In the News
Daily Journal: Honest Ads Act: Honestly Overbroad?
As tech titans reckon with disruptive foreign interference, Congress debates the Honest Ads Act, aimed at exposing invidious overseas actors. Eric Wang (Institute for Free Speech) argues the legislation would mostly target Americans exercising constitutionally-protected political speech.
Internet Speech Regulation
Reason: Government Protection From Russian Misinformation Would Be ‘Cure’ Far Worse Than Disease
By Sheldon Richman
A government effort to protect us from misinformation in the name of preserving “our democratic institutions” would be a contradiction, not to mention a “cure” far worse than the alleged disease. The best protection against one-sided, erroneous, even dishonest assertions is competition, the universal solvent.
Most people understand this but in too narrow a way. In every election season we are deluged with questionable, false, and even crazy claims. This didn’t start with the internet. It’s as old as politics. In fact, most campaigns today are more civil than in the past, when candidates’ alleged extramarital affairs and illegitimate children were fair game.
We have all heard of-or looked at-fringe websites that traffic in political stories even the National Enquirer might reject. But a call to shut down those sites would be rejected by most people-unless the sites were suspected of being Russian.
Why should that make a difference? If a story is true, who cares who tells it? And if it is exaggerated or false, can’t the people be trusted to exercise the same skepticism they are expected to exercise when the source is American? If not, why does anyone praise democracy? Isn’t it odd for proud small-d democrats to lack that confidence in the people?
Roll Call: McConnell Skeptical of Mandatory Disclosures for Facebook, Twitter Ads
By Niels Lesniewski
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is casting doubt about the idea of enacting laws requiring disclosures for political ads on Facebook and Twitter.
“I’m a little skeptical of these disclosure-type proposals that are floating around, which strikes me would mostly penalize American citizens trying to use the internet and to advertise,” the Kentucky Republican said in an interview that aired Saturday.
McConnell is known for his expansive view of the First Amendment when it comes to protecting political speech, including through campaign contributions and advertising…
“In any event, the First Amendment shouldn’t apply to foreigners,” McConnell said…
“I don’t know whether we need some special entity to do it or not. We have committees here,” he said. “It certainly would help if the CEOs were willing to testify, but I think it’s a big, big subject with a lot of national security implications, and a lot of First Amendment concerns as well.”
“This is a tough area, trying to figure out how to balance national security versus the First Amendment,” McConnell said.
Washington Examiner: Where Congress’ fight with Facebook, Twitter, and Google stands
By Melissa Quinn
Lawmakers may have to work through disagreements with Internet companies over proposed regulations and legislation, but for Sarbanes, there is an element of haste for both parties.
“It doesn’t help us much if we design and propose the perfect centralized database or if these companies themselves come up with the absolute Cadillac model of what disclosure looks like if it’s not ready and available until two years from now or even right before the election,” he said of the 2018 midterm elections. “They need to move quickly, and Congress needs to move quickly to make sure the remedy we’re looking for here is in place earlier rather than later with respect to this election year, so that by the time people are focusing on getting information and making decisions about candidates and campaigns and the election, they have plenty of information at their fingertips to do that in a responsible way.”
By Scott Shackford
Just imagine somebody saying this about the printing press. Actually, you don’t have to imagine it: Powerful political figures did indeed abuse their authority (andcontinue to abuse their authority) to hold printing press owners responsible for how their “platforms” were “being misused.”
Very little coverage of this conflict between the Senate and the social media companies seems interested in pointing out that lawmakers are not neutral, disinterested parties here. Any policy Feinstein might enact here could erect barriers for people using social media tools to challenge her position and power as a senator. Feinstein, it’s worth noting, is running for re-election next year and has a personal stake in any policies that control how political speech is presented online. What sort of ads are going to pop up on Facebook and Twitter next year, and what will they be saying about her?
So look at those terrible Russian Facebook ads that try to exploit Americans’ unhappiness about their government. And then look at Feinstein declaring that communication tools are being “misused” and must be regulated, possibly by her and other lawmakers unless the companies implement stronger censorship policies on their own. Which presents a greater threat to the proper, open functioning of American democracy?
Free Speech
USA Today: My pro-free speech views made me the target of a smear campaign at Vassar College
By William A. Jacobson
I’m not a household name. And I’m not particularly controversial, although I do stick out at Cornell as one of only a small number of openly politically conservative faculty members.
So despite my campus speeches and conservative politics, I never really thought the anti-free speech mob would come for me. Until they did, at Vassar College…
Because I committed to discussing free speech and the constitutional protection of even hateful speech, I was made the object of hate by student activists who whipped the campus into a frenzy.
Why would any right-of-center student, faculty member or guest speaker want to endure what I had to go through? For that matter, why would any liberal defender of free speech want to undergo such a smear campaign?
And isn’t that the point? While I was permitted to speak, the message was sent that support for the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech is not welcome. To get to speak on these sensitive yet critical topics means you have to run the gauntlet of anti-free speech progressives.
The mob didn’t stop me from speaking. But the damage was done.
The Courts
Politico: Rod Blagojevich Is Asking for Mercy. His Case Is Stronger Than You Might Think.
By David Bernstein
Blagojevich might come across as a laughingstock, to put it mildly, but his legal case, according to legal experts I’ve spoken with, is no laughing matter. Their argument is not that Blagojevich is innocent, per se. It’s that he got a raw deal in the courts-and that it could serve as a dangerous legal precedent. The expansive standard used to prosecute and convict him, they say, would make criminals out of virtually every politician in America for the unseemly, but routine, business of political deal-making.
“People are always raising money for campaigns, and politicians are always voting on stuff,” says Sam Heldman, who represented Don Siegelman, the former Alabama governor convicted in a federal corruption case similar to Blagojevich’s. “I think it’s literally true that if you gave me an FBI agent and subpoena power and gave me a random city council person or state legislator from any state in the country … I could find something.”
A number of recent Supreme Court decisions concerning political corruption, particularly under Chief Justice John Roberts, have given Blagojevich’s legal team cause for hope. And Blagojevich himself remains convinced that he will ultimately prevail. I spoke with him recently for a separate article about his life in prison. “There’s a lot at stake here that goes way beyond me,” he maintained.
The States
U.S. News & World Report: Judge Upholds Seattle’s Novel Campaign Finance Vouchers
By Gene Johnson, Associated Press
In a decision late Thursday, King County Superior Court Judge Beth Andrus rejected a challenge brought by two local property owners who said the so-called “democracy voucher” program forces them – through their tax dollars – to support candidates they don’t like…
“The City has articulated a reasonable justification for the Democracy Voucher Program,” Andrus wrote. “It seeks an increase in voter participation in the electoral process. … The Democracy Voucher Program is a viewpoint neutral method for achieving this goal.”
The Pacific Legal Foundation, the libertarian-leaning law firm which represented local property owners Mark Elster and Sarah Pynchon, will appeal, said attorney Ethan Blevins.
“This disappointing decision runs contrary to a long line of Supreme Court cases stating that the First Amendment allows each of us to decide what to say and what not to say,” Blevins said in a written statement Friday. “The Supreme Court has applied this rule to compelled speech and compelled subsidies of speech, like the tax at issue here. Our clients and Seattle property owners generally should not be forced to sponsor other people’s political views.”
Denver Post: Public financing and lower donation limits for Denver elections? Question is headed to ballot – in 2018
By Jon Murray
Advocates for a Denver voter initiative that would institute a public financing system and drastically lower contribution limits for city elections came up 423 petition signatures short of making the Nov. 7 ballot.
But organizers didn’t give up, and on Thursday, the Denver Elections Division confirmed that the “Democracy for the People” campaign finance reform initiative finally had collected enough signatures.
Denver voters won’t face the question, though, for another year – in the November 2018 election – so long as the initiative clears a protest period that ends Nov. 27.
The measure, if approved, would lower contribution limits by as much as two-thirds for candidates for Denver mayor, City Council, city auditor, and clerk and recorder. For mayoral candidates, the current maximum $3,000-per-donor limit would be cut to $1,000.
The initiative also would require the city to set aside about $2 million a year – or $8 million per cycle – to pay for a voluntary public financing system. That would provide 9-to-1 matching of contributions up to $50. To benefit from the program, candidates would have to agree to even more stringent contribution limits.
Arizona Daily Star: Initiative would ban ‘dirty money’ – anonymous donations – in Arizona politics
By Howard Fischer
A former state attorney general wants Arizonans to vote to constitutionally ban anonymous donations from political campaigns.
Terry Goddard is crafting a “right to know” initiative. It would guarantee in the state constitution that voters are entitled to know who is trying to sway their votes on who to elect for everything from statewide offices to school boards. The measure, which Goddard hopes to put to voters a year from now, would also impose the same requirements on those pushing future ballot measures.
Campaign consultant Bob Grossfeld said the effort starts with redefining for voters what he and Goddard are trying to curb, by using new terminology.
“We’re done with this whole ‘dark money’ nonsense,” Grossfeld said, referring to the term that has become synonymous in political rhetoric with dollars coming from unknown sources. He said that’s technically neither a legal term nor one with a formal definition.
“We look at this as ‘dirty money,'” he said.
“This is no different than criminal syndicates who are laundering money,” Grossfeld said. “It’s for the same purposes: to hide the people behind it.”
Maine Press Herald: Maine ethics commission levies record $500,000 in fines against York County casino campaign
By Scott Thistle
The $500,000 is almost 10 times the commission’s previous record fine…
Commissioner Bradford Pattershall, a Freeport Republican, was the only member of the panel to oppose all of the fine amounts, which ranged from a low of $20,000 to a high of $250,000.
Pattershall repeatedly said he believed the fine amounts were “grossly disproportionate” to the offenses, but other commissioners said a recent law change passed by voters in 2015 required the steeper fines and that it was the commission’s duty to send a strong message that the public has a right to know in Maine who is paying for campaigns and where that money comes from. Pattershall also said he didn’t believe the public had been greatly harmed and largely knew from extensive media reporting that Shawn Scott was the man behind the casino effort. In recent weeks Shawn Scott has taken an even more public role, holding news conferences and interviews while appearing in debates with those who oppose the casino measure.
Pattershall said in reviewing the records he came to the conclusion the ballot question committees made mistakes in their filings and possibly in their public relations, but that didn’t warrant the high penalties the commission was imposing.
