In the News
C-SPAN: David Keating on House Democrats’ Bill to Reform Campaign Finance Laws (Video)
The Institute for Free Speech’s David Keating talked about legislation proposed by House Democrats’ to reform campaign finance laws.
WBUR Boston NPR: Rep. John Sarbanes On HR 1, The House’s Sweeping Anti-Corruption Legislation
With Meghna Chakrabarti
The House votes on a sweeping anti-corruption proposal this week. It could have major implications for campaign finance, voting rights and ethics.
Guests:
Rep. John Sarbanes, Democratic congressman from Maryland. He’s the lead author of House Resolution 1, and has been spearheading the bill in his chamber.
David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech.
In February, he testified about H.R. 1 before the House Administration Committee.
[Ed. Note: David Keating joins NPR’s ‘On Point’ at 23:25]
Cato: A Voluminous Congressional Attack on Free Political Speech (Podcast)
Featuring Luke Wachob and Caleb O. Brown
A massive new plan unveiled by Democrats is a wish list of restrictions on free political speech. Luke Wachob of the Institute for Free Speech comments.
Daily Wire: ACLU Blasts House Democrats’ Big ‘Election Reform’ Bill As Unconstitutional
By Josh Hammer
Some institutional free speech advocates have opposed H.R. 1 since its incipience. “This is obviously a pretty radical expansion of the regulation of political speech,” said David Keating in January, president of the conservative Institute for Free Speech, according to NPR.
The ACLU now publicly similarly opposes H.R. 1, which is due for a vote on the House floor later this week. Here is an excerpt of the ACLU’s Friday letter to House Rules Committee Chairman Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Ranking Member Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK):
The American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of its 3 million members, supporters and activists, opposes H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019 as it was reported out of the House Administration Committee. We strongly urge the Rules Committee to allow floor amendments that would mitigate our concerns with the provisions that unconstitutionally infringe the freedoms of speech and association. …
[T]here are…provisions that unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech rights of American citizens and public interest organizations. They will have the effect of harming our public discourse by silencing necessary voices that would otherwise speak out about the public issues of the day.
“While there are many aspects of H.R. 1 that we strongly support, the provisions outlined above must be changed to avoid unconstitutionally burdening political speech,” the letter concluded.
Northwest Herald: Campaign flyers lead to 4 defamation suits in McHenry County
By Katie Smith
In light of a fourth defamation lawsuit filed in response to a series of campaign flyers that were distributed ahead of the March 2018 primary election, questions linger about the space for anonymous and political speech in a local election.
Former McHenry County Board member Michael Rein is the fifth person to file a defamation lawsuit naming an anonymous money source – the Illinois Integrity Fund – and its alleged members as defendants…
Depending on the facts of the case, defamation suits filed by public figures can discourage residents from speaking up when they have concerns, said Brad Smith, chairman of the Institute for Free Speech and a James Madison fellow at Princeton University.
“I think the danger that you have is that politicians start filing complaints whenever you start criticizing them, and people can’t afford that, so they start to say, ‘OK I’m not going to criticize them,’ ” he said.
Public officials are tasked with a higher standard of proof in defamation cases for that reason…
Defamation suits such as those filed in McHenry County usually do not make it far, but if they were successful, other elements of free speech could be at risk, Smith said…
Although opposing campaign flyers can be offensive, it comes with the territory of being a politician, Smith said.
“These kind of mailings go on all the time, and it kind of goes along with being a public official,” he said.
By Andrew Kerr
Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti obtained majority control of Justice Democrats PAC in December 2017, according to archived copies of the group’s website, and the two appear to retain their control of the group, according to corporate filings obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. If the Federal Election Commission (FEC) finds that the New York Democrat’s campaign operated in affiliation with the PAC, which had raised more than $1.8 million before her June 2018 primary, it would open them up to “massive reporting violations, probably at least some illegal contribution violations exceeding the lawful limits,” former FEC commissioner Brad Smith said…
Brad Smith told TheDCNF that if “a complaint were filed, I would think it would trigger a serious investigation.” …
“At minimum, there’s a lot of smoke there, and if there are really only three board members and she and [Chakrabarti] are two of them, sure looks like you can see the blaze,” Smith, a Republican, told TheDCNF. “I don’t really see any way out of it.” …
Smith said: “The admission makes it open and shut if someone wants to file a complaint with the FEC. I don’t see how the FEC could not investigate that. We’ve even got their own statement on their website that they control the organization. I don’t see how you could avoid an investigation on that.”
And if the FEC concludes that Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign and Justice Democrats were operating as affiliated committees, “then anyone who contributed over $2,700 total to her campaign and the PAC would have made an excessive contribution,” which is a campaign finance violation, Smith told TheDCNF.
New from the Institute for Free Speech
Letter to U.S. House of Representatives in Opposition to H.R. 1
By David Keating
The Institute for Free Speech writes in strong opposition to H.R. 1, the “For the People Act.” More appropriately known as the “For the Politicians Act,” this radical bill would, in fact, greatly harm the ability of the people to freely speak, publish, and organize into groups to advocate for better government…
H.R. 1 would institute sweeping new limitations on speech about campaigns and public affairs. It does so in a very complex, vague, and unintuitive manner. The measure’s provisions are so complex and open to so many possible interpretations that the Institute’s views on the bill may well understate the chill this legislation might place on speech.
Importantly, these restrictions would reach far beyond campaign speech to regulate discussion of legislative issues and public affairs. For advocacy groups, unions, and trade associations, several of the limits proposed in H.R. 1 would operate as a total ban on speech.
The best way to give the American people a voice and to safeguard democracy is to protect and enhance the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. While the Institute takes no position on the myriad provisions in H.R. 1 that deal with election administration, voting rights, and redistricting, the portions of H.R. 1 that trample on free speech are sufficient to warrant our firm opposition to this measure. For the above reasons, the Institute for Free Speech strongly opposes passage of H.R. 1.
What Would H.R. 1 Mean for My Group?
By Eric Wang
One way to better understand how H.R. 1 would affect nonprofit civic and advocacy groups is to apply its provisions to common advocacy and operating activities of these organizations. The massive elections and campaign finance bill has many provisions that are difficult for even campaign finance attorneys to understand. This guide supplements the in-depth analyses of H.R. 1 that the Institute for Free Speech has released previously.
Ed. Note: This page includes a compendium of resources from IFS and our allies, highlighting the First Amendment problems with H.R. 1.
H.R. 1
ACLU: ACLU Letter to House Rules Committee on H.R. 1
The upshot of the DISCLOSE Act, and the essence of why we oppose it, is that it would chill the speech of issue advocacy groups and non-profits such as the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, or the NRA that is essential to our public discourse and protected by the First Amendment. These groups need the freedom to name candidates when discussing issues like abortion, health care, criminal justice reform, tax reform and immigration and to urge candidates to take positions on those issues or criticize them for failing to do so. The DISCLOSE Act interferes with that ability by impinging on the privacy of donors to these groups, forcing the groups to make a choice: their speech or their donors. Whichever they choose, the First Amendment loses…
Our concerns with the Stand By Every Ad Act are the same as those already stated for the DISCLOSE Act. The bill unduly burdens constitutionally protected associational rights by requiring widely distributed disclosure of the names of donors to organizations that are not engaged in express advocacy of the election or defeat of the candidate…
[T]he Honest Ads Act would regulate online ads that appear outside of candidates’ districts, to persons with no power to vote for or against the candidate. Therefore, it is possible that purely issue-related ads mentioning candidates would now be subject to FEC regulation, even when those viewing the ads have no power to vote for or against the candidate mentioned. Without limiting the provision to speech within a candidate’s district, H.R. 1 expands the definition of electioneering communications for online ads beyond the bounds permitted by the Supreme Court.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Coalition Letter – H.R. 1, “For the People Act of 2019.”
Over the past several Congresses, various iterations of the legislation known as the DISCLOSE Act have been introduced. The profound constitutional problems of that legislation are well documented and include: (1) that it sought to chill associational and speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment by threatening donor disclosure for groups engaged in advocacy; (2) that it provided for unequal treatment of speakers, severely burdening the business community while leaving unions largely unaffected; and (3) that it sought to deter speech through the imposition of unnecessarily burdensome disclaimers and reporting requirements. Remarkably, H.R. 1 takes the worst ideas and impulses of the DISCLOSE Act and expands upon them in ways that have incredibly harmful – and unconstitutional – consequences.
Campaign finance law is inherently complex, and even finely-tuned changes can have unintended, chilling effects on protected First Amendment activity. But the campaign finance provisions of H.R. 1 are not finely-tuned. Perhaps the most striking example is H.R. 1’s sweeping regulation of so-called “campaign-related disbursements,” which captures a brand-new category of communications that “promote,” “attack,” “support,” or “oppose” a candidate or elected official (“PASO communications”). Unlike existing campaign finance law, which regulates speech that either expressly advocates a candidate’s election or defeat or that mentions a candidate in relatively close temporal proximity to an election, the vague and overly broad new definition of PASO communications applies year-round and threatens to consume any legislative advocacy that dares mention an elected official.
National Taxpayers Union: NTU Opposes H.R. 1, the “For the People Act”
By Brandon Arnold
Its enactment would stifle free speech, force taxpayers to subsidize public elections, and severely threaten the viability of 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations. We urge you to stand with taxpayers and oppose this haphazardly designed legislation…
As a nonpartisan 501(c)(4) advocacy organization, NTU would be particularly disadvantaged by this proposed system’s heavy-handed regulations. Chief among our concerns is the requirement to divulge the names and addresses of many individuals who freely choose to support our organization. Their information would be held forever in a publicly available government database. Taxpayers, and indeed all Americans have a constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy, and a violation of this sacred right could suppress political speech. Ironically, H.R. 1 justifies many of our supporters’ fears about political retaliation if their membership details were to be divulged simply based on the groups they choose to support.
H.R. 1 would also force taxpayers to finance the political campaigns of Congressional candidates and those running for the presidency. Taxpayers would provide a 6-to-1 contribution match to every participating campaign, meaning for each dollar a candidate raises from donations, taxpayers would match it six times over. However, the maximum donation that could be matched would be capped at $200. Under this system, candidates outside the mainstream on the far right and far left could be given large sums of money to appeal to fringe groups of voters…
Despite its compelling “For the People” title, H.R. 1 would greatly harm the ability of taxpayers to freely write, promote, and organize to advocate for better government.
Roll Call: K Street mounts offensive to HR 1
By Kate Ackley
The nation’s business and lobbying interests began publicly mobilizing Tuesday in a coordinated attack against House Democrats’ signature campaign finance, lobbying, ethics and voting overhaul, which the full chamber plans to vote on Friday morning.
More than 300 groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – the top spending organization on federal lobbying – and numerous other state, federal and conservative-leaning organizations wrote to lawmakers attacking the bill for “pushing certain voices, representing large segments of the electorate and our economy, out of the political process altogether.”
The letter came days after one of the bill’s chief foes, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has crusaded against the measure, urged outside allies in a Capitol Hill meeting to heighten their opposition – even though the Kentucky Republican has already said he will not bring the measure for a vote in his chamber…
The vote in the House this week is widely considered the opening act in what may become a multiyear debate and a major messaging point in the 2020 presidential and congressional campaigns. Opponents of the measure say they’re taking this fight seriously because if Democrats win control of the Senate and White House, the ideas behind HR 1 would likely be a top order of business…
The Chamber of Commerce will rate lawmakers on how they vote on the bill, the group said in a notice to House members. But it won’t be the only group doing so.
A coalition of liberal-leaning and campaign overhaul groups have also stepped up their outreach on Capitol Hill, and the group End Citizens United, which supports the overhaul, said that for the first time, it, too, will score lawmakers on how they vote.
Washington Examiner: House Democrats try to censor free political speech with HR 1
By Adam Brandon
The Orwellian H.R. 1 “For the People Act” threatens the very existence of our First Amendment right to speak and associate freely.
The bill proposes a radical expansion of government control over political speech, including provisions that would force 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations to disclose their donors, force private digital companies to release customer lists, and broaden the definition of a lobbyist to include even the most basic political action.
Democrats are calling this an anti-corruption bill. It’s not. The H.R. 1 “For the People Act” is one of the most brazen assaults on free speech we’ve seen in decades. Passing this legislation would have a devastating and permanent chilling effect on political speech…
Our Founding Fathers understood the importance of anonymity in a free society. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay composed the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym Publius. Judge Robert Yates defended the ratification of the Bill of Rights using the pseudonym Brutus.
This right has been protected throughout our history. In 1958, the Supreme Court ruled the state of Alabama could not publicize the membership rolls of the NAACP. They knew that without the NAACP v. Alabama decision, thousands of black Americans would have been targeted by hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan.
Now, Democrats have decided they have a right to your privacy.
FEC
Washington Post: Payments to corporation owned by Ocasio-Cortez aide come under scrutiny
By Michelle Ye Hee Lee
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)’s chief of staff helped establish two political action committees that paid a corporation he ran more than $1 million in 2016 and 2017, federal campaign finance records show.
Brand New Congress LLC, the corporation owned by Saikat Chakrabarti, was also paid $18,880 for strategic consulting by Ocasio-Cortez’s congressional campaign in 2017, records show. The following year, he worked as a volunteer to manage her campaign, according to his LinkedIn profile.
The arrangement, first reported by conservative outlets, left hidden who ultimately profited from the payments – a sharp juxtaposition with Ocasio-Cortez’s calls for transparency in politics. She has called dark money “the enemy to democracy.”
The money that flowed to her chief of staff’s corporation have subjected the first-term congresswoman to critics’ charges of hypocrisy. On Monday, a conservative group filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging that the PACs failed to properly disclose their spending…
Campaign finance experts said the relationship between Chakrabarti’s PACs and the limited-liability corporation obfuscated who received the payments – and raised questions about who benefited.
“In a normal situation, if all you saw was a PAC that disbursed hundreds of thousands of dollars to an affiliated entity to pay the salaries of people who were really working for the PAC, that looks like . . . a PAC that takes in money to engage in political activity but is actually enriching its owners,” said Adav Noti, former Federal Election Commission lawyer who is now chief of staff of the Campaign Legal Center, a group that advocates for greater transparency in campaign finance.
