Trump campaign said it invested $35 million in digital and email prospecting efforts, expanding on its already-extensive list of supporters from which the campaign – and others in the Republican party – can continually solicit for campaign contributions.
The massive haul beats out the second quarter fundraising numbers reported by President Barack Obama in 2011 – $46 million – and Hillary Clinton’s nearly $48 million figure in the second quarter of 2015.
More importantly, Trump’s cash likely dwarfs any of the fundraising figures to be announced by Democratic presidential contenders as candidates prepare to officially file their numbers with the Federal Election Commission on July 15…
By using his joint fundraising committees to split donor money between his campaign and the RNC, Trump has directed tens of millions of dollars to the Republican party’s main apparatus, further bolstering his own chances in 2020. Meanwhile, the DNC is riddled with debt and has not been able to gain ground with donors.
Unlike Republican presidential contenders before him, Trump has performed strongly with small donors. His Make America Great Again joint fundraising committee, which primarily facilitates small-dollar contributions through Facebook, Google, email and other online sources, received more than $17 million from contributions under $200 in the first quarter. Trump’s second joint fundraising committee, Trump Victory, solicits big-dollar contributions from wealthy donors at fundraising events, splitting the money between the campaign and the RNC.
Trump has built up an immense list of potential donors by spending big on social media.
Politico: Sanders trails Buttigieg by millions in second-quarter money chase
By Holly Otterbein
Bernie Sanders raised $18 million over the past three months, his campaign announced Tuesday – trailing significantly behind Pete Buttigieg after leading the Democratic pack in the first quarter of 2019…
Sanders’ average donation was $18, less than his $27 per person contribution that became a rallying cry for him in 2016. More than 99 percent of the donations were $100 or less, his campaign said.
The leading profession of donors this electoral cycle is teachers, while the top employer of contributors is Walmart. Sanders has called on the corporation to raise its minimum wage $15 per hour, and confronted its executives about its “starvation wages” at the annual shareholders meeting in June.
“It is the kind of support that we would take any day of the week over a cushy, closed-door, high-dollar fundraiser in New York City in which people eat parmesan-crusted salmon on toothpicks,” said Faiz Shakir, Sanders’ campaign manager…
Without naming names, Sanders campaign co-chair Nina Turner said “one of the candidates immediately went to the donor class” to discuss his performance after the debate. Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke spoke to his top contributors and bundlers in a call afterward about how to improve in the next debate, CNBC reported…
Sanders’ aides also said that his financial support is more durable than other candidates in the race who rely on maxed-out contributions because almost all of his backers can contribute again under campaign finance limits. Indeed, his online, small-dollar fundraising is the envy of the Democratic field.
Buttigieg’s campaign said Monday he brought in nearly $25 million in the last three months.
The States
Sacramento Bee: California is moving to ban deepfakes. What are they, anyway?
By Andrew Sheeler
California lawmakers, citing election integrity, are moving to ban the distribution of “deepfake” video or audio clips aimed at damaging political candidates, drawing condemnation from First Amendment supporters.
The move comes as lawmakers fear that sophisticated doctored clips, such as one falsely portraying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as slurring her words, could allow malicious parties to sabotage the election.
Assembly Bill 730, sponsored by Assemblyman Marc Berman, D-Palo Alto, passed unanimously out of the Assembly and now is being considered by the Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments.
AB 730 specifically prohibits “a person committee or other entity from knowingly or recklessly distributing deceptive audio or visual media of a candidate with the intent to injure the candidate’s reputation or to deceive a voter into voting for or against the candidate within 60 days of an election at which a candidate for elective office will appear on the ballot,” according to that committee’s analysis of the bill.
The bill contains an exemption for media that includes a disclosure stating that “this (video/audio) has been manipulated.” …
The analysis also questioned the government’s role in handling such manipulations, and whether such a bill would run afoul of First Amendment protections…
The bill is opposed by both the California Broadcasters Association and the California News Publishers Association, the latter of which wrote in a letter that, “The inevitable result if AB 730 were to become law would be a profound chilling effect on political speech – the very thing the First Amendment was designed to prevent.”
Albany Times Union: ‘Fair elections’ panel to be appointed by end of week
By Rachel Silberstein
A nine-member “fair elections” commission tasked with designing a statewide public matching system for political campaigns will be convened by the end of the week, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s office has confirmed.
Language in the 2019-2020 state budget created a panel of experts – to be appointed by the governor and leaders of the Senate and Assembly – to outline by Dec. 1 the parameters of a public financing program for all legislative and statewide elections, with an estimated cost of $100 million a year.
Now that the legislative session has concluded, “We are hoping to make an announcement sometime this week,” Cuomo spokesman Richard Azzopardi said.
Cuomo, Senate Majority Leader Andrea-Stewart Cousins and Assembly Speaker Carl E. Heastie will each appoint two members, while leaders of the minority Republican conferences will each select one commissioner.
Since Republicans oppose the use of public funds to aid political campaigns, and the Assembly leadership has expressed reservations about a public financing system, advocates speculate the outcome of the panel may hinge on a ninth appointee, jointly selected by Cuomo, Heastie and Stewart-Cousins…
The original Fair Elections Act, a final sticking point during March budget discussions, would have created a 6-t0-1 public matching system for small donations to candidates for state office…
Instead, the final spending plan created a panel with few parameters. The commission’s recommendations will be binding unless the Legislature moves to reject them within 20 days.
Advocates want the Legislature to introduce bills amending the law in preparation for the 20-day window in December, in case the commission’s recommendations fall short.
Grand Junction Daily Sentinel: Campaign finance laws have more bite for enforcement
By Charles Ashby
For the first time ever, the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office will take a more active role in enforcing campaign finance violations under a new law that went into effect Monday.
The new law under Senate Bill 232 initially was aimed at addressing a federal court opinion last year that ruled as unconstitutional the state’s reliance solely on citizen complaints in enforcing campaign finance laws.
In that ruling, filed against then Secretary of State Wayne Williams, U.S. District Judge Raymond Moore said that reliance on citizens has made the complaint process more political than was intended, leading to the stifling of free-speech rights of candidates for office because of fears of expensive and drawn-out legal challenges.
As a result, the Secretary of State’s Office under Williams approved a series of new rules that call on the office to review complaints to determine if they are frivolous or vexatious, and not recommend they be heard by the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts, which previously performed that duty.
Current Secretary of State Jena Griswold said the new law does more than just call for a review of citizen complaints. It also allows the office to establish a three-person division that is to review campaign finance reports for errors. That new division, made up of two attorneys and an investigator, is to act independently of any other section of the office, Griswold said…
“Folks have a way of trying to use systems for political ends, but I do think that the changes that Secretary Williams did, … making sure that complaints are vetted, and the fact that the public can still bring a complaint, does create a really good balance,” she said. “But at the end of the day, we shouldn’t be reliant on only the public. We need to make sure that our transparency laws, our campaign finance laws are respected. We want to make sure that there’s not the appearance of corruption or real corruption.”
