In the News
RNLA: RNLA Webinar: How to Fight Back if HR 1 Becomes Law
Event: Friday, March 19 at 2:00PM Eastern
Featured Speakers:
-John Merrill, Alabama Secretary of State
-Bradley Smith, Chairman and Founder of the Institute for Free Speech
Please become an RNLA member to participate.
ICYMI
H.R. 1 Will Force Organizations – and Their Donors – to Publicly Profess Allegiance to Politicians
By Margaux Granath
[H.R. 1] creates a new category of speech to regulate, “campaign-related disbursements.” This stunningly broad category would unconstitutionally regulate speech about legislative issues that mentions federal candidates – many of whom will be elected officials – if the speech “promotes,” “attacks,” “supports,” or “opposes” (“PASO”) the candidate or official. This is one of the many needlessly vague and worrisome provisions included in the legislation. Groups could be forced to hire an attorney in a frustrating effort to understand whether their communications will be deemed to PASO a candidate.
Regrettably, the vagueness and expansiveness of the PASO standard are not the only problems with H.R. 1’s regulation of “campaign-related disbursements.” If H.R. 1 becomes law, organizations, including nonpartisan nonprofits, would be bound to publicly declare their support or opposition to any candidates named in their communications, even if, in reality, the group neither supports nor opposes those individuals. These declarations must be included in public reports for each “campaign-related disbursement” filed with the Federal Election Commission. This has disastrous implications not only for speech rights, but for privacy rights as well.
Biden Administration
Washington Post: Biden promised massive ethics reforms. Why hasn’t he started yet?
By Walter M. Shaub Jr.
Biden’s campaign promises addressed a root cause of ethical failure in Washington: campaign finance. He promised legislation to get dark money out of politics, barring certain nonprofit organizations from election spending and requiring others to disclose their contributors. He promised legislation to ensure “superPACs are wholly independent of campaigns and political parties.” He pledged to break the deadlock that has incapacitated the Federal Election Commission by amending the law to give the agency an odd number of commissioners. He pledged to seek public matching funding for small-dollar donations and “a constitutional amendment to entirely eliminate private dollars from our federal elections.”…
If he hopes to make good on his pledge to put the post-Watergate reformers to shame, the time is now before the window closes. There is no shortage of ideas for reform, nor is there any shortage of good-government groups willing to help him develop proposals. The only thing in short supply is time.
The Courts
Reason: Pennsylvania Bar Dismisses 3rd Circuit Appeal in Rule 8.4(g) Challenge
By Josh Blackman
In December, a federal district court declared unconstitutional Pennsylvania’s version of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g). The judge reiterated points that Eugene Volokh and I have been making for years: this rule may be well intentioned, but it violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
In January, the Pennsylvania Bar filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit. But yesterday, the Bar surrendered. It voluntarily dismissed the appeal. Congratulations to Adam Schulman, Ted Frank, and the other lawyers at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute for their victory.
Going forward, the Pennsylvania Bar will presumably try to draft a constitutional version of the rule. Other states considering ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) should take note, and proceed in a different direction.
Congress
Newsmax: The People of Arizona vs. the Democratic Machine
By Newt Gingrich
Soon, the US Senate will vote on H.R. 1. As I have been saying for weeks, it should be called the “For the Corrupt Politicians Act.” …
H.R. 1 will also create a tax-funded revenue stream for federal campaigns, which effectively means that conservative taxpayers in Florida will be paying for the re-election campaigns of radical Democrats in California — and Democrat taxpayers will be footing the bill for Republicans in red states.
These measures are just crazy — and deeply unpopular with Americans…
[A]ccording to recent surveys about H.R. 1 by McLaughlin & Associates, only 32 percent of Arizonans are even aware that this federal election takeover bill exists…
As to the restructuring of the FEC, 77% of Arizonans oppose the effort to make it a partisan body. The same percentage of Arizonans reject the idea of a “New York City-style” campaign finance system that funnels taxpayer dollars to political candidates…
McLaughlin’s survey revealed a few more key results:
- 69% of Arizonans believe H.R.1 benefits the politicians — not the people.
- 63% want their Senators to vote against the bill.
- 52% say they are less likely to vote for a senator who votes in favor of H.R. 1.
Arizona is just one example. McLaughlin has also done surveys for West Virginia, Montana, and the whole country on H.R. 1, which I will discuss in a following column.
PACs
Bloomberg: Wall Street Looks to Quietly Reopen Wallets for Politicians
By Robert Schmidt and Bill Allison
Wall Street firms are quietly preparing to resume political giving in the next few months, marking an end to a freeze that many corporations vowed to impose after rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol in January to disrupt congressional certification of Donald Trump’s loss to President Joe Biden.
The pause on political action committee contributions, touted by major financial companies like JPMorgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and BlackRock Inc., alarmed lawmakers in both parties at the time, given how much of their campaigns are bankrolled by deep-pocketed corporate donors.
Yet it was never meant to be a shutdown of the Wall Street money machine, which contributed $787 million to the 2020 election, people familiar with the matter said. Instead, it was about publicly showing customers and stockholders that they were disgusted with the armed insurrection and the Republicans who directly or indirectly backed the effort…
“There was a feeling that companies need to take a stand, and that was probably met with a concern about the brand,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. “If companies so quickly and easily backtrack on the PAC suspension, it will prove to be a P.R. move.”
Online Speech Platforms
Wall Street Journal: Facebook Unveils New Penalties on Its Groups in Wake of Capitol Riot
By Jeff Horwitz
Facebook Inc. introduced new penalties for interest-based forums called Groups that are flagged for violating its community standards, as it aims to curb a product that played a high-profile role in the protests that led up to the Capitol riot.
The company has faced criticism both for not doing enough to police discourse on its platform and for censoring users. The changes to Groups come after Facebook’s own researchers found that the company’s oversight of the product was weak.
Facebook recently concluded that some of its largest civic-based Groups were toxic and was alarmed by its growth, according to internal documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
“70% of the top 100 most active US Civic Groups are considered non-recommendable for issues such as hate, misinfo, bullying and harassment,” one presentation stated. It found that top Groups functioned less as communities than as megaphones for partisan publishers and purveyors of “hate bait,” racially and politically charged content meant to elicit calls for violence.”
Subsequent reporting by the Washington Post revealed Facebook internal research showing that a small fraction of Facebook’s user base was flooding it with more than half of the content casting doubt on the safety and efficacy of the coronavirus vaccine, which medical authorities widely consider to be safe.
The States
Center Square: Aurora mayor sues city over campaign finance ordinance, alleges First Amendment violation
By Robert Davis
Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman is suing the city for enacting a campaign finance ordinance the mayor says violates the First Amendment.
“The lawsuit will send a clear message to every local official in Colorado that they cannot abuse the power of government to silence their political opponents,” Coffman said in a statement.
Coffman filed the lawsuit in the Arapahoe County Court on Wednesday through his legal counsel Dan Burrows of the Public Trust Institute, a conservative-leaning public interest law firm. It names both the City of Aurora and City Clerk Kadee Rodriguez as defendants.
In November 2020, Aurora City Council voted 7-3 to pass an ordinance limiting campaign contributions for local officials. The ordinance, which went into effect on Jan. 1, limits donations from individuals and committees to $1,000 in at-large and mayoral races and $400 for city council wards.
It also prohibits contributions from independent expenditure committees, recall campaigns, or conduits—which are defined as individuals who transmit donations on behalf of committees…
Burrows described the ordinance as sophomoric, saying it wouldn’t pass the sniff test in “high school civics.”
“A person doesn’t give up his rights just because he decides to run for office. Mike Coffman has a constitutional right to encourage his friends and neighbors to vote a particular way, to volunteer for other people’s campaigns, and to voice his opinions on the issues just like anyone else,” he said in a statement.
Local 10 News: Ex-Florida Sen. Frank Artiles arrested in shill candidate scheme
By Glenna Milberg, David Selig, and Liane Morejon
The former Florida state senator accused of masterminding and funding a sham candidate to manipulate voters last November is now facing charges of felony campaign finance crimes.
Frank Artiles was booked into Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center on Thursday, a day after his Palmetto Bay home was raided.
Shill candidate Alex Rodriguez was also booked Thursday morning.
Their charges include:
- Making or receiving campaign contributions over or in excess of limits
- Conspiracy to make or receive two or more campaign contributions over or in excess of limits
- False swearing in connection with voting or elections
According to a warrant obtained by Local 10 News, investigators say Artiles offered to pay Rodriguez $50,000 — half during the election and half afterward — for Rodriguez to enter November’s District 37 state senate race, where he shared a last name with the incumbent Democrat candidate Jose Javier Rodriguez.
Republican challenger Ileana Garcia ultimately defeated Jose Javier Rodriguez by just 32 votes for that seat. The plant candidate Alex Rodriguez got over 6,000 votes despite not actually campaigning, nor having actual political aspirations.
CBS Miami: Florida House Set To Take Up Protest Bill
The House is slated next week to consider a controversial bill that would crack down on violent protests and take a series of other law-and-order steps, as Democrats argue the measure would violate First Amendment rights and have a chilling effect on peaceful protests.
The bill (HB 1), a priority of House Speaker Chris Sprowls, R-Palm Harbor, and Gov. Ron DeSantis, is scheduled to be heard March 25 on the House floor, according to a calendar approved Thursday…
As an indication of the opposition, the House Democratic Caucus voted 41-0 to take a position against to the bill.
Black Wall Street Times: HB 1674: Fines for Oklahoma Orgs that “Conspire” with Peaceful Protest
By Erika Stone
Within the text of Oklahoma House Bill 1674 is a curious addition: potential fines and liability for organizations that provide any type of support to peaceful protests. HB 1674 shows that Oklahoma legislators will do anything to stop people from legally exercising their right to protest. Republicans are threatening to harm financially-strapped non-profits during a pandemic.
While individuals who attend peaceful protests can be fined up to $5,000, according to the new bill, the fine for organizations who “conspire” to support those who attend peaceful protests is up to $50,000. This aspect of HB 1674, of course, follows the first part of the bill. That section states that drivers who harm peaceful protestors are absolved from criminal or civil liability. Peaceful protestors, on the other hand, face fines and jail time.
With this bill, Oklahoma legislators are taking a strong stand against the First Amendment, and the right to peacefully assemble. While the ACLU has on its website a list of protestors’ rights, protection for organizations is absent from the discussion.
