In the News
Allentown Morning Call: Pa. among top states that support free speech of campaign donors
By Joe Albanese
The Institute’s Free Speech Index scores and ranks all 50 states on their laws governing political giving, grading them from A-plus to F. Fortunately, Pennsylvania ranked as one of the top states in the country, earning an A grade…
Pennsylvania’s high score is particularly notable given the poor performances of its neighbors. Bordering West Virginia and Maryland both receive an F, while Ohio and Delaware each earn a D. New York fares a little better, earning a C grade, but it still restricts most forms of political giving. Taking stock of the entire East Coast, only Virginia does as well as the Keystone State at protecting the freedom to support candidates and causes…
Capping the amount of money that a candidate’s supporters can donate makes it harder for political outsiders to break into a system dominated by entrenched incumbents.
Perhaps that is why recent calls to impose contribution limits in Pennsylvania have come from the governor’s residence. Gov. Tom Wolf has pushed for contribution limits as part of his plan to “reform” Pennsylvania politics. If he gets his way, democracy will become less vibrant in the state and voters will have less speech about candidates to inform their vote.
New from the Institute for Free Speech
Debunking Three Myths about the “Honest Ads Act”
By Luke Wachob
The deceptively-named “Honest Ads Act” is a proposal in Congress that would increase regulations for paid political and issue advertising on the Internet – including communications by organizations engaged in nonpartisan voter education, registration, and get out the vote efforts. In order to run such ads, groups would be forced to comply with complex and confusing government reporting requirements and include an inflexible disclaimer on their online ads…
Here’s the reality behind three common myths about the misnamed “Honest Ads Act.” …
Myth #1: The Honest Ads Act is a “light touch” approach to Internet speech regulation…
Myth #2: The Honest Ads Act would apply current rules for television, radio, and print ads to Internet ads…
Myth #3: The Honest Ads Act would prevent or deter foreign interference in elections…
While failing to meaningfully address foreign election interference, the so-called “Honest Ads Act” places considerable burdens on the online political speech of Americans and groups of Americans through heavy-handed regulation of the Internet.
Supreme Court
San Francisco Chronicle: Supreme Court turns down challenge to SF advertising restrictions
By Bob Egelko
San Francisco’s restrictions on outdoor advertising signs, permitting the signs only where advertisers conduct business, were left intact Tuesday when the U.S. Supreme Court turned down a challenge by business groups…
In a 2015 lawsuit, Contest Promotions argued that the ordinance was discriminatory and violated free speech. The company cited a Supreme Court ruling, also in 2015, that found an Arizona town violated freedom of speech by setting tighter limits on signs that advertise local church services than on signs that carry political or ideological messages.
But U.S. District Judge Susan Illston dismissed Contest Promotions’ suit, saying the Supreme Court ruling in the Arizona case did not involve commercial speech, which has been granted lesser constitutional protection than noncommercial expression and is subject to more government regulation.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld Illston’s decision last August, citing its previous rulings that allowed cities to ban commercial billboards and other off-site advertising in order to promote “safety and aesthetics.” …
The high court denied review Tuesday without comment.
Internet Speech Regulation
TechCrunch: Internet titans ask for ‘flexibility’ with new election ad regulations
By Taylor Hatmaker
A trade group representing big tech’s interests in Washington reached out to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on Tuesday to weigh in on proposed regulation that would affect the disclosure of funding for online election ads…
Tech companies are warming up to proposed regulation in Congress known as the Honest Ads Act, but the FEC is working on a new ruleset of its own regarding funding disclosures for election ads, as well.
In its new comments, the Internet Association (which represents companies including Facebook, Twitter, Google, Snap and more) argued that such disclosures should be allowed to live one click away from the ads, pushing against proposals that would force disclosure to be displayed on an ad itself. The IA said such requirements would be limiting for innovation in the ad industry.
“IA also believes that technology plays an important role in providing information, and that rollovers, click-throughs, and other technology yet to be developed, can provide far more meaningful information to users than traditional ‘in the box’ disclaimers,” said IA President and CEO Michael Beckerman.
In the filing, the IA further elaborated on its position in favor of what it calls adaptive disclaimers:
“Rather than trying to fit a ‘paid for by’ notice on an ad that may change in size when delivered on different platforms or devices, the adaptive disclaimer would be inserted into the ad and be visible and accessible in all formats.”
IRS
Center for Individual Freedom: Eric Schneiderman Proves the Need for IRS Reform and Donor Privacy Protection
By Timothy H. Lee
[T]he Internal Revenue Service (IRS) currently compels private nonprofit organizations to file a “990 Schedule B” form. Among other sensitive private information, that form contains the names, addresses and other identifying information on many people who simply choose to donate their own money to those organizations. In turn, that obviously creates the risk that such donors can be exposed and targeted by federal, state and local officials for their donations.
Here’s the particularly odd part. The IRS is actually prohibited from using the form’s information for any substantive purpose. Which raises the question of why it’s collected at all…
Earlier this year, the House of Representatives introduced the Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act, H.R. 4916, which would eliminate the Schedule B filing requirement. The House passed identical legislation in the last Congress, so there’s even more reason to pass it now with a President Trump willing to sign it.
Obviously, a permanent legislative fix through H.R. 4916 would be ideal. In the meantime, however, nonprofit organizations and their donors remain vulnerable to targeting. So until Congress passes it, the Trump Administration can act.
Namely, the current IRS under Trump Administration leadership can commence a rulemaking to eliminate the Schedule B collection mandate. Because Congress has never adopted a requirement that the IRS collect the Schedule B forms for most exempt nonprofit organizations, eliminating it lies within the IRS’s authority.
Free Speech
Daily Caller: A Primer For Confused Conservatives On The First Amendment And Free Speech On Social Media
By Carl Szabo
The First Amendment does not entitle a liberal journalist to demand publication in a conservative magazine. The First Amendment also does not require a cable news television station to feature balanced coverage.
Nor is it a violation of the First Amendment for an online platform to remove content it doesn’t like. Rather, that is the operators of the online platform exercising their First Amendment rights.
This is something conservatives usually recognize, even as recently as the Sinclair fake news bulletin scandal, where the network was accused of pushing out a political message via its locally owned media stations. Conservatives were quick to defend the media company, acknowledging its right to regulate content…
For those conservatives fully aware of how the First Amendment works and who still call for government action against Facebook, I just say: Cut it out. The solution for conservatives’ concerns about social media platforms is to vote with your feet and use a different platform. Stick to your principles and forget about the temporary insanity of arguing to expand government regulation…
Government regulation of free speech online would not safeguard the future of conservative speech. It would endanger it.
Congress
InsideSources: Congressional Democrats Pushing for Bold Democracy Solutions
By Michael Sozan
Now more than ever, Democrats must show that they are the party that wants to expand the essential right of every American to have their voice heard and to spur progressive economic changes that will help all Americans. That’s why the time is right to advance the democracy reform agenda unveiled by congressional Democrats, the Better Deal for Our Democracy.
First, the package aims to fix our broken campaign finance system to combat big money influence. This includes policies like ending the harmful effects of unaccountable dark money unleashed by Citizens United and empowering everyday voters via a new system of citizen-funded elections.
Second, the legislation would strengthen our nation’s ethics laws to reduce corrupt self-dealing. This includes reforms like applying ethics laws to all U.S. presidents, strengthening anti-bribery laws, and banning lobbyists from fundraising for members of Congress…
Congress could even go a step further by banning lawmakers from raising money from interests under the jurisdiction of the committees they sit on, a CAP proposal supported by 88 percent of voters, including 86 percent of Trump voters.
FEC
Chambersburg Public Opinion: Halvorson and Eichelberger file FEC complaints in Pa. 13th Congressional race
By Jim Hook
Two GOP candidates in Pennsylvania’s 13th Congressional District allege that ads attacking them were coordinated by Dr. John Joyce’s campaign committee and “dark money” groups in violation of federal election law.
Art Halvorson and state Sen. John Eichelberger say they filed separate complaints last week with the Federal Election Commission…
Red Maverick Media handled advertising for both the Joyce campaign and at least one super PAC.
“Given the limited size of Red Maverick Media, it is likely they do not have prior ‘firewall’ procedures to prohibit the flow of information between employees or consultants” working for the Joyce campaign and working for Defending Main Street SuperPAC, according to Halvorson’s complaint to the FEC…
Adam Breneman, Joyce’s campaign manager, previously worked for Red Maverick.
Breneman termed the alleged collusion as “an absurd accusation” and “another ridiculous lie.”
“Our campaign hired Ray Zaborney as our general consultant, and there was absolutely no coordination between our campaign and any outside groups,” Breneman said.
Events
Cato: Will Social Media Save Democracy?
Featuring Alexandra Woodward, Digital Organizing Director, Organizing for Action; Ned Ryun, Founder and CEO, American Majority; George Hawley, Author, Making Sense of the Alt-Right; Katie Harbath, Director, Global Politics and Government Outreach, Facebook; moderated by Andrew Marantz, Contributing Editor, The New Yorker.
Many critics think social media poses a novel threat to liberal democracy. Seeking to divide Americans, agents of the Russian government bought ads on Facebook. Extreme speech also finds a home on the internet, fostering conflicts that appear to generate more heat than light. Governments and consumers worry about “fake news” designed to misinform readers for fun, profit, and power. And yet social media has made more information more widely available at less cost than any technology since the printing press. Less reliant on gatekeepers than traditional media, the new purveyors of news arguably better satisfy the diverse preferences of the American electorate. Following up on the Project on Political Reform at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago, we will consider the troubles and triumphs of the social media platforms that promise to host American political debate for generations.
Date: May 31, 2018
Time: 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM EDT
Location: Cato Institute
Brookings: The consequences of misinformation: A symposium on media and democracy
The spread of false information is hardly new or unique to the current political moment. It has historical roots in sensationalist journalism, foreign espionage, propaganda, and partisan debates-a collection of approaches far richer than suggested by the phrase “fake news.” This historical context does not make disinformation any less dangerous, however. Understanding how disinformation is exploited by political actors both internal and external to the state, how existing divisions and polarization create the conditions for disinformation to be more effective, and the ways in which technologies incentivize or disrupt disinformation, is critical.
On May 31, Governance Studies at Brookings and the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) will host a half-day forum on the history, circulation, and management of misinformation (untruths circulated without the intention to deceive) and disinformation (untruths intended to deceive). Several panels of experts will convene to explore the most effective means of identifying and countering false information, as well as the challenges in doing so. Social scientists and journalists will speak to three aspects of the current moment in misinformation: the status of facts/persistence of misinformation; the speed, virality, and spread of misinformation; and what we-or anyone-can do to correct or manage the misinformation that already exists.
Date: May 31, 2018
Time: 8:45 AM – 12:45 PM EDT
Location: Brookings Institution
Candidates and Campaigns
Daily Beast: What Happened to Jill Stein’s Recount Millions?
By Charles Davis
Shortly after the 2016 election, Jill Stein raised more than $7 million from shell-shocked liberals eager to pursue a swing-state recount. Nearly two years later, the U.S. Green Party’s last candidate for president is still spending that money.
Ongoing litigation, travel costs, and staff salaries are also likely to eat up whatever is left, meaning those who donated to Stein are unlikely to receive a once-promised chance to vote on how the post-recount money would be spent. Nor have donors been given much of a window into how Stein is actually spending their donations.
The last FEC filing from the Stein campaign was for the month of September 2017. And the last update from the campaign itself came in a post on April 20, in which it said it was down to $932,178 in recount funds.
“It is strange that they would just stop filing reports given they were a legitimate, professional campaign, and despite still having more than a million dollars in cash on hand,” Andrew Mayersohn, a researcher at the Center for Responsive Politics, told The Daily Beast…
In a May 7, 2018 letter, the FEC warned Stein campaign treasurer Steven Welzer that he was violating federal law by not accounting for half a year of spending.
“The failure to timely file this report may result in civil money penalties, suspension of matching funds, an audit or legal enforcement action,” the letter states, noting there is no grace period.
The States
New York Times: Online Political Ad Bill to Be Law Without Gov’s Signature
By The Associated Press
Maryland officials who support the measure have called it a first-of-its kind law in the country for its expansiveness and the powers it provides the Maryland State Board of Elections to investigate social media ads. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, signed a similar measure to bring transparency to online political ads into law last month…
The bill is similar in some respects to one introduced in Congress that would require digital platforms with at least 50 million monthly visitors to maintain a public file of advertisers who spend more than $500 in ads on the platform. But the Maryland measure goes much further, because it would apply to digital platforms with 100,000 monthly visitors…
Rebecca Snyder, executive director of the press association, said the organization remains concerned that the law is unconstitutional. She said she has heard from some members of the association mention a potential legal challenge.
“I do not know if that will happen, but it has been raised,” Snyder said, adding that the lower monthly visitor threshold “reaches down very deep” in terms of how many websites will be affected…
Facebook supported the measure.
“We believe this bill will be a national model for the other 49 states to follow,” Will Castleberry, Facebook’s vice president of state and local policy, said last month.
Arizona Republic: Ducey signs off on Tempe’s dark money measure, with a word of caution
By Jerod MacDonald-Evoy
Gov. Doug Ducey signed off on a voter-approved measure to eliminate secret political spending in Tempe elections, but his office also issued a word of caution: the approval is based on current law, not new rules that will take effect in August.
The state Legislature outlawed cities from requiring political non-profits to disclose their donors, among other things. Ducey, a major benefactor of dark money spending in 2014, signed the bill in April.
“Please note that this approval is based on the law as it is at the time of the approval and does not take into account any changes that have not yet taken effect from this legislative session,” Ducey’s Deputy General Counsel, Anni Foster, said in her letter to the city…
[Tempe Councilwoman Lauren] Kuby said that she expects a state lawmaker to promptly seek an investigation into whether Tempe’s new disclosure requirement violates state law. Any state lawmaker can request an Attorney General’s Office investigation into whether a municipal ordinance violates state law or the state Constitution. If a city is found to be in violation, the state can withhold revenue until the problem is fixed.
“We’re walking into this with our eyes open,” said Kuby…
Ducey and Republican lawmakers say political spending is an issue of free speech. “The governor’s view is that individuals have the First Amendment right to free speech without the fear of intimidation,” Daniel Scarpinato, Ducey’s spokesman, previously told The Arizona Republic.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Greitens goes out the way he came in, haunted by the specter of dark money
By Tony Messenger
Not quite 17 months into his term, Greitens is going out the way he came in, haunted by the specter of dark money.
Earlier in the morning, on the day that would signal a sudden end, Cole County Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetem ruled that Greitens would have to turn over documents from his campaign, and those from his dark-money committee, A New Missouri, to the House committee investigating the governor’s various alleged misdeeds.
That committee met on Tuesday, hearing from former Greitens staffer Michael Hafner, who laid out the case that the early days of Greitens’ campaign, in 2014 before he ever filed a campaign committee, might have run afoul of Missouri ethics laws.
Hafner’s testimony wasn’t new. He previously spoke to the committee behind closed doors, and was questioned by Attorney General Josh Hawley, who was investigating whether the governor broke the law by taking the donor list from the nonprofit he founded – The Mission Continues – and using it to raise money for his political campaign.
