In the News
Yale Daily News: Santos email fuels free speech debate
By Serena Cho
English professor David Bromwich said the idea that the junior “should somehow be punished, or cited to justify a reprimand, seems a clear overreach of authority.”
“[Of] course the result [of Santos’ email] would be to chill speech generally,” Bromwich said. “People say silly things like this all the time, on campus and in everyday life elsewhere. Will you install microphones in the potted plants and try to catch them all?”
In an interview with the News, Chairman of the Institute for Free Speech Bradley Smith said Santos’ email is “absurd and anti-liberal.” The email sends a message that students now have to be extra careful to not upset others and “gives a license to social justice warriors to pick on students they don’t like,” Smith said. He added that free speech is not only about a lack of censorship, but also about an open attitude of accepting controversial ideas…
According to University President Peter Salovey, heads of colleges do not have the right to regulate students’ free speech, irrespective of whether they agree with students or not… In an interview with the News earlier this month, Salovey explained that members of the University should be “willing to tolerate the intolerable” to avoid going “down a slippery slope of regulating speech [and] deciding what’s offensive and what’s not.”…
“I would like to take this opportunity to underscore that Yale is committed firmly to free expression,” Salovey said. “To learn, to create knowledge, to teach and to improve the world, we must engage in the exchange of ideas freely, especially when we disagree with one another. I have always encouraged members of the Yale community to participate in open discussions because the answer to speech that offends us is, most often, our own speech.”
The Courts
Bloomberg Law: Court Fight Over Online Sex Trafficking Law to Echo in Congress
By Alexis Kramer
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is slated to hear arguments Sept. 20 in a dispute over the validity of the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act. The law, known as FOSTA, holds websites liable, with penalties of fines, imprisonment or both, for intentionally promoting prostitution and knowingly facilitating sex trafficking.
FOSTA was the first law to amend Section 230…
“Any new effort to amend Section 230 would potentially face a similar challenge to what we’re arguing here,” according to Lawrence Walters, a First Amendment attorney at Walters Law Group in Longwood, Fla., who is representing the plaintiffs in the FOSTA challenge.
The plaintiffs-an unlikely alliance of human rights advocates, a sex worker activist, and a digital library, among others-say the law violates free speech because it’s too broad and prevents users from posting legitimate content online…
“The problem with FOSTA isn’t its intent to get sex trafficking ads off the Internet-but in the blunderbuss way the law was written,” David Greene, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who also is counsel for the plaintiffs, said…
The Woodhull Freedom Foundation and Human Rights Watch, which advocate for the health and safety of sex workers; the Internet Archive; a massage therapist; and a sex worker activist sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to get the law stricken. The court ruled they lacked standing because they didn’t show that the law harmed them.
The plaintiffs in their appeal are arguing again that the law is unconstitutional, and asking for an injunction to block it. They say they have standing because they had to self-censor valid postings out of fear of prosecution…
The D.C. Circuit may only rule on the standing issue and punt the constitutionality question.
Washington Post: Maryland political consultant pleads guilty in fraud scheme involving ‘scam’ PACs
By Martin Weil
A Maryland political consultant has pleaded guilty to wire fraud in connection with a scheme to solicit millions in contributions through “scam” political action committees that were portrayed as supporting candidates and other causes, federal prosecutors said.
Kelley Rogers, 55, of Annapolis entered the plea in U.S. District Court in Alexandria on Tuesday, according to the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia.
“Rogers preyed upon his victims’ political beliefs with the intent of enriching his companies, his business partners, and himself,” U.S. Attorney G. Zachary Terwilliger said in a statement.
Prosecutors said court documents showed Rogers operated multiple PACs from August 2012 through last year. Among them, prosecutors said, were the Conservative StrikeForce, Conservative Majority Fund and Tea Party Majority Fund…
As part of Tuesday’s plea, prosecutors said that Rogers agreed to pay $491,299 in restitution to victims of the fraud scheme, as well as a forfeiture judgment of $208,954.
He is scheduled to be sentenced in January.
FEC
Bloomberg Government: Koch-Linked Nonprofit Must Disclose Donors, Settlement Mandates
By Kenneth P. Doyle
The now-defunct Americans for Job Security (AJS), said in a settlement that it should have registered as a regulated political action committee beginning in 2010 because it spent most of its money to influence elections…
The watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), disclosed the settlement Sept. 19, following a years-long legal battle to have a federal district court in Washington, D.C., force the FEC to take enforcement action…
The settlement requires Stephen DeMaura, who served as president of AJS, to file a report for the group by next month “outlining its receipts, including the identity of any person who gave money” to finance the group’s election spending. The report should reflect DeMaura’s “best efforts to obtain information” about the group’s finances in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles, the settlement added, requiring that DeMaura submit an affidavit attesting to his efforts…
Republican Commissioner Caroline Hunter said she disagreed with the court’s conclusion about whether Americans for Job Security was required to register as a PAC, but she was compelled to support a settlement in this case.
The settlement was predicated on the court’s holding that spending for “electioneering communications” that refer to candidates in the weeks before an election “presumptively have an election-related purpose,” Hunter said in an email.
“I have made clear for the record my strong disagreement regarding that decision and its rationale,” she added. “However, I believe I was compelled to follow the court’s order in this case.”
Congress
Center for Public Integrity: Lawmakers Demand Answers About Nevada Telemarketer And His Clients
By Sarah Kleiner and Chris Zubak-Skees
A Nevada congresswoman called on federal authorities to investigate political action committees that raise funds for a cause – but plow most of what they raise back into their own paychecks and committee fundraising efforts.
The Justice Department should hold those who run such PACs “accountable to the fullest extent of the law,” and the Federal Election Commission should have increased authority to “punish bad actors,” said Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev.
Titus is among several lawmakers who expressed concern about the findings of a Center for Public Integrity investigation that detailed the financial practices of a Las Vegas-based telemarketer and about three-dozen PACs and nonprofit charity organizations that contract with his companies…
Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., said Congress must strengthen federal agencies tasked to investigate nonprofits, political committees or their fundraisers – including the Federal Trade Commission, the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Election Commission.
“If you take cops off the beat, if you dilute oversight, scrutiny, accountability and transparency, you’re asking for the wild wild West, and increasingly that seems to be the reality we’re living in,” Sarbanes said…
Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, said the Federal Election Commission isn’t likely to crack down on how Zeitlin-connected PACs spend their money.
“In the political sphere, [Congress] would have to rewrite the federal campaign finance law that would allow the FEC to start monitoring how political committees are spending their money, and that’s kind of a tricky field,” Holman said.
As recently as December, the FEC formally asked Congress to “examine potentially fraudulent fundraising and spending activities of certain political committees” and “amend the Federal Election Campaign Act to address and prohibit fraudulent fundraising practices.”
Online Speech Platforms
Wall Street Journal: Zuckerberg Meets With Trump, Faces Tough Questions From Senators
By John D. McKinnon, Lindsay Wise and Rebecca Ballhaus
With his company under a regulatory spotlight, Facebook Inc. Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg scored a meeting at the White House with President Trump Thursday-but faced a chillier reception from lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
A spokesman for Facebook said Mr. Zuckerberg was visiting Washington to meet with policy makers “to hear their concerns and talk about future internet regulation.” The spokesman said Mr. Zuckerberg’s meeting with the president was “constructive.”
Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, and White House social media director Dan Scavino also joined the meeting, a person familiar with the meeting said.
“Nice meeting with Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook in the Oval Office today,” Mr. Trump posted Thursday night on his Facebook and Twitter accounts, along with a photo of the president and Mr. Zuckerberg shaking hands.
On Capitol Hill, Mr. Zuckerberg received an earful of complaints, and two influential lawmakers couldn’t find the time to meet with him.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) said he challenged Mr. Zuckerberg to spin off its Instagram and WhatsApp units-two acquisitions that are now part of a government antitrust probe into Facebook.
“I said to him, ‘Prove that you’re serious…sell WhatsApp, and sell Instagram,'” Mr. Hawley said following his afternoon meeting with Mr. Zuckerberg. “I think it’s safe to say that he was not receptive to those suggestions,” he added.
Fundraising
Axios: Tech takes over political fundraising
By Sara Fischer
Small-dollar political donations have exploded this campaign cycle, thanks in large part to technology that makes it possible for candidates to target potential donors with cheap ads and easy-to-use online donation platforms.
Why it matters: A surge in fundraising for contributions under $200 has expanded the 2020 election field, propelling lesser-known candidates to the debate stage and political stardom.
It has also brought more Americans into the political donation process than ever before.
Driving the news: Alexa is going to let users donate to presidential campaigns, Bloomberg reports…
It’s not just voice technology, which is still new to the political game. Where the real change has been happening over the past three cycles, and increasingly over this presidential cycle, has been on Google and Facebook, as well as with online fundraising software.
Experts on digital advertising anticipate that well over $1 billion in digital ads will be spent on Google and Facebook alone this presidential cycle.
Most of that spending will be geared toward soliciting small-dollar donations from voters early, so that candidates can try to reengage them for larger donations later.
Online fundraising platforms, like ActBlue for Democrats and now WinRed for Republicans, will also be key to driving small-dollar donations…
Small-dollar donations have been notoriously hard to trace back to the donors, but some of these online fundraising platforms are helping to bringing some transparency to that process.
Candidates and Campaigns
Politico: Yang dishes on why Trump won, Asian jokes and how he’ll ‘shock the world’
By Eugene Daniels
On claims that his $1,000 a month campaign giveaway violates federal law
“As you can imagine we have a small army of very smart lawyers who signed off on this. No. 1, if my campaign were to give a million dollars to a media company like POLITICO or to paid consultants down the street or to an army of paid canvassers, everyone would think that’s completely OK. But if we give the money to individual American citizens to do whatever they want with, then it’s somehow problematic. Campaigns like mine pay people all the time for any of a host of services. So let’s say we were to give a thousand dollars a month to an American citizen and say, ‘Your job is to tell your neighbors and friends how you spend the money.’ That’s actually essentially a marketing function on behalf of the campaign. And we’re simply paying you the thousand dollars just you can tell your story so you can think of them as a variant of like a marketing consultant or a paid employee.”
Vox: Bill de Blasio wants to make public campaign financing a reality nationwide
By Emily Stewart
On Thursday, de Blasio rolled out a plan to reform democracy and improve the American voting system. The proposal, shared exclusively with Vox, appears to be a mix of items put forth in House Democrats’ sweeping anti-corruption bill and tested out in the city he leads…
One of the primary planks of “the de Blasio democracy platform,” as his campaign has dubbed it, is a proposal to introduce 8-1 matching on small-dollar contributions for candidates who accept public financing for their campaigns…
His proposal would limit maximum contributions to $1,000 for candidates who accept public financing for their campaigns, and then they would be entered into an 8-to-1 public matching system for small-dollar donations of up to $200. (Candidates who don’t opt in to the system have a $2,500 campaign contribution limit.)
The 8-1 ratio is the same one New York City voters approved in a ballot measure in 2018. (Previously, the ratio had been 6-to-1.) It’s part of a long-standing effort in New York, since the 1988 establishment of the Campaign Finance Board, to try to limit the influence of money in politics in the city and reduce campaign corruption. The board put in place 1-1 matching 30 years ago and has gradually increased it since…
House Democrats proposed 6-1 matching in their legislation. In New York State, a commission is currently looking at implementing a 6-1 match statewide and is set to issue a report on the matter on December 1. De Blasio’s announcement could be seen as a nudge on that front – and toward New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
By Erin Durkin and Anna Gronewold
Shot: Mayor Bill de Blasio proposed a sweeping plan on Thursday he says will combat the influence of big money in politics.
Chaser: One of de Blasio’s many, many fundraising scandals came back to haunt him, reminding New Yorkers how deep-pocketed developers used their big money to influence the mayor.
De Blasio has always fancied himself a champion of campaign finance reform, going back to his days crusading against the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. But when it comes to his own fundraising efforts, he has often played fast and loose with the rules.
And so here we are: De Blasio wants a public campaign finance matching funds system for the country similar to the one New York City has long used in its own elections…
On the same day de Blasio released the new plan, the state Joint Commission on Public Ethics announced three new settlements with developers who gave the mayor political donations while pursuing business with his administration. They’ll cough up $65,000 for improperly donating to the Campaign for One New York, the group de Blasio set up to push his agenda, fueled mostly by donors with business before the city.
While the group was shuttered in 2016, de Blasio’s fundraising foibles are not behind him. In his presidential campaign, he’s faced at least two complaints charging that he violated rules by doubling a state political action committee as a presidential exploratory committee. Nor has he seen the end of the JCOPE probe: the state commission said its investigation is still going.
The States
New York Daily News: Jerrold Nadler: Seize this campaign reform opportunity, New York
By U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler
Under the governor’s leadership, the state is in the unique position to show the rest of the country how to build and protect democracy by enacting campaign finance reform with small-donor matching funds.
There is one catch: They have less than 75 days to get it right. And yet now, rather than focus entirely on the major task in front of them – enacting model legislation to reduce the influence of the wealthy and powerful interests – they are spending precious time on the question of whether or not New York State should maintain its system of fusion voting…
So reformers in New York need to keep their eyes on the ball. Though Democrats around the country are supportive of public financing, it’s here in New York where we can lead the way.
Earlier this year, with overwhelming support from the Democratic majority, the House of Representatives passed H.R.1, the For the People Act of 2019, a historic, democracy-enhancing election reform package. A foundational piece of that bill is the creation of a publicly-financed, small-donor matching system…
The commission, which has already begun to meet, will make recommendations by Dec. 1, 2019, for how to implement campaign finance reform in New York. I believe it is incredibly important that these recommendations are focused on critical issues, create a strong system covering both primaries and general elections, and include a public financing program with a 6-to-1 match on small donations and lower contribution limits for participating and non-participating candidates, similar to what the House passed in H.R. 1.
Columbus Dispatch: More disclosure needed of ‘dark money’ funders of campaign ads, open-government groups say
By Rick Rouan
Greater disclosure from “dark money” groups is needed to tamp down “fear mongering” political rhetoric such as the ads from one group fighting a potential referendum on Ohio’s nuclear-power bailout bill, two advocates of open government said Thursday.
The League of Women Voters and Common Cause Ohio are calling on state lawmakers to adopt new campaign finance rules that would shed more light on the sources of funding for dark-money interests.
Representatives of the two groups said during a press conference Thursday that they are concerned about an aggressive campaign by Ohioans for Energy Security, which supports Ohio’s relief package for First Energy Solutions’ nuclear-power plants…
“In general, we think it would be less inflammatory if we could know who these individuals (contributing to the campaign) are,” said Jen Miller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio.
Attempts by the League of Women Voters and Common Cause to rally support for changing campaign-finance disclosures now are an effort to silence Ohioans for Energy Security, said Carlo LoParo, the group’s spokesman.
“We’re not operating under new guidelines. These are laws that have been in place for years. Because they disagree with our message, they want to silence our speech. We think that’s unfortunate. We have every right to inform Ohioans,” he said.
