In the News
Wall Street Journal: Congressional Democrats’ Court-Picking (Not Packing) Scheme
By Alan Gura
Congress probably won’t pack the Supreme Court. But court picking poses a real threat to Americans’ rights.
Court picking is when Congress uses its authority over federal-court jurisdiction to stuff politically sensitive cases from throughout the country into one court that leans its way, to be buried there for as long as possible. Court-picking’s evil genius is its stealth. Americans would notice four new justices, but not changes to technocratic statutes that excite only civil-procedure professors. Despite featuring in Congress’s most radioactive bill—the so-called For the People Act, or H.R.1, which would transform elections and limit Americans’ rights to speak about them—court-picking has escaped notice.
It shouldn’t. H.R.1’s court-picking provision would shut courthouse doors throughout the country, attempt to game the outcome in critical cases, deny the Supreme Court the benefit of the federal judiciary’s broad and diverse perspectives, and repeal measures that expedite important lawsuits questioning government power.
Marc Cox Morning Show: Brad Smith of IFS on S.1 – For the People Act of 2021
Brad Smith of the Institute for Free Speech is one of the nation’s foremost experts on campaign finance law. Smith joins the show to share his concerns with S.1 – For the People Act of 2021.
Smith explains that S. 1 would federalize our entire election process by enacting a Democratic wish list. On that is list is campaign finance provisions. This bill includes government financing for political campaigns at a 6 to 1 rate. Taxpayer money would be allocated to fund campaigns regardless of the taxpayer’s support for a candidate.
Meanwhile, groups like the NRA would be required to pledge their support for a candidate and then make public a list of people who support their organization.
The list goes on and on and would be enforced by a partisan FEC.
Listen to Smith’s interview with Marc above.
Conservative HQ: Tuesday May 11 Democrats Plan Assault On First Amendment
In a nutshell, H.R. 1 and S. 1 do away with the FEC’s existing bipartisan structure to allow for partisan control of the regulation of campaigns and enables partisan control of enforcement. It also proposes changes to the law to bias enforcement actions against speakers and in favor of complainants.
Bradley A. Smith, Chairman of the Institute for Free Speech wrote, since it was created in 1974, the FEC has been a true bipartisan commission, with each major party effectively controlling 3 of its 6 seats. (Current law says that “[n]o more than 3 members of the [FEC] … may be affiliated with the same political party.”) …
Mr. Smith also pointed out that H.R.1 empowers the Chair of the Commission, who will be hand-picked by the president, to serve as a de facto “Speech Czar.” In particular, the Chair would become the Chief Administrative Officer of the Commission, with the sole power to, among other things, appoint (and remove) the Commission’s Staff Director, prepare its budget, require any person to submit, under oath, written reports and answers to questions, issue subpoenas, and compel testimony.
New from the Institute for Free Speech
State Anti-Riot Bills Must Respect Protest Rights
By Nathan Maxwell
…..Numerous state legislatures this year considered, or are considering, legislation that would threaten the right of citizens to peaceably assemble. The bills are problematic in that they open the door for innocent protesters to be lumped in as attendees of a “riot,” as narrowly defined, if found in the wrong place at the wrong time. That would chill protest activity, as speakers fearful of criminal charges would self-silence. While different states’ bills contain their own peculiarities, they are all largely founded on the same mistaken belief: that it is permissible to combat unacceptable acts of violence and destruction with aggressive measures that threaten First Amendment-protected protests.
Congress
AP News: McConnell poised for starring role in voting bill fight
By Lisa Mascaro, Brian Slodysko, and Christina A. Cassidy
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is so determined to stop a sweeping elections overhaul pushed by congressional Democrats that he will personally argue against it, armed with a stack of amendments at a Senate hearing this week as Democrats advance the bill toward a vote.
It’s a rare role for a party leader but shows the extent to which Republicans are prepared to fight the Democratic priority…
What’s typically an hours-long legislative slog could drag into a dayslong showdown starting Tuesday at the Senate Rules Committee, a surprising new venue in the nation’s broader debate over voting rules…
McConnell is expected to be an “active” participant in Tuesday’s session to debate and amend the voting bill, his office said. Stopping the bill is his “priority,” as Republicans argue the legislation represents a Democratic power grab and federal overreach into state administration of elections.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is also expected to stop in at the Rules panel meeting to add his weight to the debate…
One Republican aide who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the situation candidly said they are planning to try to strike out full sections of the bill and introduce other changes.
Democrats have been making their own changes to the bill to draw support. Manchin has not yet signed on, and his backing will be crucial…
Manchin told reporters Monday that he hadn’t yet reviewed the [recent] changes but remained open to supporting the bill.
“We are looking at everything. We hope there’s a pathway there,” he said.
Fox News: Sen. Moran & Brandon: Dems’ S1 election bill poses grave threat to free speech
By Sen. Jerry Moran and Adam Brandon
…..As politics grows even more polarized and our political dialogue continues to weaken, opportunities for bipartisan cooperation have become few and far between. However, recent actions by the U.S. House of Representatives and the Supreme Court have presented an issue that cries out for bipartisan unity – the protection of free speech.
In March, the House passed H.R.1, a bill that, in part, regulates who can or cannot exercise their free speech rights leading up to an election. (In the Senate, this bill is known as S.1.) For instance, organizations participating in mundane issue-based advocacy could be subject to disclosure requirements if they even make a reference to a candidate or elected official in their advertisements.
The overly broad disclosure requirements contained in this bill would only serve to have a chilling effect on the ability of individuals and organizations to participate in the free exchange of ideas…
The ability for Americans to participate in democracy and maintain their privacy is a bedrock of the right to free speech. In fact, many groups across the ideological spectrum are speaking out against the government requiring public disclosure of donors to nonprofit groups.
Online Speech Platforms
Fox News: Facebook Oversight Board member criticizes indefinite Trump ban: ‘Their rules are in shambles’
By Evie Fordham
A member of Facebook’s Oversight Board criticized the social media platform in the wake of its indefinite ban on former President Donald Trump, saying Facebook’s rules are in “shambles.”
“We gave them a certain amount of time to get their house in order,” Michael McConnell, a former federal judge, told “Fox News Sunday.” “They needed some time because their rules are a shambles. They are not transparent. They are unclear. They are internally inconsistent. So we made a series of recommendations about how to make their rules clearer and more consistent.” …
McConnell said Facebook “exercises too much power.”
“What we are trying to do is bring some of the most important principles of the First Amendment, of free expression law globally, into this operation. Facebook exercises too much power. They are arbitrary. They are inconsistent. And it is the job of the Oversight Board to try to bring some discipline to that process,” he said.
Tennessean: Want an internet safer from conspiracy theorists and bigots? Keep Section 230.
By Adam Kovacevich
Section 230 has become a punching bag for Democrats and Republicans alike. It’s been painted as a law responsible for stifling conservative speech, promoting misinformation, and letting spam run rampant on social media platforms.
Former President Trump called on Congress to repeal Section 230. And in February, Tennessee lawmakers sponsored legislation that would prohibit the state from investing in any entity protected by Section 230.
But if you want a better, healthier Internet, Section 230 is an essential tool for achieving that.
The crux of Section 230 is short—just one sentence—but it gives platforms powerful tools to combat hate, disinformation, and abuse online.
Candidates and Campaigns
The Intercept: Nina Turner Opponent Shontel Brown is Low-Key Pleading for Super PAC Support
By Ryan Grim
Shontel Brown’s campaign for Congress is blaring one of the least subtle messages sent to a super PAC since the outside money groups were legalized by the Supreme Court in its Citizens United v. FEC decision.
Brown’s campaign has listed on its website a set of negative talking points about her opponent Nina Turner, all enclosed in a bright red box. Directly under the red box is a quote from Democratic consultant Mark Mellman, the leader of a major pro-Israel super PAC that has consistently spent large sums of money against Sen. Bernie Sanders and his congressional allies. (“Red box” is a campaign industry term, referring to the spot on the website that candidates use to communicate with outside groups like super PACs.)…
With Turner, a former Ohio state senator and Sanders’s most prominent campaign surrogate, running for Congress, the messaging on Brown’s campaign website suggests she’d welcome an outside intervention from Mellman’s independent expenditure operation to blanket the airwaves…
The communication on Brown’s website is a textbook case of red-box signaling, used to communicate with outside groups within the letter of the law…
What makes Brown’s approach unique is both how blatant it is and how beseechingly it directs itself to a particular head of a particular super PAC.
Breitbart: Super PAC Critic Elizabeth Warren Praises ‘Stunningly Generous Woman’ Who Gave $14M to Her Super PAC
By Kyle Morris
In her new book, Persist, Warren defends her apparent contradictory behavior in condemning Super PACs, while also benefiting from one during her presidential campaign.
Warren wrote in one portion of the book:
CT Insider: Hayes said she wouldn’t take corporate PAC dollars. Then she accepted over $100,000
By Emilie Munson
In 2018 during her first run for Congress, then-candidate Jahana Hayes said she wouldn’t take campaign contributions from corporate political action committees as part of her commitment to clean up the influence of money in politics.
But now as a two-term congresswoman, Hayes, D-5, has accepted $102,000 for her campaigns from PACs run by many of the nation’s largest corporations, Federal Election Commission filings show…
“The congresswoman accepts corporate PAC money,” Hayes’ campaign manager Barbara Ellis said. “Her position evolved from the time she was a new candidate.” …
In 2018 when Hayes renounced corporate PACS, she was part of a wave of first-time progressive Democratic candidates who made pledges not to take corporate PAC dollars. The declaration was a simple signal to voters as Democrats tried to place themselves on the sides of voters, not special interest groups or wealthy businesses.
“All PACs are not created equal,” Hayes told voters. “When I go to Congress, I will fight and make sure campaign finance reform is a priority.”
Ellis said Hayes’ answer shows “her foundational beliefs [on campaign finance] have not changed.”
“She still believes all PACs are not created equal and has come to realize that PAC money in many cases includes voluntary employee contributions, often from her own constituents, and is not reserved simply for amorphous, dark money,” Ellis said. “She also has not wavered in her conviction that the money in politics is a broken system. Since being elected, Rep. Hayes has consistently supported campaign finance reform, including the For The People Act, which seeks to limit the influence of money in politics.”
The States
National Review: Noem Pledges to Bar Action Civics and Critical Race Theory
By Stanley Kurtz
South Dakota governor Kristi Noem has given major momentum to a new candidate pledge that not only vows support for honest and informed patriotic education, but promises to bar “action civics” (mandatory political protests for course credit) and critical race theory (CRT) (attacks on “whiteness,” “Eurocentrism,” etc.) from our schools. The pledge is sponsored by “1776 Action,” a new group founded by Adam Waldeck, a former aide to former speaker Newt Gingrich. The group enjoys support from former HUD Secretary, Ben Carson, as well as from Gingrich. After Noem signed the 1776 Action pledge, nearly every candidate for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Virginia did the same. (Here’s a piece by Noem and Carson on the pledge she just signed.)
Politico: Proxy war: Dark money group led by Norcross friend dominates small town election
By Matt Friedman
The regulations of New Jersey’s campaign finance watchdog agency, the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, require groups and individuals that spend at least $1,900 in support or opposition to candidates to disclose their expenditures with the agency. Culnan Sr.’s committee has not done that. While it’s impossible to tell how much money it has spent, Delany provided POLITICO with about a dozen glossy campaign-style mailers and letters sent to Collingswood voters by the group, making it highly unlikely that it has spent less than $1,900.
“The Commission has historically applied the independent expenditure regulation to require groups spending independently, and who expressly support or oppose candidates in the context of an election , to disclose their expenditures,” Jeff Brindle, ELEC’s executive director, said in a statement.
