Congress

Axios: Senate to vote on Manchin-backed voting rights proposal

By Alayna Treene

The Senate will vote next week on a new voting rights bill backed by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced in a letter to colleagues on Thursday…

The renewed push comes after Congress tried, and failed, to pass comprehensive voting rights legislation earlier this year.

The difference with [the Freedom to Vote Act], Democrats argue, is that it builds off a proposal from Manchin.

Manchin also has been engaging with Republicans on the bill in an attempt to garner the 10 GOP votes needed to reach the Senate’s 60-vote threshold for passing major legislation.

As of now, it doesn’t appear he has the votes.

The Senate is expected to vote on the proposal next Wednesday, a senior Democratic aide said…

Read the letter:

Roll Call: Activists try to keep up pressure to pass elections and voting bills

By Kate Ackley

Groups pushing for voting rights and elections legislation in the Senate are planning a sustained campaign over the coming weeks, aiming to put the issue top of mind for Democrats, even as other matters have dominated in the chamber…

Lisa Gilbert, executive vice president of Public Citizen, which supports [the Freedom to Vote Act], said proponents are employing a “slew of tactics” to garner attention. She said getting the legislation through the chamber remained a “major priority” for Democratic leaders…

“We think Democrats should use any means necessary to pass the Freedom to Vote Act, including rules reforms as needed,” Gilbert said. 

The focus on the filibuster in the voting and elections debate is a chief reason why activists plan to target the White House in the coming weeks. They want President Joe Biden to speak out forcefully in support of changing the filibuster, if that’s what it takes to get their bills to his desk. 

The Courts

Courthouse News: Prayer rally

A federal court in Maryland granted in part a preliminary injunction requested by the organizers of a prayer rally at a Baltimore-owned concert venue after the city determined the plaintiffs couldn’t rent the space due to safety concerns about some of the speakers at the event, including Milo Yiannopoulos, finding the city “engaged in viewpoint discrimination with respect to plaintiff’s political views.”

Read the ruling here.

FEC

Washington Examiner: GOP unity on FEC shattered, future uncertain

By Paul Bedard

Long-standing Republican unity on the Federal Election Commission, especially against liberal efforts to expand rules to punish GOP candidates, appears to be in jeopardy with the arrival of a new member who has stirred controversy by voting with Democrats in a key case…

The case involved Great America PAC, GOP political operative Jesse Benton, and a vague foreign contribution sting run in 2016 by the Telegraph, a British newspaper.

Sean Cooksey, one of three Republican commissioners, said in his statement last Friday that he immediately decided against pursuing the case because it didn’t reach even questionable legal standards for violations of election and finance laws…

On Wednesday, Dickerson, the commission’s vice chairman, responded with his own statement “to explain” his initial vote to proceed with the investigation based on a “reason-to-believe” a violation occurred, then eventually to close it over a lack of “probable cause.”

Voting to open the case, he said, was “necessary to prove or disprove” that there was a violation.

“The commission found [reason-to-believe] based on a particular theory and authorized an investigation targeted at the evidence necessary to prove or disprove that theory. Despite this mandate, OGC’s investigation failed to develop the factual record, leaving us, at the probable cause stage, with only marginally useful evidence. Faced with a failed investigation and a newly-advanced legal argument to which OGC had no answer, I voted against a probable cause finding in these matters,” he wrote.

Internet Speech Regulation

Time: Washington Wants to Regulate Facebook’s Algorithm. That Might Be Unconstitutional

By Julia Zorthian

Legislators have shown increasing interest in passing a bill that would hold Facebook more accountable for the content it amplifies using its algorithm. But legal experts are divided over whether such a change could survive a legal challenge on First Amendment grounds because of how it would alter the way speech is promoted on the platform.

“Any algorithmic regulation is probably going to have some First Amendment questions, if not problems,” says Gautam Hans, an expert on First Amendment law and technology policy at Vanderbilt Law School. “I think tech companies would feel fairly confident they have a good hand to play if they end up in court.” …

“The courts have repeatedly said that restrictions on the distribution of speech are restrictions on speech themselves,” says Jeff Kosseff, associate professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy. “Exactly how the courts would interpret that based on algorithms is hard to know.” …

Momentum is growing behind reforming Section 230. Tim Wu, special assistant to the president for technology and competition policy, told TIME in a statement on Oct. 7 that President Joe Biden supports changes: “The President has been a strong supporter of fundamental reforms to achieve greater accountability for tech platforms,” Wu said. “That includes not only antitrust reforms, but also Section 230 reforms and privacy reforms, as well as more transparency.”

Online Speech Platforms

Knight First Amendment Institute: Congress Must Act To Establish Sensible Rules on Electoral Speech

By Matt Perault

In the absence of a clear regulatory regime governing election speech, tech platforms have struggled to regulate election speech themselves, and they have contorted themselves to try to respond to criticism. In the lead-up to the 2020 election, many platforms changed their terms to prohibit certain types of election-related misinformation, some eliminated the ability to run all political ads, and others limited political ads but didn’t ban them entirely. 

The impact of these interventions by tech platforms remains unclear, but preliminary data suggests that they have been counterproductive. In a paper I authored with Duke University’s Scott Brennen, we found that platforms’ restrictions on political advertising likely had a minimal effect on curbing misinformation, but likely harmed poorer campaigns more than wealthier ones, and Democratic more than Republican campaigns.   

Reuters: Facebook to change rules on attacking public figures on its platforms

By Elizabeth Culliford

Facebook will now count activists and journalists as “involuntary” public figures and so increase protections against harassment and bullying targeted at these groups, its global safety chief said in an interview this week.

The social media company, which allows more critical commentary of public figures than of private individuals, is changing its approach on the harassment of journalists and “human rights defenders,” who it says are in the public eye due to their work rather than their public personas…

Facebook’s Global Head of Safety Antigone Davis said the company was also expanding the types of attacks that it would not allow on public figures on its sites, as part of an effort to reduce attacks disproportionately faced by women, people of color and the LGBTQ community.

Facebook will no longer allow severe and unwanted sexualizing content, derogatory sexualized photoshopped images or drawings or direct negative attacks on a person’s appearance, for example, in comments on a public figure’s profile.

The States

The Seattle Times: Facebook provided false testimony in campaign transparency lawsuit, Washington attorney general says

By David Gutman

A Facebook representative provided false testimony in a lawsuit that accuses the social media giant of violating state campaign finance laws, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson alleges in court filings.

Both Facebook and Facebook’s attorneys knew the testimony was false, Ferguson says in court filings. He also alleges that Facebook set up a formalized process for people seeking information on political ads that requires them to limit their requests “in direct contravention of Washington law.”

Ferguson sued Facebook last year, for the second time, alleging the company has “repeatedly and openly” violated state campaign transparency laws by selling political ads without providing legally required details of the spending.

“Facebook is a commercial advertiser, yet it views itself above this law,” Ferguson writes in a new filing. “Even after a previous lawsuit and the original complaint in this case, it still refuses to provide the public access to all required information about political ads.” …

Facebook calls the law “onerous” and says it violates the First Amendment by compelling the company to make political speech — information about who is buying political ads — that it would not otherwise make.

“Washington’s law forces private parties to convey state-mandated messages to the public on demand, on pain of severe fines for failure to do so,” the company wrote last year, asking for the lawsuit to be dismissed.

The Daily Record: Ohio Elections Commission rules in favor of Rep. Wiggam, others in finance complaint

By Bryce Buyakie

In a near-unanimous vote Thursday, the Ohio Elections Commission ruled the American Legislative Exchange Council violated no Ohio campaign finance laws when it provided software worth $3,000 to three Ohio legislators during their 2020 campaigns…

“Because they didn’t accept and use the software and it was only provided to them, it is not an in-kind contribution,” said Executive Director Philip Richter, who recommend the no violation ruling.

The only dissenting voice on the commission acknowledged the commission doesn’t know if Rep. Wiggam activated the software or not. If activated and used, Richter said it could be a violation of Ohio law…

The Center for Media and Democracy and Common Cause Ohio filed the complaint and requested an investigation in early August.

NJ.com: We must shine a light on the shadowy dark money groups trying to influence your vote

By Jeff Brindle

Recent video advertisements targeting three New Jersey congressmen highlight the danger to democracy and transparency presented by “Dark Money” groups that have penetrated New Jersey’s elections…

Part of the solution would be broader disclosure under campaign finance laws…

In New Jersey, the influence of these groups has soared during the past 15 years. Independent spending in state elections grew 12,495% between 2005 and 2017, according to an analysis by the New Jersey Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC).

At the same time that “Dark Money” groups have grown in influence in New Jersey, spending by regulated, accountable state and county political parties fell about 29% between 2005 and 2017.

Since 2010, ELEC has called for and proposed legislative change that would require “Dark Money” groups engaged in independent spending to disclose their donors to enable voters to know who is behind these efforts to influence elections. It includes electioneering ads that tie candidates to issues in an election year.

About 25 states require far more disclosure by independent spending committees than New Jersey. Bills are pending in the legislature that should pass constitutional muster while ensuring that voters are better aware of who is calling the shots in elections.