In the News
Center for Responsive: Shining a light on ‘dark money’ and online ad spending
By Karl Evers-Hillstrom
Not everyone agrees on the methods in which H.R. 1 forces disclosure. Though the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) endorsed most of the bill’s provisions, the organization ultimately opposed the bill due to provisions dealing with increased disclosure of political speech.
The ACLU said the dark money-related measures “unconstitutionally chill” free speech and infringe on the privacy of advocacy organizations. The group references dark money nonprofits such as Planned Parenthood and the National Rifle Association as being essential to public discourse and argued they should not be forced to reveal their donors for running politically-focused ads.
“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 ACLU stated.
Conservative groups and lawmakers commonly use the “free speech” argument used by the left-leaning ACLU. The Institute for Free Speech issued a lengthy analysis of the bill, stating “groups will be silenced when trying to participate in public debate on important policy issues.”
First Amendment
ACLU: Press Freedom Groups Urge Court to Uphold Core First Amendment Protection in DNC-Russia Lawsuit
By Brett Max Kaufman, Carrie DeCell, and Gabe Rottman
In the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, the Democratic National Committee was hacked, and thousands of its emails and other private documents were stolen. Those documents were eventually released to the public through a website run by “Guccifer 2.0” (an online persona allegedly maintained by the Russian government) and through WikiLeaks. Early last year, the DNC sued those it believes are responsible for the hack, including the Trump campaign and Russian officials.
The DNC also sued WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. In its complaint, the DNC alleges that WikiLeaks released the hacked documents and that WikiLeaks communicated with Guccifer 2.0 after the hack to obtain the documents and coordinate their release.
These allegations raise an important First Amendment question with weighty implications for freedom of the press.
On Wednesday, the ACLU, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a friend-of-the-court brief addressing that question – namely, whether an act of publication that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment loses that protection simply because a source acquired the published information unlawfully.
The brief explains that the Supreme Court has recognized broad First Amendment protection for the publication of information of public concern and that it has extended that protection even to the publication of information acquired unlawfully in the first instance, so long as the publishing party was “not involved in the initial illegality.”
H.R. 1
Mother Jones: Both Parties Are Addicted to Dark Money. Only One Is Trying to Quit.
By Nihal Krishan
In the 2018 midterms, almost double the amount of undisclosed funds was spent to boost liberal candidates than conservatives. This also reflected the fact that the Democratic candidates in the House and Senate greatly out-raised their Republican counterparts…
In December 2017, the Center for Public Integrity reported on how Democrats used a unique and mostly unknown legal loophole to avoid disclosing the identity of donors of Highway 31…
“The Democrats have often times been more creative in dodging disclosure than Republicans,” says Brendan Fischer from the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan watchdog in Washington, DC. “Groups like Majority Forward, Highway 31, and others would be unlikely to push the legal envelope in this way if HR 1 were to help create a functioning FEC and laws that would prevent these disclosure dodges.” …
Some of the largest dark money groups that have attempted to influence national politics since Citizens United include liberal groups like the League of Conservation Voters, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, VoteVets Action Fund, and Patriot Majority USA. “The Democrats, like the Republicans, have become increasingly comfortable with using dark money and super-PACs,” says Daniel Weiner from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. “Liberal groups like labor unions would be more restricted in terms of how they engage in politics. That could ‘hurt’ liberal groups in some ways, although in a larger sense liberal constituents would be better off. HR 1 supporters know very well that it’s not going to be to their benefit in many instances, but it’s the right thing to do in the long run.”
Political Parties
New York Times: No Hate Left Behind
By Thomas B. Edsall
A recent survey asked Republicans and Democrats whether they agreed with the statement that members of the opposition party “are not just worse for politics – they are downright evil.”
The answers, published in January in a paper, “Lethal Mass Partisanship,” were startling, but maybe they shouldn’t have been.
Just over 42 percent of the people in each party view the opposition as “downright evil.” In real numbers, this suggests that 48.8 million voters out of the 136.7 million who cast ballots in 2016 believe that members of opposition party are in league with the devil.
The mass partisanship paper was written by Nathan P. Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason, political scientists at Louisiana State University and the University of Maryland.
Kalmoe and Mason, taking the exploration of partisan animosity a step farther, found that nearly one out of five Republicans and Democrats agree with the statement that their political adversaries “lack the traits to be considered fully human – they behave like animals.”
Their line of questioning did not stop there.
How about: “Do you ever think: ‘we’d be better off as a country if large numbers of the opposing party in the public today just died’?”
Some 20 percent of Democrats (that translates to 12.6 million voters) and 16 percent of Republicans (or 7.9 million voters) do think on occasion that the country would be better off if large numbers of the opposition died.
We’re not finished: “What if the opposing party wins the 2020 presidential election. How much do you feel violence would be justified then?” 18.3 percent of Democrats and 13.8 percent of Republicans said violence would be justified on a scale ranging from “a little” to “a lot.”
National Review: Partisan Hate Is Becoming a National Crisis
By David French
There is a link between the lethal fantasies Edsall outlines in his piece and the more widespread impulse to “merely” ruin the careers and livelihoods of our people we despise. At the edges, partisans are fine with seeing their political opponents physically suffer. It’s far more mainstream to hope to see them financially and socially ruined.
It’s in this atmosphere that I’m increasingly of the view that the vanishing, bipartisan class of civil libertarians represent an important ingredient in the glue that keeps America together. The fundamental idea that we should defend the rights of others that we would like to exercise ourselves often requires that we gain greater sympathetic understanding of our opponents’ points of view. After all, the defense of liberty in the public square can never be merely legalistic. To be effective it also has to humanize.
And crucially, it also has to educate. There is simply no way to enjoy or cultivate a true culture of liberty without tolerating even terrible things. We human beings are messy mixtures of virtue and vice, and while there are vices so profound that they render a person unfit for presence in the public square, we should be very careful indeed before we try to punish a man for his thoughts. How many of history’s greatest artists – of its most interesting thinkers – would pass our modern partisan purity tests?
We cannot keep relying on our good luck to avoid a true crisis of division (and potential violence). I’m skeptical that Pelosi’s current impeachment analysis – which places national unity over the demands of her angry activist base – represents a true shift from toxic partisanship. After all, her caucus just passed a grievously unconstitutional and authoritarian bill that not only limits free speech but exposes more citizens to potential social shaming and economic reprisal.
The Media
Wall Street Journal: The Speech Police Come for Tucker Carlson
By Bubba Clem
To be sure, we say really mean things on my radio show, and we laugh instead of getting mad. Why do we allow things to be said in comedy that wouldn’t be acceptable elsewhere? Believe it or not, scientists have studied comedy for an answer, and they found one. It’s called benign violation. We laugh when social norms are exceeded-the violation. But it’s not permanently harmful-it’s benign. No one called into my show authentically outraged about what Mr. Carlson said-not once-because everyone knew we were goofing in the spirit of the show.
To understand the mood of today, the only name you need to know is Lenny Bruce. A brilliant and shocking comic, Bruce was arrested over and over for obscenity-jailed for saying the wrong words. In New York he was convicted and died before his appeal could be heard.
Mr. Carlson is being smeared by a new generation of speech police for a new crime-refusing to give in to a small group of political activists who love all forms of “diversity” except of political thought. They take his comic words of a decade ago, reframe them as hateful, and require adherence to their demands. They attack the advertisers that simply want a chance to sell things to his audience, and threaten them with reputational destruction by public shaming unless they repudiate him. In the marketplace of ideas, these guys are shoplifters.
This is not only unfair but makes the world a sadder and angrier place. It’s a violation. There is nothing benign about falsely calling a good man a misogynist or a racist to force your politics on the half of the American public that rejects them…
Did you hear the one about the political activists who decided to win on the strength of their own ideas, rather than smearing those they opposed? Me neither-and that’s no joke.
Candidates and Campaigns
Politico: 2020 Dems have a money problem
By Maggie Severns
[W]hile candidates can put limits on their own fundraising to try to leverage an advantage with small-dollar supporters, few are in a position to turn down traditional big-dollar fundraising strategies, said Ami Copeland, who was a deputy finance director for former President Barack Obama.
“The Inslee super PAC: Why does somebody need that? Because nobody knows his name,” Copeland said. “You can’t run a campaign based on a super PAC, but a super PAC can be used to jump start a campaign and build in people’s minds and go from there.” …
[O]peratives working for rival campaigns rolled their eyes Warren’s recent restrictions on her own fundraising, which include not raising money at exclusive closed-door fundraisers, saying it was a ploy to play down expectations for her fundraising that she otherwise wouldn’t have taken on.
“It seems very stunt-y, to lower expectations, and it seems like they layered a ton of caveats in,” said a second Democratic presidential campaign aide.
While all of the leading presidential campaigns have banned corporate PAC money, for example, 2020 Democrats continue to raise money from wealthy donors who work for a range of industries, and closed-door fundraisers are proceeding as they would during any other election cycle, donors and fundraisers told Politico.
“Our money is not corporate PAC money – it’s individuals writing checks,” said one Democratic fundraiser.
Online Speech Platforms
Politico: Don’t Break Up Big Tech
By Rich Lowry
Elizabeth Warren is out with a headline-grabbing proposal to break up Big Tech companies, the sort of overly ambitious government plan that once would have engendered knee-jerk Republican opposition. Not anymore. Who says we all can’t get along?
When the senator tweeted her (understandable) objection that Facebook had taken down her ads attacking Facebook and other tech companies, Ted Cruz – in a retweet heard around the world – agreed that the companies have too much power.
Tech is caught in a right-left pincer, made all the more powerful by the populist spirit afoot in both parties. Conservatives don’t like these companies because they are owned and operated by sanctimonious Silicon Valley liberals subject to the worst sort of groupthink. Progressives don’t like them because they are colossal profit-making enterprises.
That’s why there is some chance Washington might get together, and along the lines Warren proposes, effectively outlaw the business models of some of the most successful and iconic American companies. It’s the most compelling evidence yet that, yes, we are losing our minds.
Warren’s idea to cleave off the platforms of the tech companies and have them run as “platform utilities” separate from the rest of their business is unworkable and is justified by a series of errors and misjudgments…
None of this is to deny that there are genuine concerns about tech companies. They need rules for content that honor viewpoint-neutrality and the spirit of the First Amendment, and perhaps there should be tighter regulations around privacy. Their business practices aren’t above scrutiny. But any real offenses should be addressed with fixes addressing specific conduct, rather than with a massive politically imposed reorganization across the industry.
The States
WOWK 13 News Huntington/Charleston: SB 622 Raising Campaign Finance Limits Heads to Governor
By Adrienne Robbins
SB 622 was debated in the House of Delegates on Friday and passed the Senate on Saturday. It raises campaign finance limits to match federal limits.
“We have not retooled our campaign finance laws in 30 years in West Virginia our numbers were distantly below most of the nation,” said Del. Moore Capito, (R) Kanawha.
Current law permits contributions of up to 1,000 dollars, this bill will raise the limit to 2,800 dollars per election in a primary or general election campaign. The bill permits contributions to a state party executive committee, or caucus campaign committee up to 10,000 dollars per year, previously it was just 1,000 dollars. Finally, the bill lifts the limit on contributions from a PAC up to 5,000 dollars another limit that was previously just one 1,000 dollars…
Opponents for the bill say this will increase campaign ads and lower the amount of time Delegates and Senators spend with their constituents during election time.
“I’ll tell you one thing I know our constituents are going to get annoyed because you’re going to see the TV comercials increase radio ads increase,” said Del. Andrew Byrd, (D) Kanawha.
Del. Byrd proposed one amendment to reduce the limits and keep the rest of the bill, and another amendment that would have applied the new limits to statewide elections, but not local ones. Both amendments failed.
The bill isn’t just about finanace limits, it covers a broad range of campaign finance control and regulation.
“The bill also improved disclosure requirements for certain entities which provides more clarity, it also forbids foreign nationals from contributing money in West Virginia,” said Del. Capito.
Associated Press: Campaign finance could be on 2020 ballot in Oregon
By Sarah Zimmerman
Oregon is one of five states to have no limits on campaign contributions, and lawmakers have long complained that they have to raise exorbitant amounts of money to remain competitive in campaigns…
Although legislators have tried to implement campaign finance reform, they’ve run into legal complications thanks to the Oregon constitution’s free speech provision. The state’s Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that campaign donations are a form of free speech and can’t be limited.
The high-priced governor’s race last year rekindled the debate over spending limits and has prompted lawmakers to pursue a ballot measure amending the constitution that would explicitly give them the authority to enact campaign finance reform.
Gov. Kate Brown secured reelection over former Republican Rep. Knute Buehler race in a race that broke fundraising records when candidates raised a combined total of $30 million. Buehler received a $1.5 million donation from Nike co-founder Phil Knight, the largest donation by an individual to a candidate in Oregon history.
Brown, who received a $500,000 donation from the D.C.-based nonprofit EMILY’s List, has made political spending limits a priority and expressed support for the constitutional change. She told reporters on Thursday that individual donors shouldn’t be able “to buy a megaphone so loud that it drowns out the other voices.” …
The state is also considering cracking down on “dark money” and politically active nonprofits, which do not have to disclose the sources of their funding. A proposed bill would require these groups to disclose donors if their spending passes a certain threshold.
Pueblo Chieftain: Griswold tells Puebloans campaign finance reform is coming
By Peter Roper
Colorado needs to improve transparency in its campaign finance laws, new Secretary of State Jena Griswold told a Pueblo audience Tuesday night.
She expects the General Assembly to take up campaign finance reform before adjourning in May, the Democrat said during an hour-long town hall meeting at the Senate Bar & Grill.
Griswold didn’t go into detail, but she said she hoped to improve disclosure rules so that groups couldn’t hide contributions to political committees.
Another possible change is increasing the amount that individuals can give candidates…
“I’m confident our Legislature is going to move ahead with major reforms this year,” she told the small audience…
Among other changes, Griswold said she is expanding the campaign enforcement office. She intends to have two attorneys and two investigators looking at campaign finance complaints.
