In the News

Law360: Texan FEC Pick Unlikely To Be Derailed By Tweet Drama

By Michelle Casady

Trainor has previously represented conservative group Empower Texans, which has fought the Texas Ethics Commission on the disclosure of political donors.

But David Keating, president of the nonprofit group Center for Competitive Politics, an organization whose stated mission is to “promote and defend First Amendment rights” said there is a big difference between being a lawyer, paid to advocate for your client, and being a commissioner on the FEC. Naysayers may be conflating the two, he said.

Keating, who said he has met Trainor on a few occasions while in Austin testifying before the Texas Ethics Commission, said Trainer is “very knowledgeable” on election law.

“There are groups that don’t like him, so they’re trying to dig up what they can to make it controversial,” he said. “Trey clearly is someone who believes in free speech. I think he’s going to apply the law as it’s written and not come up with a hair-brained interpretation of what the law is.”

Keating said that although it is historically not common, senators have been able to block some “highly qualified” candidates for the post in the past, such as one put forward by Obama who had to withdraw his nomination, he said. He said he doesn’t think that will happen in Trainor’s case.

FEC

TechCrunch: US election agency seeks views on rule change for digital ad platforms

By Natasha Lomas

The U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) has voted to seek public views on whether there should be a change to the rules for political ads that extends disclaimer requirements to ads shown on digital platforms, such as Facebook and Google…

Notably the FEC’s action comes just over a week after Facebook revealed that pro-Russian entities had bought as much as $150,000-worth of ads on its platform between 2015 and 2017, including in the run up to the U.S. presidential election.

The ads had apparently targeted a range of political – and socially divisive – issues, rather than directly seeking to promote individual candidates. Although Facebook has refused to release copies of the ads to the public so the content cannot be independently assessed – raising further questions about the ability of regulators to understand let alone control use of its platform for political ends.

The scandal has also led to calls for Facebook to #ReleaseTheAds…

U.S. congressional committees are currently investigation claims of Russian meddling in the 2016 elections – and Facebook has apparently handed the disputed ads to the special counsel investigating the allegations.   

Politico: How the FEC Turned a Blind Eye to Foreign Meddling

By Ann Ravel

The First Amendment defense isn’t just a shameful excuse to do nothing-it’s bewildering. Requiring transparency in political advertising, like we already do for television and radio, doesn’t limit anyone’s free speech. Enforcing the law and updating policy, on the other hand, defends democracy and the electoral process. For years, we’ve done neither, and we now know that our democracy has been under attack.

To prevent another attack, and provide voters with information about who is behind efforts to sway their votes, we should adopt policies mandating the disclosure of the source of advertisements. Social media platforms posting paid advertisement should label them and take steps to verify the ad’s true source. In the same way a bank is required to know its customer to protect the financial system from exploitation by drug traffickers, arms dealers and other criminals, Facebook ought to determine if a hostile foreign actor is trying to buy access to exploit our political system. Anyone purchasing online campaign ads should certify that their expenditures are not violating campaign finance laws. And once this information is made available to the government and to citizens, they can judge for themselves the credibility of the source. 

Congress

Axios: Both parties to move on Facebook and other tech giants

By Mike Allen

Members of Congress in both parties have begun exploring possible legislative action against Facebook and other tech giants, setting the stage for a potentially massive battle in the midterm election year of 2018.

Following revelations about fake news and paid Russian propaganda on Facebook during last year’s election, big tech has become a big target, with politicians across the spectrum declaring on Sunday shows that more scrutiny, transparency and restrictions are needed…

Republicans are likely to emphasize the national security and homeland security aspects to reining in the tech companies…

On the Democratic side, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia is actively working to develop legislation to improve disclosure for online political ads.

Warner’s office tells me: “As more and more dollars are being spent on these digital platforms, we may need legislation to require more disclosure about political ads running on social media, the way we do for television ads. … [T]he ads you may see on Facebook are not public and are targeted narrowly to users based on different variables – making disclosure and transparency even more vital.”

Free Speech

Washington Post: A chilling study shows how hostile college students are toward free speech

By Catherine Rampell

A fifth of undergrads now say it’s acceptable to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes “offensive and hurtful statements.”

That’s one finding from a disturbing new survey of students conducted by John Villasenor, a Brookings Institution senior fellow and University of California at Los Angeles professor…

Students were asked whether the First Amendment requires that an offensive speaker at a public university be matched with one with an opposing view. Here, 6 in 10 (mistakenly) said that, yes, the First Amendment requires balance.

The most chilling findings, however, involved how students think repugnant speech should be dealt with…

Astonishingly, half said that snuffing out upsetting speech – rather than, presumably, rebutting or even ignoring it – would be appropriate…

Respondents were also asked if it would be acceptable for a student group to use violence to prevent that same controversial speaker from talking. Here, 19 percent said yes.

There were no statistically significant differences in response by political party affiliation.

Corporate Speech

CPI: These companies support climate action, so why are they funding opposition to it?

By Rachel Leven and Jamie Smith Hopkins

The international climate-fighting pact would create jobs, Google said. Leaving the deal known as the Paris accord would be bad for business, top executives from Bank of America and Coca-Cola argued. When President Donald Trump committed to yanking the U.S. out anyway, PayPal and Western Union countered “We are still in.”

These corporate titans and at least 22 others were among those who sought to preserve the United States’ role in the landmark Paris agreement ratified by about 160 countries. So why exactly would these 27 business powerhouses also support a GOP group that’s fought to undo a key Obama-era domestic climate initiative?

The answer is, well, complicated. The overwhelming majority of these companies have no overt incentive to undermine the U.S. climate effort. One leading solar company, in fact, had a driving financial imperative to cheer it on. These companies’ donations of more than $3 million to the Republican Attorneys General Association over the past three-and-a-half years speaks instead to the difficulties for corporations trying to navigate the political system in a country that’s polarized – particularly on climate change. 

The States

Southern California Public Radio: Bill to shed light on dark money in California advances to Gov. Brown

By Chris Nichols

The Disclose Act, or AB 249, was approved by the State Assembly on Friday. Democratic Assemblyman Marc Levine said it’s a victory for voters.

“Dark money is a poison to an informed democracy,” Levine told his colleagues. “Our voters deserve to know who’s spending money both for and against a ballot proposition.”

The bill would require ballot measure ads to clearly and prominently list their three largest funders. An amendment, however, provides some exemptions for business and labor groups.

For that reason, several Republicans opposed the bill, including Assemblyman Matthew Harper.

“While the intentions of this bill are good, it creates a massive loophole and therefore an unfair playing field when you’re talking about membership organizations which include labor organizations,” Harper said.

The bill now goes to the Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk.

Sacramento Bee: That political ad on your TV would list its top donors under California bill

By Alexei Koseff

Assembly Bill 249, which cleared the Assembly with a 57-13 vote, is a years-long effort to require greater disclosure by campaign committees, designed to give voters more information about who is paying for political advertisements.

“It is long overdue,” said Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, D-San Francisco, who authored the bill.

The committees often have long, vague names that conceal the individuals, labor unions and companies funding them. If signed by Brown, AB 249 would require them to display their top three donors over $50,000 in TV commercials and mailers, and announce their two biggest contributors in radio spots. 

CT Post: GOP turns up the heat on Malloy to sign budget

By Neil Vigdor

Their package relies on a controversial $300 million cut to the University of Connecticut over the next two years, as well as the elimination of public subsides for candidates for state office such as governor under the clean-elections program…

Malloy has vowed to veto the budget, which could reach his desk this week but hasn’t been submitted to the governor’s office yet by Republicans…

Both Republican gubernatorial hopefuls who spoke at Sunday’s rally could ironically become casualties of the proposed elimination of the decade-old Citizens’ Election Program, which was adopted after the resignation and imprisonment of Gov. John Rowland for corruptions.

Candidates for governor are eligible for $1.4 million in public funds for the primary and $6.5 million for the general election if win their party’s nomination under the program. They must raise $250,000 in increments of $100 or less to qualify…

Walker said if publicly-funded elections, which could cost more than $40 million in 2018, are eliminated, he’ll more than be able to make up for it. 

Minneapolis Star Tribune: How public-financing vouchers could improve Minneapolis elections

By George Beck

The city of Seattle has adopted a “democracy voucher” program under which eligible residents are provided with four $25 vouchers that they can send to one or more candidates in municipal elections. The program also includes campaign-spending limits for candidates who choose to participate. Candidates are also limited to $250 of non-vendor funds from any individual contributor. Seattle voters chose to fund this program through a property tax that amounts to an additional tax of approximately $11.50 per year. It could also be funded by the city budget.

This modest public-financing program can have big results… 

Election vouchers would limit the amount of contributions to a reasonable amount that would still permit active campaigns but would provide more balance among candidates. Candidates would be relieved of extensive fundraising, and those who abhor fundraising would be encouraged to run for an office.

Minnesota Citizens for Clean Elections (MnCCE) supports election vouchers or credits for Minneapolis.  

Las Vegas Sun: Schwartz says he won’t take money from lobbyists, big donors in run for governor

By Ray Hager

Nevada Treasurer Dan Schwartz, a Republican candidate for governor, said Thursday he will not take any campaign contributions from lobbyists and major donors because they have damaged state government by funding a “pay-to-play” mentality in Carson City… 

“The pay-to-play in this state is just out of control, and it is funded by lobbyists and it is funded by big donors,” Schwartz said. “Ultimately, we elect these people, and the pay-to-play people get what they want from the people we elect.”

Schwartz has been critical of his anticipated Republican opponent for governor, Attorney General Adam Laxalt, for his large campaign contributions from Las Vegas Sands chief Sheldon Adelson…

“I’m willing to kick in about $500,000 on the primary, so I’ve got to raise about $500,000,” he said. “And once we, hopefully, get through that, we’ll see in the general.”