Free Speech

New York Post: So, just how guaranteed is your freedom of speech online?

By John Samples

Most Americans won’t worry much about neo-Nazis losing access to the public forum we call the Internet. Their ideas are repugnant, and we did fight a war against their kind not that long ago. End of story?

Not really. Experts, such as Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince, say that for technical reasons a small number of tech companies may soon “largely determine what can and cannot be online.” Some argue that Silicon Valley is abusing its monopoly power over the Internet to suppress free speech. These critics would have Congress regulate the companies as a natural monopoly in order to restore basic rights…

Internet companies are not the government. They can exclude speech from their domains without violating the First Amendment. But if they use their power to exclude in an arbitrary and political way, the nation will be worse off and the companies may suffer – and not just at the bottom line.

CNSNews: Alinsky Politicians and Press Create Dangerous Anti-First Amendment Environment

By Mark Fitzgibbons

A free speech rally this weekend in the Cradle of Liberty, Boston, and planned in July before the Charlottesville, Virginia clashes over Confederate monuments, was cut short by leftwing counter-protesters. This ought to say enough about the sad state of affairs for the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly.

The rally was organized principally by a Massachusetts college student who made clear his coalition’s opposition to white supremacy and its presence at the rally…

“The free speech rally … was organized in July by a group calling itself Boston Free Speech, which says it is made up of a coalition of ‘libertarians, progressives, conservatives and independents.’…

Accounts about how the free speech rally in Boston was ended and its participants ushered away for their safety include how bottles of urine were hurled at police, and an elderly lady was knocked to the ground when an assailant attempted to take away the American flag she was carrying…

Back in Virginia, Governor Terry McAuliffe issued an executive order banning demonstrations at the Lee Monument in Richmond for 90 days. Both Breitbart and The Washington Post had difficulty finding First Amendment lawyers to comment under their names on this suppression. When First Amendment lawyers are afraid to comment, we seem to have a problem.

The Courts

New York Law Journal: Citizens United Fights to Keep Donor Names Secret

By Andrew Denney

The conservative nonprofit that successfully fought in the U.S. Supreme Court for unlimited donations to federal campaigns wants to keep its list of donors secret.

But in oral arguments on Monday, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had tough questions for Citizens United’s general counsel on the group’s argument that Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s requirement that charities turn over donor lists constitutes prior restraint.

Judge Pierre Leval told Michael Boos, Citizens United’s general counsel, that the group’s fight against the attorney general’s requirement, in which charities must submit their Forms 990 as well as their Schedule B forms, which list donors, seems to indicate that the group should be entitled to “secret speech” or “secret advocacy.”

“There’s a kind of oddness about the policy of the First Amendment to promote public, open discourse and your position that somebody should be able to do something that’s called speech but in secret so that no one finds out about it,” Leval said.

Political Parties

New Republic: Yes, Democrats Have a Fundraising Problem

By Clio Chang

[T]he fragmentation of the party could be considered a healthy development. It might force the DNC to reach out to a broader electorate, rather than relying on a few large donors. On the other, fragmentation also allows private interests to prevail, a troubling development because outside spending groups are typically less accountable and transparent than parties themselves, which have to disclose contributions of over $200 and have a cap on individual donation amounts.

A group like Onward Together, which is a 501(c)(4), does not have to disclose its donors. Such organizations can do so voluntarily, as Organizing for Action and Sanders’s Our Revolution have done, but Onward Together has not, prompting the Campaign Legal Center to write in May that “Clinton’s group is following a dangerous path that could further open the floodgates to even more unaccountable money in politics.”…

At the root of these differences in the fundraising world lies a host of ideological divisions that Democrats have yet to resolve. Are they the party of transparency and small donors? Or will they continue to rely on wealthy individuals and corporations, under the cover of loose campaign finance laws that the party opposes in principle?

The States

Reason: Seattle’s Democracy Voucher Program Sees Its First Fraud Investigation

By Christian Britschgi

Sheley Secrest, a failed City Council candidate, is being investigated for allegedly recording donations from herself as having coming from 56 individual voters, all in a fraudulent gambit to make herself eligible for the vouchers. The Seattle Times contacted several of the voters that Secrest said were donors to her campaign; all of them roundly denied giving her money.

The alleged fraud is the latest bit of bad press for the program, which has so far failed in its stated intention of encouraging upstart and outsider candidates, and which is currently being sued for its alleged unconstitutionality.

Secrest, who finished fifth in Seattle’s August 1 primary race, certainly had an incentive to skirt the rules. She had been awarded $14,350 in voucher funds she wasn’t qualified to spend. One of her competitors, Hisam Goueli, was pledged $14,650 that he wasn’t qualified to spend until the Friday prior to the primary. In total, $78,000 in Democracy Vouchers were awarded to candidates who did not qualify to spend them.

While no other candidates have been accused of fraud, Secrest’s apparent actions highlight the frustrating experience less established candidates have had with the Democracy Voucher program, which is getting its first test in an election this year.

Annapolis Capital Gazette: Cost of running for office in Anne Arundel skyrocketing

By Jennifer Bevan-Dangel

What is troubling about these rising expenses is not just the amount of money being spent, but where that money comes from. Recent Supreme Court decisions have paved the way for wealthy donors to donate more. While the decision in Citizens United is most oft-cited by advocates as opening the floodgates to independent spending in elections, the lesser-known McCutcheon v. FEC case will arguably have a far greater impact on state elections…

While there is a tendency to accept these skyrocketing costs as inevitable, there are solutions Maryland can pursue. As long as candidates are struggling to compete, and the playing field is dominated by major donors and special interests, the game will favor those donors who can afford to play by those rules.

In addition to closing loopholes in our campaign finance laws, we must explore alternative ways to run for office. New initiatives such as citizen-funded elections (which are getting their maiden voyage in Montgomery County in 2018) allow candidates to run on small-dollar donations, reducing the influence of major donors and special interests. 

U.S. News & World Report: Ex-Lawmaker Facing Possible Campaign-Finance Funds Repayment

By Associated Press

The director of the state’s public campaign financing commission is recommending that a Democratic lawmaker who resigned last month be ordered to repay more than $17,000 he received to run his campaign last year.

Clean Elections Commission Director Tom Collins is recommending the full commission order former Rep. Jesus Rubalcava to immediately repay the money at its meeting on Tuesday.

The Gila Bend Democrat resigned effective July 28 as the commission investigated if he improperly spent the public money he was allocated to run his primary and general election campaigns. Rubalcava was unable to account for the funds and comingled some of the public cash with his own accounts.

The commission may also order civil penalties.