In the News
Troy Business News: House Democrats Introduce Anti-Corruption Bill As Symbolic 1st Act
By Devin Troy
It isn’t your usual bill, the For The People Act introduced Friday by House Democrats. Also known as HR 1, symbolically their first legislation, it is a 571-page compendium of existing problems and proposed solutions in four political hot zones: voting, political money, redistricting and ethics…
“This is obviously a pretty radical expansion of the regulation of political speech,” said David Keating, president of the conservative Institute for Free Speech. “If this bill had become law now,” he said, anti-Trump groups “would find it very difficult to speak as effectively as they have over the past two years.”…
The bill includes an update of the Disclose Act, a pro-transparency measure that Democrats have introduced regularly since 2010 – not that Republicans are any more likely to embrace it than they were back then.
The Courts
Techdirt: Federal Judge Says Boycotts Aren’t Protected Speech
By Tim Cushing
A federal judge in Arkansas has delivered a truly WTF First Amendment decision related to a state’s anti-Israel-boycott law. The law states that companies contracting with government entities cannot engage in boycotts of Israeli products or services. Those doing so are either forbidden from doing business with the state government or forced to sell their products/services at a substantial discount.
In this case, the Arkansas Times’ steady business relationship with an Arkansas college has been disrupted by the Arkansas law seeking to punish businesses that engage in boycotts of Israel. Every company doing business with Arkansas government entities must sign a certification stating they are not boycotting Israel. The law has been in effect since 2017, but this year the Times refused to sign the required certification. This refusal cost the paper its advertising contract with the school, since the only other option under the boycott law was to sell its services at a mandated 20% discount.
The Times sued with the assistance of the ACLU, seeking to have this law found unconstitutional. So far, the ACLU has managed to get similar laws blocked/rewritten in two other states. The judge in this case, Brian S. Miller, even points to the ACLU’s successful lawsuits, but still manages to come to the opposite — and insane — conclusion that participating in a boycott is not protected speech. From the order [PDF] denying the Arkansas Times’ request for an injunction:
The Times is unlikely to prevail on the merits of its First Amendment claims because it has not demonstrated that a boycott of Israel, as defined by Act 710, is protected by the First Amendment. This finding diverges from decisions recently reached by two other federal district courts. Jordahl, 336 F. Supp. 3d at 1016; Koontz v. Watson, 283 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1021-22 (D. Kan. 2018).
USA Today: Federal court again blocks San Francisco warning on soda ads
By Christopher Weber and Sudhin Thanawala, Associated Press
A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked for a second time a San Francisco law requiring health warnings on advertisements for soda and other sugary drinks in a victory for beverage and retail groups that sued to block the ordinance.
The law violates constitutionally protected commercial speech, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a unanimous ruling.
The judges granted a preliminary injunction that prevents the ordinance from taking effect and kicked the case back to a lower court.
The required warnings “offend plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights by chilling protected speech,” the judges wrote…
The American Beverage Association, which represents Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and others, joined retail and advertising organizations to argue in court that the rules should be blocked.
“We are pleased with this ruling, which affirms there are more appropriate ways to help people manage their overall sugar consumption than through mandatory and misleading messages,” the beverage association said in a statement…
The judges wrote that the city “may be commended for aiming to address serious and growing public health problems.” But they agreed that beverage companies were likely to suffer irreparable harm if the law went into effect because the warnings would drown out the ads’ main messages.
A three-judge panel of the circuit court blocked the law in 2017. The entire 11-judge panel said last year it would rehear the case.
Congress
Politico: Intelligence heads warn of more aggressive election meddling in 2020
By Martin Matishak
In a worldwide threat assessment to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats wrote that competitors such as Russia, China and Iran “probably already are looking to the 2020 U.S. elections as an opportunity to advance their interests.”
In his statement, he predicted that these countries “will use online influence operations to try to weaken democratic institutions, undermine U.S. alliances and partnerships and shape policy outcomes in the United States and elsewhere.” …
The assessment offered by Coats, based on input from the entire U.S. intelligence community, predicts Russian social media campaigns will focus on “aggravating” social and racial tensions and striking back at anti-Kremlin politicians. Moscow may also seek to spread disinformation…
A recurring theme during the hearing centered on how American adversaries, whether Russia, China or Iran, could more effectively use digital influence campaigns to advance their interests.
In his written assessment, Coats warned about countries creating convincing fake audio and video – known as “deepfakes,” for instance…
Appearing alongside Coats, FBI Director Chris Wray agreed that Russia would continue to use social media to sow discontent in U.S., adding the Kremlin is adapting its model and other countries are “taking a very interested eye.”
Wray said that social media influence campaigns are a “particularly vexing and challenging problem” for the bureau. Yet, he said, the FBI continues to work with government partners and tech companies to counter online disinformation and fake accounts.
Coats, likewise, pointed to “significant progress” with the private sector on the issue and is “encouraged” after visits to some of the tech firms.
Augusta Free Press: Ben Cline and HR 1
Sixth District Congressman Ben Cline isn’t on board, not surprisingly, with the Democrats’ For the People Act.
“As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I was shocked that the Democrats would support the unconstitutional boondoggle that is HR 1,” said Cline, a Republican. “The bill flies in the face of law and order and it is nothing more than an attempt by Democrats to hijack our Republic at taxpayer expense. HR 1 would limit free speech, use tax dollars to fund extreme candidates, and violate the Constitution by superseding a state’s ability to determine voter eligibility.”
Political Advertising
Washington Monthly: A Tech Story With Major Political Ramifications
By Nancy LeTourneau
This is a story that is usually covered in the tech pages of publications, but has enormous political implications.
Stop us if you’ve heard this one before, but cable TV is continuing to bleed subscribers in record numbers as they flock to cheaper Internet-based options – cutting the cord, in other words, in favor of options like Netflix, Hulu and the like…
As I’ve been saying for a while now, the political implications are all about the role of money in politics. The reason a lot of people fail to make that connection is because when we talk about money in politics, we almost always focus on where the money is coming from. Rarely do we talk about how it is spent.
A large share of the money raised by both political campaigns and super PACS is spent on television ads. That includes the consultants who are hired to produce and distribute them as well as the cost of airtime.
Over the last few years social media has provided inexpensive alternatives and platforms for homegrown videos (everything from Romney’s 47 percent speech to O’Rourke’s road trips) that have had a lot more impact than expensive television ads. Add that to the people who are no longer exposed to television ads because they’ve cut the cord and we have the makings of massive change for political campaigns…
I don’t expect that running for office will ever be cheap. But as we speak, the rug is being pulled out from under the one expenditure that has driven the need for candidates to raise gargantuan sums of money.
Candidates and Campaigns
Center for Public Integrity: Donald Trump’s Campaign Cash Machine: Big, Brawny And Burning Money
By Ashley Balcerzak, Dave Levinthal, Carrie Levine, Sarah Kleiner, Lateshia Beachum
More than $6.9 million.
That’s how much money President Donald Trump’s 2020 principal campaign committee collected from donors during 2018’s final three months, consisting mostly of small-dollar contributions.
“Significantly, grassroots support for the President has remained both steady and historic, with the vast majority of our fundraising coming from contributions of $200 or less,” said Michael Glassner, chief operating officer of Trump’s campaign, in an email announcement…
That brings Trump’s re-election fundraising haul up to $67.5 million – an unprecedented effort for a first-term president during his first two years in office. This total doesn’t count tens of millions of dollars more raised by the Trump-aligned Republican National Committee, which jointly fundraises with Trump, who filed for re-election on the day of his inauguration.
Trump’s fundraising prowess meant the president had $19.3 million in his campaign warchest going into 2019. That number would have been larger had the president’s campaign not burned through existing reserves – it spent more than $23 million from Oct. 1 through Dec. 31.
An ever-expanding field of Democratic presidential candidates are angling to challenge him. None, however, can yet match Trump’s cash advantage, and all face what promises to be an expensive Democratic primary, where they’ll first battle each other for their party’s nomination.
Read on for the most notable nuggets discovered by Center for Public Integrity reporters within a new batch of Federal Election Commission filings, covering the final weeks of 2018: …
The States
Legal Insurrection: Wisconsin ‘John Doe’ prosecutorial abuses will go unpunished, but they should be remembered
By William A. Jacobson
The Wisconsin “John Doe” investigations into Scott Walker will likely fade from memories, particularly now that Walker is out of office.
That should not be the case. The John Doe investigations were some of the worst political abuses of prosecutorial powers ever to take place…
The targets ultimately were vindicated in court, with the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling the investigation was an unlawful infringement of free speech and free association rights…
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the John Doe prosecutors attempt to overturn the Wisconsin Supreme Court…
The question remained whether anyone would be held personally accountable. Unsurprisingly, the answer appears to be “No”.
Matt Kittle’s original reporting on the John Doe investigations was extensive and decisive.
Earlier this month, Kittle reported on what may be the end of the John Doe story, No One Held Accountable: Schimel’s Probe Into John Doe Quietly Concludes:
The state Department of Justice’s expanded investigation into the bureaucrats behind Wisconsin’s unconstitutional “John Doe II” probe has quietly ended more than a year after a bombshell report suggested a controversial state agency had been weaponized “by partisans in furtherance of political goals.” …
Eric O’Keefe, one of the victims of the abuse who fought back in court, wrote recently:
What I’ve learned from years of studying and engaging in this John Doe fight is that America’s criminal justice system is broken. Wisconsin’s former John Doe law was not the main problem. The immense power of prosecutors, the judicially created immunity for prosecutors, are big parts of the problem. Another problem has been the accumulation of laws, which allow prosecutors ever more ways to investigate and overcharge anyone…
Grand Forks Herald: North Dakota Republican leader says lawmakers have ‘a lot of work ahead’ on new ethics rules
By John Hageman
Freshly formed North Dakota legislative committees began dissecting new ethics rules voters recently carved into the state constitution Wednesday, Jan. 30.
Lawmakers wrestled with legal definitions, discussed a new ethics commission’s rule-making powers and weighed the confidentiality of ethics complaints. The chairmen of the House and Senate committees predicted it’ll take several more meetings to iron out legislation implementing the new constitutional language.
“You’ve got a lot of work ahead of you,” Senate Majority Leader Rich Wardner, R-Dickinson, told the House’s ethics committee.
The back-to-back hearings held in a large meeting room at the state Capitol attracted ballot measure supporters, lobbyists and legislators. The meetings came almost three months after voters approved Measure 1, which imposed bans on lobbyist gifts to public officials, added financial transparency requirements and created a new ethics commission that could investigate wrongdoing…
“House Bill 1521, we think, is a good faith effort by the North Dakota Legislature to try to address the issues brought up by Measure 1,” said Greater North Dakota Chamber President and CEO Arik Spencer, whose group spearheaded the opposition to the ballot proposal.
Gregory Stites, an attorney for the Measure 1 backers, said the Republican bill doesn’t pass constitutional muster and rushes to address issues that lawmakers could examine in an interim study. The leaders of North Dakotans for Public Integrity have expressed support for a separate bill drafted by Democratic Sen. Tim Mathern.
The ACLU of North Dakota, which opposed Measure 1 on the campaign trail, issued a statement ahead of Wednesday’s hearings raising “serious concerns” about its implementation and constitutionality. It urged lawmakers to narrowly define the constitution’s new transparency requirements, which mandate the “public disclosure of the ultimate and true source of funds” spent in excess of $200 to influence elections and “state government action.”
