In the News
Washington Post: Maryland flunks freedom of speech
By Thomas Wheatley
The Institute for Free Speech recently released its first Free Speech Index, which grades states on their contribution-limit laws for candidates, political parties and political action committees. Virginia scored at the top of the index, earning a perfect A-plus rating. Maryland, however, scored an F, placing the Free State fifth-to-last on the index…
Virginia imposes no limits on political giving. This includes unlimited giving to all state candidates by individuals, committees, parties, unions and corporations. Only four other states in the union share this uniquely unbridled freedom to give, and they’re as politically diverse as they are geographically: Alabama, Nebraska, Oregon and Utah. Six more place no limits on individual donations.
Maryland, on the other hand, imposes extreme restrictions on political giving. Although most states place no limit on how much an individual can give to a party, Maryland takes two bites at the free-speech apple by limiting individuals’ ability to contribute to parties and limiting the amount of support that parties can provide their candidates. And that limit isn’t very high. Individuals, committees, parties, unions and corporations may give only up to $6,000 per four-year election cycle to any candidate for state office. (Before 2013, that limit was even lower at $4,000.) To Maryland’s credit, however, family members of a candidate may make unlimited contributions to their loved one’s campaign.
Springfield Republican: Massachusetts among 10 worst states according to free speech index
By Luke Wachob and Alex Baiocco
In a new Free Speech Index on political giving, Massachusetts, along with ten other states, receives an ‘F’ grade.
Massachusetts’ poor grade in the Free Speech Index is driven by its low limits on individual giving. Only Colorado fares worse in this portion of the Institute’s report. Individuals in Massachusetts can give only $1,000 per year to candidates; only Alaska has a lower limit for gubernatorial candidates. In addition, the state’s annual limit on donations to candidates is constitutionally suspect and gives a large fundraising advantage to incumbents. Massachusetts’ limits are also not adjusted for inflation, meaning a Bay Stater’s ability to support candidates will continually decline. On top of that, parties can provide no more support than $3,000 per year to their own candidates. These factors combine to make Massachusetts one of the most restrictive states in the nation for political giving…
Eleven states earn ‘A’ grades and allow individuals to donate without limit to the candidates, parties, and groups of their choice. Short of that goal, most states can significantly improve their grade by implementing simple reforms, such as adjusting limits for inflation.
Kansas City Star: AG Hawley investigating Gov. Greitens’ use of Facebook, other social media
By Tessa Weinberg
Hawley’s office had previously agreed with Greitens that his social media accounts were private, telling the Star in February that it would not require Greitens to turn over private messages, names of users who were blocked or emails used to create his social accounts.
But newly revealed emails cast doubt on whether Greitens can withhold such information from the public.
Hawley’s office said it would begin the new investigation after The Star asked about emails that appear to show a state employee helping craft a Facebook post for the governor at a time when Greitens had only one Facebook page, which he had used for his campaign…
David Keating, president of the nonprofit Institute for Free Speech, which advocates for the rights of political speech and less regulation of campaign finance, said that if a campaign account is repeatedly used as the first platform to announce government business – as Trump’s often is – and is primarily managed by a government employee, then the nature of the “unofficial” account has changed.
“If there’s basically a state employee who just winds up managing the unofficial account all the time … that would be pretty heavy evidence that the unofficial account has become an official one,” Keating said.
Pueblo Chieftain: Colorado among 5 worst states in free speech index
By Luke Wachob and Alex Baiocco
Colorado earns the worst grade in the nation for limits on individuals. Only one state has lower limits on the amount individuals can contribute to legislative candidates and only Alaska has lower limits on what contributors can give to political committees. Individuals in Colorado can give only $200 per election to candidates for the state Senate and state House of Representatives and the state imposes a limit of $575 per cycle on individual giving to political committees. These excessively low limits undoubtedly stifle important speech about candidates and elections in the Centennial State.
In all the debate over what can go wrong when people give money to candidates, we rarely stop to consider the benefits. Making a donation to a candidate or group with shared beliefs is one of the simplest and most effective ways for Americans to make their voices heard. These contributions fund campaign spending that raises awareness and interest in elections, especially among those least interested in government.
Contribution limits stand in the way of this process. They hinder candidates trying to spread their messages and make it harder for voters to learn about the choices they’ll be asked to make on Election Day. Perhaps most disappointing of all, they hobble political newcomers trying to shake up the system.
First Amendment
Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): The Nonredundant Free Press Clause
By Eugene Volokh
In this post, I’m continuing my series on “Freedom for the Press as an Industry, or for the Press as a Technology? From the Framing to Today,” based on my Penn Law Review article; I distinguish the view that the freedom of the press specially protects the “press” as institutional media (press-as-industry) from the view that it protects all who use the printing press and its technological heirs (press-as-technology), and argue that the term has long been understood by lawyers as taking the press-as-technology view.
Free Speech
Wall Street Journal: How to Keep Online Speech Free
By Mark Epstein
Congress should clarify that courts and regulators may not enforce any law or judgment against constitutionally protected speech. The Internet Association, which represents tech platforms including Google and Facebook, advocates blocking enforcement of all global content injunctions to prevent “situations where countries with weaker standards on free speech and due process can impose extraterritorial control on the activities of U.S. citizens and companies.”
Friendly nations often recognize and enforce foreign judgments, on matters like intellectual property. Thus, limiting protection to First Amendment concerns would prevent it from becoming a smokescreen to undermine Europe’s antitrust, privacy or copyright laws.
In his “Four Freedoms” address, Franklin D. Roosevelt said that “freedom of speech and expression-everywhere in the world” was not merely a “vision of a distant millennium.” Social media has the potential to achieve this ideal. But if global internet platforms continue to appease foreign censors with no pushback from the U.S., expect speech to become more restricted across the globe.
Internet Speech Regulation
Forbes: Social Media Filtering Is Not Censorship
By Clyde Wayne Crews Jr.
Members and Zuckerberg himself tend to ascribe to social media a power of “interference’ with democracy that it does not possess in a society based on free exchange of ideas and an absence of government censorship.
That is, in exaggerating “weaponization” of social media, I fear politicians threaten the right to anonymous speech. There is a continuum between appropriate levels of anonymity versus authentication that will differ in various online contexts. With respect to advertising, for example, Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy wondered “Does [Zuckerberg] really know who is running ads on his platform?”
OK, politicians and election law want to see who is behind every ad. But Zuckerberg seems ready to identity not just those running a political ad, but also potentially the names behind Facebook issue Pages.
In principle, people possess a right to anonymous speech. That doesn’t mean Facebook has to provide that for you, of course; we’ve covered that. But the wrong legislation, implementing universal rules of the social media experience that impute liability or make alternative services assuring anonymous speech less available, would benefit Facebook. Cumbersome rules will make emergence of the next social or related startup less likely.
FEC
The Hill: Clinton calls for FEC to let campaigns use funds for child care
By Max Greenwood
Hillary Clinton is calling for the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to allow candidates to use campaign funds to help pay for child care while on the campaign trail.
“Can you imagine how different our policies would be if more working moms and dads were part of making them?” the former Democratic presidential nominee tweeted Friday.
“That’s why I’m calling on the FEC to allow candidates to use campaign funds for childcare when they’re on the trail.” …
One candidate, Liuba Grechen Shirley, a New York Democrat running for the House, is petitioning the FEC to allow the use of campaign funds for child care costs while she runs for office.
Marc Elias, who serves as counsel to Clinton, filed comments with the FEC on Thursday, expressing support for Grechen Shirley’s petition.
Elias wrote that denying Grechen Shirley’s request would “discourage young mothers from seeking elective office, and deprive parents of ordinary means of the opportunity to serve.”
“Such payment is absolutely necessary to the responsible pursuit of her candidacy,” the comments read.
Congress
The Hill: Time for Washington to end the tradition of ‘pay to play’ politics
By Meredith McGehee
If Mulvaney’s comments can spur bipartisan outcry, so too can they jumpstart bipartisan solutions. The House and Senate could each enact a new rule that would simply state, “Members of Congress may not require campaign contributions from persons as a precondition to meeting with a member.”
No need for a president’s signature. No need for Supreme Court review. For even more teeth, Congress could pass laws prohibiting “pay to play” and transactional giving. In 2016, members of the ReFormers Caucus, which includes former lawmakers, governors, ambassadors and Cabinet officials from both parties, agreed to a framework for returning government to the American people.
One of its five solutions is reducing “pay to play” politics, because in a democracy, making laws should be based on the power of ideas, not simply the size of the checkbook or moneyed interests behind them. These solutions aim to fix a system that leaves lawmakers too reliant on “fundraising at all costs” politics, update lobbying disclosure laws, and recommend actions we can take right now to change the system Mulvaney helped publicize.
Baltimore Sun: Sarbanes: Take big money out of elections
By Rep. John Sarbanes
Kudos to Baltimore for taking an important step toward citizen-owned elections (“Baltimore City Council to consider public financing of city elections,” April 23). This kind of system would put Baltimore among the vanguard of cities and states – including Maryland’s own Montgomery and Howard Counties – that are leading the fight against big money in politics.
Around the country, we’ve seen the positive effect of citizen-owned elections. In places like Seattle, Connecticut, Maine, Arizona and New York City, people are reducing the corrosive influence of wealthy special interests and taking charge of their democracy…
Importantly, the success of these small-donor systems is helping build momentum for federal reforms like The Government By the People Act, a bill I’ve authored to create a citizen-owned elections system for Congressional candidates. This bold reform proposal would diminish special-interest influence and make Congress more receptive to the issues that people care about like gun safety, protecting our environment and lowering prescription drug prices. By pointing to places across America where clean elections have made a meaningful and constructive impact, we can create more energy and enthusiasm for national reform.
Independent Groups
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Ad-rate breaks in Missouri Senate campaign amplify McCaskill’s fundraising advantages
By Chuck Raasch
Because of a federal law guaranteeing a special low rate for candidates, a dollar to a political candidate can sometimes require $2, $3, or even $10 to match for the outside groups that have flooded airwaves in the wake of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision that unleashed untraceable “dark money” spending, and more emboldened Super PACs…
[A] national media buyer for Democratic groups told the Post-Dispatch that it can cost these noncandidate political advertisers as much as 10 times the amount a candidate pays for the same airtime.
That’s because federal election law requires that, 45 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election, candidates must be given the “lowest unit charge” for a campaign ad.
Meanwhile, outside groups that can advertise for the election or defeat of a candidate but cannot coordinate with that candidate must compete in the ad marketplace with car dealers, appliance sellers and others who normally buy TV commercial slots.
Richard Reuben, professor of law and journalism at the University of Missouri’s School of Law, said that this “esoteric area” of federal law balances inequalities in how political money is raised.
“Typically speaking it is harder for (McCaskill) to raise money than it is for the Koch Brothers to dump” millions of dollars into Missouri on Hawley’s behalf, he said.
The “higher buying power” of candidates “is intended by Congress, in some respects, because of the concern of outside money” overwhelming elections, Reuben added.
Candidates and Campaigns
The Intercept: 2020 Democratic Contenders Are Making the “Cheap Gesture” of Swearing Off Corporate PAC Money, But Big Checks Are Still Flying
By Zaid Jilani
Swearing off corporate PAC money can be one positive step a lawmaker can take towards reducing the corrupting influence of money on politics. But it’s far from enough.
The reason is that money from PACs – corporate or otherwise – comprises a relatively insignificant portion of these senators’ campaign contributions, raising the question of whether curtailing donations from corporate PACs will really make a difference. Critics think it doesn’t, noting that the bigger threat of influence comes from wealthy donors who don’t funnel their cash through PACs. But for politicians looking to seize on public discontent with the influence of money on politics, the decision makes for an effective messaging ploy.
Michael J. Malbin, a campaign finance researcher at Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, pointed out to The Intercept that Harris has received only a small amount of her total campaign funding from PACs. “However, she also received many of her itemized contributions from individuals whose income is derived from their work as corporate executives,” he said…
Building a small donor base and developing agreements to keep outside groups out of elections are serious ways for individual politicians to limit the influence of big donors on politics, without changing campaign finance law itself.
Simply curtailing corporate PACs, when they don’t play a very large role in campaigns to begin with, isn’t.
The States
U.S. News & World Report: Speaker’s PAC Failed to Disclose Campaign Spending on Time
By Associated Press
A Providence television station is reporting that Rhode Island House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello’s political action committee failed to file required reports while it was spending tens of thousands of dollars on the speaker’s 2016 campaign.
The WPRI-TV report comes two days after the state Board of Elections rebuked the Cranston Democrat over roughly $72,000 in illegal campaign spending by his PAC. He was ordered to repay the money.
The board’s director of campaign finance confirmed the Fund for Democratic Leadership PAC failed to notify the board of its election activity and missed the required reports. But the board does not intend to fine the PAC because its staff failed to remind the PAC it should file more frequently.
The Rhode Island Republican Party is calling on Mattiello to step down.
By Trevor Potter, Matthew T. Sanderson, Bryson B. Morgan and Emma Lewis
On April 18, 2018, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the New York Democracy Protection Act-which expands the disclosure obligations for online political advertising in the State of New York and requires television, satellite, cable, radio stations, and providers, as well as online platforms-to verify advertiser registration with the New York State Board of Elections and, in the case of online platforms, to create an online archive of political advertisements. The legislation became effective immediately upon signing, and is modeled on similar federal legislation, the Honest Ads Act, pending before Congress. Noncompliance could trigger penalties for those affected.
