In the News
By Jonathan D. Salant
But some of those provisions [in H.R. 1] could muffle Americans’ voices, said David Keating, executive director of the Institute for Free Speech, which opposes the disclosure proposals.
“The problem is the bill is so poorly written that it’s kind of a full employment act for campaign finance lawyers,” Keating said. “Anytime you say anything about an elected official, it’s probably going to wind up requiring filings with the federal government. It basically would tamper the ability of people to speak about the politician.”
Republican National Lawyers Association: H.R. 1 Threatens Americans’ Freedom of Speech
By Elizabeth Bradford
Just like in 2019, Democrats have made sweeping election reforms their top priority for this Congress. One of the most alarming parts of the legislation is its massive restrictions on Americans’ freedom of speech. As the Institute for Free Speech’s Luke Wachob explained:
Once again, House and Senate Democrats have made it their top legislative priority to limit First Amendment rights, expose Americans to harassment and intimidation for their beliefs, crack down on political speech on the internet, pump millions of tax dollars into politicians’ campaigns, and transform the enforcement of federal campaign finance law into a partisan endeavor. The bill’s cheerleaders, meanwhile, have made it their top priority to lie to the public about the proposal.
The legislation in question is H.R. 1 and S. 1, the so-called “For the People Act.” We’ve said before these bills would be more accurately named the “For the Politicians Act” because they limit the people’s freedom to speak and associate with others by imposing enormous burdens on political advocacy and campaigning.
Biden Administration
Washington Post: Biden’s sign language interpreter has translated far-right misinformation
By Meryl Kornfield
A gesture meant to bolster President Biden’s call for unity and inclusion instead inspired divisiveness, after news emerged that a White House American Sign Language interpreter was a Trump supporter who previously interpreted videos rife with misinformation.
Heather Mewshaw, who appeared in the White House coronavirus briefing on Monday beside press secretary Jen Psaki, was identified by deaf and hard-of-hearing advocates and Time Magazine, fueling questions about the White House’s vetting process and what could have happened if Mewshaw misinterpreted Biden officials or inserted her own bias. No one has publicly disputed her interpretation, but many questioned why the White House would legitimize her by giving Mewshaw the national platform.
FEC
Independent: Republicans want to use campaign funds for personal security amid rising political tensions
By Josh Marcus
Citing concerns about recent deadly threats to lawmakers, including the 6 January attack on the Capitol, the Republican Senate and House re-election committees asked the Federal Election Commission for an opinion on whether lawmakers could use campaign funds to pay for security for themselves and their family.
“In light of current events involving concrete threats of physical violence against Members and their families, Members have been compelled to consider further security measures for themselves and their families,” wrote the National Republican Senatorial Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee in a letter dated 26 January.
The message to the electoral regulator mentions the attack on the Capitol, as well as other high-profile incidents of violence towards lawmakers, such as the 2011 and 2017 shootings of US representatives Gabby Giffords and Steve Scalise.
New York Times: Trump Raised $255.4 Million in 8 Weeks as He Sought to Overturn Election Result
By Shane Goldmacher and Rachel Shorey
President Donald J. Trump and the Republican Party raised $255.4 million in the eight-plus weeks following the Nov. 3 election, new federal filings show, as he sought to undermine and overturn the results with unfounded accusations of fraud.
Mr. Trump’s strongest fund-raising came in the immediate aftermath of the election, such as after major media organizations declared that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had won on Nov. 7. But even as Mr. Trump and his legal team lost case after case – in venues including the Supreme Court – his donors continued to give repeatedly. More than two million contributions flowed in to Mr. Trump, the Republican National Committee and their shared accounts from Nov. 24 through the end of the year.
The donations were made public over the weekend in a Federal Election Commission filing by WinRed, the digital platform that Republicans use to process online donations.
New York Times: Democratic Party Enters 2021 in Power – and Flush With Cash, for a Change
By Shane Goldmacher
After years of flirting with financial disaster, the Democratic Party entered 2021 not only in control of the White House, the House and the Senate but with more money in the bank than ever before at the start of a political cycle.
The Democratic National Committee will report to the Federal Election Commission on Sunday that it ended 2020 with $38.8 million in the bank and $3 million in debts, according to an advance look at its financial filings. In addition, there is roughly $40 million earmarked for the party, left over from its joint operations with the Biden campaign, according to people familiar with the matter. This gives the Democrats a roughly $75 million war chest at the start of President Biden’s tenure.
“This is a number that is unimaginable,” said Howard Dean, a former party chairman.
The D.N.C. was badly outmatched financially in recent years by the Republican National Committee – by as much as 50 to 1 in terms of cash less than 18 months ago – and the enormous $70 million balance could have significant political consequences for the 2022 midterm elections and beyond.
Online Speech Platforms
Wall Street Journal: The Constitution Can Crack Section 230
By Philip Hamburger
Section numbers of federal statutes rarely stir the soul, but one of them, 230, stirs up much fear, for it has seemed to justify censorship. Relying on it, tech companies including Google and Twitter increasingly pull the plug on disfavored posts, websites and even people. Online moderation can be valuable, but this censorship is different. It harms Americans’ livelihoods, muzzles them in the increasingly electronic public square, distorts political and cultural conversations, influences elections, and limits our freedom to sort out the truth for ourselves.
But does the 1996 Communications Decency Act really justify Big Tech censorship? The key language, Section 230(c)(2), provides: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of . . . any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” The companies take this as a license to censor with impunity.
By Jessica Guynn
Despite repeated charges of anti-conservative bias from former President Trump and other GOP critics, Facebook, Twitter and Google’s YouTube are not slanted against right-leaning users, a new report out of New York University found.
Like previous research, “False Accusation: The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives,” concludes that, rather than censoring conservatives, social media platforms amplify their voices.
“Republicans, or more broadly conservatives, have been spreading a form of disinformation on how they’re treated on social media. They complain they’re censored and suppressed but, not only is there not evidence to support that, what evidence exists actually cuts in the other direction,” said Paul Barrett, deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, which released the report Monday…
“There is a broad campaign going on from the right to argue that they’re being silenced or cast aside, and that spirit is what is helping to feed the extremism that we are seeing in our country right now,” Barrett said. “We can’t just allow that to be a debating point. It’s not legitimate. It’s not supported by the facts.
Wired: Banning White Supremacy Isn’t Censorship, It’s Accountability
By Malkia Devich-Cyril
The collective sigh of relief that rippled through the digital spaces occupied by Black, indigenous and other people of color following the wave of deplatformings was visceral, and the impact was almost immediate. A study conducted by research firm Zingal Labs found that online disinformation, particularly about election fraud, fell by an incredible 73 percent in the week after Twitter’s suspension of Trump’s social media account. Online forums for Trump supporters are now fractured and weakened.
But many reacted to the social media bans with outrage. First Amendment fundamentalists across the political spectrum raised “free speech” concerns, claiming that the social media bans were a slippery slope. Though they’re being used to hold the powerful to account today, the argument goes, they could be used to repress minority groups in the future. Others worried that a digital oligarchy of big tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, and Amazon with the unchecked power to silence individuals represents a threat to democracy…
While those already in power may rely on the Constitution and the democratizing promise of the open internet, Black people and other marginalized groups need more than the intent of the law to enjoy its equal protection…
When Black activists and other protected classes are silenced on Facebook, Twitter, and other social platforms for talking about or organizing against racism, that’s censorship. But when an oppressed minority seeks equality and justice, and freedom from the harm and violence brought on by the systematically privileged speech of others, that’s not censorship, that’s accountability. Claims stating otherwise are misguided at best, and at worst represent a very distorted understanding of the way speech, race, and power work online.
Political Giving
Newsweek: Publix Distances Itself From Heiress Julie Jenkins Fancelli After Report of Jan. 6 Rally Funding
By James Crowley
Supermarket chain Publix is seemingly trying to distance itself from heiress Julie Jenkins Fancelli, who is one of Publix’s founder George W. Jenkins’ seven children, following reports that she was a key funder in the January 6 rally, which culminated in rioters storming the United States Capitol.
According to a Wall Street Journal article published Saturday morning, Fancelli “paid for the lion’s share of the roughly $500,000 rally at the Ellipse,” which former President Donald Trump spoke at. She reportedly contributed about $300,000 to the rally, while far-right web show host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones pitched in about $50,000…The company’s official response, received by Newsweek, said that Fancelli isn’t an employee or a representative for the chain. It also denounced the violence at the Capitol. Publix’s statement can be found reads:
Mrs. Fancelli is not an employee of Publix Super Markets, and is neither involved in our business operations, nor does she represent the company in any way. We cannot comment on Mrs. Fancelli’s actions.
The violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was a national tragedy. The deplorable actions that occurred that day do not represent the values, work or opinions of Publix Super Markets.
Despite Publix attempting to distance itself from the heiress, some people on Twitter have still called for a boycott.
The States
International Business Times: Virginia Becomes 22nd State To Support Efforts For Money In Politics Amendment
By John Pudner
On Thursday, the Virginia House of Representatives passed resolution HJR 599 making Virginia the 22nd state supporting efforts for a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics. This is a positive first step towards allowing people to support limits on secret pay-for-play political contributions (“dark money’) through their legislatures…
What Virginia needs next is a Legislative Study Committee that can spearhead efforts to pass a law officially limiting the amount of donations a corporation or individual can give, and/or the rules for reporting donations that can now be hidden through shady third parties such as LLCs that secretly move money. If freed up to debate and discuss laws after passage of the 28th Amendment, they may choose to eliminate the role of Super PACs…
NorthJersey.com: NJ Republican sues primary opponent over ‘smear campaign’ in US Senate race
By Tom Nobile
Seven months after their closely contested primary ended, two New Jersey Republicans are still battling it out – this time in court.
Rik Mehta, the GOP candidate for U.S. Senate last year, has filed a defamation lawsuit against the challenger he narrowly beat in the July primary, Hirsh Singh, accusing his opponent of waging a mudslinging campaign that helped cost Mehta the general election in November.
In the lawsuit filed this month, the Morris County resident said Singh spent more than $300,000 on a “smear campaign to flout the truth and create a series of repeated lies” though press releases, digital advertising and mailers. The campaign targeted Mehta’s background as a pharmaceutical executive, accusing him of promoting dangerous opioids for Big Pharma and labeling him a “baby-killer” for selling “abortion pills,” according to the lawsuit.
Mehta, who lives in Chester, ultimately prevailed in the five-way Republican race on July 7, beating Singh by two points. But he said Singh’s negative campaign had lasting effects into November and weakened his support among Republican voters. Mehta lost the general election to U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, the incumbent, 57% to 40%.
