In the News

Daily Caller: Is Facebook Using Foreign Influence As An Excuse To Censor Conservatives?

By Michael Thielen

Political speech is rightly entitled to the highest level of protection under the First Amendment, as freedom to discuss political views and criticize the government form the foundation of our constitutional system of government.

Foreign persons and entities are completely prohibited from making contributions or spending money related to any federal, state, or local election in the U.S. …

In Congress, Democrats have recently introduced the DISCLOSE Act of 2017 aimed at “reforming” the FEC to give it greater power to restrict speech and enacting more burdensome requirements on political speech. While this proposal is couched in the currently popular language about foreign interference in our elections, it is just a recycled version of legislation introduced annually since Citizens United was decided in 2010, as a barely disguised and unconstitutional effort to overturn it…

While we may resent many attempts at interference in our elections, it is more of a foreign policy matter than a campaign finance or disclosure matter. But what we cannot do is allow this resentment to fuel so-called reforms that clearly infringe upon Americans’ right or ability to engage in political speech.

Washington Post: The most and least transparent companies for political spending

By Jena McGregor

The report released Tuesday, by the nonpartisan Center for Political Accountability and researchers at the University of Pennsylvania’s Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research, creates an index that ranks companies based on the disclosure, oversight and policies about their election-related spending…

The study ranks companies based on the information they provide on their web sites about factors such as payments to super PACs and tax-exempt organizations like 501(c)(4)s, whether or not senior managers or board members oversee political spending and activities, and what kind of policies they outline for how and where money can be spent…

One critic of the index is the Center for Competitive Politics’ Brad Smith, a former Federal Election Commission chair who says much political spending by corporations is already disclosed and that the index is a “one-size-fits-all” model that does not necessarily have corporations’ best interests at heart. He suggests those behind the index “tend to think corporate involvement is a bad thing — they want to get corporations not to participate. But most Americans, I think, believe corporations do have a role to play in terms of politics.”

CCP

CCP Job Opening: Attorney, First Amendment Litigation

The Center for Competitive Politics is expanding its litigation team. We are looking for an experienced attorney to take a leading, independent role in First Amendment cases brought in federal and state courts.

[Please click on the link above for a detailed description of job responsibilities, requirements, and instructions on how to apply.]

Congress

Huffington Post: As Mueller Probes Russian Facebook Ads, Our Elections are Vulnerable and Congress Does Nothing

By Rep. Jim McGovern and Tiffany Muller

We have confidence that Special Counsel Robert Mueller, as part of his investigation into Russia’s meddling, will determine whether Trump’s team aided this Russian troll farm.  We have less faith that Washington will take steps to prevent hostile foreign governments from again spending money directly in our elections.

For years, right-wing politicians and their special interest allies have undermined our campaign finance laws. They’ve opened the floodgates for unlimited and untraceable political spending that has allowed a small group of big money donors to tilt the scales in their favor. They’ve created a rigged system on steroids.

The revelations that a foreign company or government bought political ads on Facebook underscore just how vulnerable our elections have become- and how unprepared we are to do anything about it. Foreign governments, corporations – even a single billionaire with a self-serving, narrow agenda – have stealth access to the levers of power in our democracy…

Make no mistake, the threat of unfettered political spending is real, whether from corporations or foreign governments. It’s time for Congress to do its job and put campaign finance rules in place to protect our country and restore trust in our democracy.

Vermont Business Magazine: Leahy introduces bill to ‘help fix’ broken campaign finance system

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) Wednesday joined Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) in introducing bicameral legislation that addresses a series of comprehensive democratic and electoral reforms to restore integrity, accountability, and transparency to our broken political system. Counterpart House legislation, also introduced Wednesday, is led by Representative David Price (D-NC). The We The People Democracy Reform Act is more expansive than past versions and includes proposals to comprehensively reform campaign finance laws, increase transparency and accountability in the political system, end extreme partisan gerrymandering, increase voter participation, and strengthen lobbying and revolving door laws…  

Leahy said: “Dark, unaccountable money is flooding our elections and damaging our democracy, advancing the special interests of large, anonymous corporations at the expense of hardworking Americans. . . The We the People Democracy Reform Act would help level the playing field by shining a spotlight on corporations that secretly influence our elections, and by protecting Americans’ fundamental right to vote. I am proud to again cosponsor this vital legislation in defense of our democracy and the rights of all Americans to have their voices heard.”

New York Times: Twitter, With Accounts Linked to Russia, to Face Congress Over Role in Election

By Daisuke Wakabayashi and Scott Shane

As Twitter prepared to brief staff members of the Senate and House intelligence committees on Thursday for their investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, researchers from a public policy group have been following hundreds of accounts to track the continuing Russian operations to influence social media discourse and foment division in the United States….

The House Intelligence Committee announced on Wednesday that it would hold a public hearing on the matter of Russian influence next month, and a Senate aide said Facebook, Twitter and Google have been invited to testify at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Nov. 1…

“What we see over and over again is that a lot of the messaging isn’t about politics, a specific politician, or political parties,” said Laura Rosenberger, director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy. “It’s about creating societal division, identifying divisive issues and fanning the flames.”

IRS

Public Policy Legal Institute: New IRS Form 1024-A for new 501(c)(4)s

Confusion abounds about this new form. It’s all the result of a misguided and poorly-drafted amendment to the Internal Revenue Code in 2015…

A single sentence on P. 241 of the Joint Committee on Taxation’s report on the PATH Act mentions that “It is intended that such a request for a determination be submitted on a new form (separate from Form 1024, which may continue to be used by certain other organizations) that clearly states that filing such a request is optional.” There is no explanation for why this new section is needed; no description of a problem or benefit. Just a flat new requirement. Apparently an attempt to bridge the divide between those who believe c4s are inherently evil (“dark money” because they don’t have to disclose their donors) and those who think they provide a useful means for Americans to exercise their First Amendment-protected freedom to associate. But we just don’t know…

So we’re going to have more confusion about c4 applications for recognition, lots of questions that need to be answered on the form, but not for any clear purpose, and more work for we few struggling tax-exempt organization lawyers who have to explain why yet another layer of useless regulation is layered on protected speech. “Yes, you have the right to associate and speak, but we’re going to fine you $20 a day for the privilege unless you give us this Form and possibly others.”

Disclosure

Quartz: How Congress could regulate Facebook vs. how Mark Zuckerberg wants to do it himself

By Heather Timmons and Keith Collins

Senators: Require all digital platforms with one million or more users to “maintain a public file of all electioneering communications purchased by a person or group who spends more than $10,000 aggregate dollars for online political advertisements.”

Facebook: “We’re going to make political advertising more transparent,” Zuckerberg wrote in his post. The company will require advertisers to disclose who paid for each ad, he said…

Senators: The list should include the “contact information of the purchaser.”

Facebook: If the pages Facebook will require advertisers to maintain work like other organizational pages on the platform, the advertisers will certainly have the option of providing contact information. But Zuckerberg did not say whether Facebook will require it…

Zuckerberg said the company will work to improve its review process for political ads, but added that he has no plans to add more humans to that process, and that Facebook can’t be expected to catch everything. “I’m not going to sit here and tell you we’re going to catch all bad content in our system,” he said. “We don’t check what people say before they say it, and frankly, I don’t think our society should want us to.”

Corporate Speech

The Conversation: The surprising connection between ‘take a knee’ protests and Citizens United

By Elizabeth C. Tippett

Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruling that some fear is destroying American democracy, may also be showing us how to heal it.

The most recent example of this is the reaction to President Donald Trump’s comments suggesting that sports owners should fire players who kneel during the national anthem…

While corporate speech is often assumed to favor only conservative causes, my research on attorney advertising reveals the extent to which free speech rights for companies also advances causes important to liberals.

I would argue that Citizens United – a Supreme Court opinion that has produced bitterly partisan reactions – ironically offers a pluralistic vision of corporate speech as well as a full-throated defense of the kind of political speech we are now witnessing from business leaders…

Citizens United stands in part for the idea that the First Amendment provides strong protection for political speech, even if it originates from a company. Corporations may not be people, but, to paraphrase the movie “Soylent Green,” they are made of people.

In this view, corporations are groups of people on par with labor unions or nonprofits, and their joint viewpoints are deserving of protection.

Independent Groups

Huffington Post: Democratic Super PAC Steps Up Push To Fight ‘Conservative Dark Money’

By Daniel Marans

Left unchecked, the influx of “conservative dark money” into state legislative races and partisan redistricting poses a critical threat to the Democratic Party’s future, according to an analysis released Thursday by Democratic super PAC Forward Majority.

The analysis, “Outspent,” does not provide new data on the impact of both party-led and outside spending on the makeup of state legislatures and the congressional districting process they control. Instead, drawing on the findings of a 2012 ProPublica report, it highlights some of the strongest evidence of the phenomenon in the hopes of galvanizing Democratic donors and activists.

The States

Boston Herald: Bill to ban lying on the campaign trail runs afoul of free speech

By Joe Battenfeld

A bill outlawing lying in campaign ads is making the rounds in the Legislature, and it sounds great at first.

Except there are a few big problems.

Like, it’s unconstitutional.

And the bill doesn’t say who determines what’s a lie or the truth.

And it could shut down virtually all campaigns.

The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Colleen Garry of Dracut, apparently didn’t think of those little problems when she came up with this legislative gem…

Garry also admits there was a personal motivation to file the bill. She was the target of mailings by the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, which she claims lied about her voting record.

Just for Fun

Daily Beast: FEC Cracks Down on ‘Deez Nuts’

By Lachlan Markay

The Federal Election Commission is concerned that “Deez Nuts” may not be the real name of a candidate for federal office. The FEC on Wednesday sent a letter to the election prankster asking him or her to clarify whether the information in its filings with the commission accurately conveys the names of those involved with its declared presidential campaign committee and the candidate it supposedly supported. “It has come to the attention of the Federal Election Commission that you may have failed to include the true, correct, or complete committee name, candidate name, custodian of records information, treasurer information, and bank information,” the commission wrote. It even raised the specter of criminal penalties. “Knowingly and willfully making any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation to a federal government agency, including the Federal Election Commission, is punishable” under federal law, the FEC advised. Deez Nuts is not in fact a real person, but one of hundreds of farcical “candidates” for president that filed official paperwork with the FEC during the 2016 election cycle. The commission has pledged to crack down on Deez Nuts and other fake federal candidates such as Bippy the Clown and Sir Cookie Zealot.