In the News
New York Times: Iowa Legislature denying access to blogger despite protests
By Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press
The Republican-controlled Iowa Legislature has again denied press access to a liberal journalist whose blog is often critical of its policies, despite warnings from state and national groups that the restriction appears to be unconstitutional.
The Iowa House and the Iowa Senate informed Laura Belin, who operates the Bleeding Heartland blog, that her applications for access during the session that began Monday were rejected.
Iowa House chief clerk Meghan Nelson told Belin that the chamber “does not credential outlets that are nontraditional/independent in nature,” even though its policy does not say that. Iowa Senate chief clerk Charlie Smithson said his body determined Belin is not a “member of the media” but did not elaborate.
Those were different stated reasons than last year, when an Iowa House official suggested that it did not credential Belin because she is a blogger without a boss. The Iowa Senate didn’t reject Belin’s credentials last year, but it refused her requests to work in the press gallery by claiming it was always full even when seats were empty.
Both chambers adopted policies governing press access last year after receiving scrutiny over their handling of Belin’s requests, but neither cited specific requirements in their denials issued late Friday.
“If they have a policy, why aren’t they applying it?” said David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, a nonprofit in Washington, D.C., that works to protect First Amendment rights. “When I look at the policy, it looks like she would qualify.”
Sioux Falls Argus Leader: South Dakota voters violated the U.S. Constitution by approving IM 24. Now they will have to pay for it.
By Jonathan Ellis
Voters, you can’t say you weren’t warned.
That was U.S. District Judge Charles Kornmann’s message in awarding attorney’s fees to plaintiffs who challenged an initiated measure passed by voters in 2018.
Kornmann ordered the state of South Dakota to pay nearly $115,000 in attorney fees to plaintiffs who challenged Initiated Measure 24. The measure, which passed by a 56-44 majority, banned ballot question committees from taking out-of-state money.
Kornmann had previously ruled that Initiated Measure 24 violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment right to free speech, which includes political speech. Non-residents and businesses faced potential civil or criminal sanctions for violating the measure, which would have gone into effect on July 1…
The measure was challenged in two separate lawsuits, the first filed by South Dakota Voice and Cory Heidelberger, a liberal activist from Aberdeen. Plaintiffs in the second lawsuit included the South Dakota Newspaper Association, Retailers Association, Broadcasters Association, Chamber Ballot Action Committee, Americans for Prosperity and Tom Barnett, the former head of the South Dakota Bar Association…
Ultimately, the attorney fees should be paid by the taxpayers, the same taxpayers who violated the U.S. Constitution when they authorized Initiated Measure 24, Kornmann said.
The Courts
The Fulcrum: South Dakota’s ballot petition circulator rules held unconstitutional
By Fulcrum Staff
South Dakota’s new regulation of people who circulate petitions for ballot initiatives is unconstitutional, a federal judge has ruled.
The decision, if it withstands a potential appeal, would be a boon for advocates of direct democracy, which relies on small armies of people gathering signatures to put proposed changes to state laws before the entire electorate…
A law signed by Republican Gov. Kristi Noem last year requires petition circulators to register with the secretary of state and provide personal information including home addresses, phone numbers and email addresses. But those “extensive and burdensome” disclosure requirements discriminate against those advocating for ballot measures in violation of the First Amendment because the same rules didn’t apply to people actively opposing the measures, U.S. District Judge Charles Kornmann ruled last week.
The judge also took exception to language in the law that would seemingly apply the registration rules to anyone who tells an acquaintance to support a petition.
“It matters not that an individual does not collect a signature from the listener, nor that the speaker does not work with someone who collects signatures,” Kornmann said in his 15-page ruling. “The fact that a person has entreated a member of the public to sign a petition to place a measure on the statewide election ballot is enough to make them a petition circulator under the Act.”
First Amendment
Washington Post: Public schools in Virginia can censor student journalists any time, for any reason. A proposed law would change that.
By Hannah Natanson
Last month, Dels. Chris L. Hurst (D-Montgomery) and Danica A. Roem (D-Prince William) – both former journalists – introduced [a] measure in the House, and Sen. David W. Marsden (D-Fairfax) filed a companion bill in the Senate.
The legislation affirms the free-speech rights of student journalists at public schools and stipulates that administrators can censor content only if it is libelous or slanderous, violates federal law, or is likely to spur dangerous or unlawful acts of violence. Roughly a dozen states have adopted similar laws…
A 1988 Supreme Court ruling found that student journalists are entitled to a lower level of First Amendment protections than professional journalists, opening the door to interference by school administrators, said Hillary Davis, an organizer with the Student Press Law Center. That case – Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier – [held]…that school officials can censor student publications with impunity so long as the censorship is “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.”…
Over the past five years, a spate of laws meant to protect student journalists’ First Amendment rights – known as “New Voices” laws – passed throughout the nation, often with bipartisan support, Davis said. Fourteen states – including Maryland and the District – already have New Voices laws on the books, and the Student Press Law Center estimates a dozen more, including Virginia, will consider similar bills this year.
Free Expression
Washington Post: The Technology 202: Instagram faces backlash for removing posts supporting Soleimani
By Cat Zakrzewski
Instagram says it’s removing posts supporting slain Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani to comply with U.S. sanctions laws. The Facebook-owned social media platform is one of the few Western social media companies still operating in Iran — and journalists and free speech advocates are warning it could be going too far in censoring some posts.
Facebook said it was removing any posts praising Soleimani to comply with U.S. sanctions after Coda Story’s Isobel Cockerell first reported that The International Federation of Journalists said on its website Instagram suspended the accounts of at least 15 Iranian journalists. The group says though some of the accounts have since been restored, some posts were permanently deleted.
“At a time when Iranian citizens need access to information it is unacceptable that Instagram should choose to censor Iranian media and individual journalists and users,” IFJ General Secretary Anthony Bellanger said in a statement.
Cockerell also reported that Instagram was shutting down accounts of Iranian journalists, human rights advocates and activists that were sharing posts related to the commander who was killed earlier this month. In one widely shared instance, the company reportedly removed a post from an Iranian journalist who was a critic of the country’s government but wrote Soleimani’s killing was “contrary to the principles of international law.”
FEC
Salon: Citing dark money fears, coalition raises alarm over “zombie” FEC during pivotal 2020 elections
By Eoin Higgins
A coalition of progressive groups on Monday urged President Donald Trump and Senate leaders to reconvene the Federal Elections Commission with a full slate of members committed to enforcing campaign finance laws in time for the 2020 general election…
The coalition of 21 organizations – including the Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Public Citizen, Common Cause, Democracy 21, and CREW – called on the White House and Senate to appoint commissioners with an interest in enforcement in an open letter (pdf).
“To stop the explosion of secret election spending by wealthy special interests, the practice of nominating FEC Commissioners who carry water for those interests must end,” CLC senior director and chief of staff Adav Noti said in a statement…
In November, Center for Public Integrity editor-at-large Dave Levinthal noted that the lack of quorum would become a major problem if the FEC “zombie-walks into the teeth of Election 2020.”
Citizens United
OpenSecrets News: Everything you need to know about Citizens United on its 10th anniversary
By Staff
Ten years after the Supreme Court’s historic decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, OpenSecrets is taking a look at the dramatic ways America’s campaign finance system has changed in the decade since.
The Center for Responsive Politics is pleased to announce the publication of More money, less transparency: A decade under Citizens United, a comprehensive look at the lasting impacts of the now-infamous case…
Beginning before the decision, this report takes the reader from the 2008 anti-Clinton video that ultimately led to the infamous lawsuit through the rise in super PACs and “dark money” groups that gained unpredicted influence as a result. The report also examines the wealthy individuals who have spent millions of dollars on influence over the past decade, freed of spending caps by Citizens United and subsequent court decisions.
“We have a decade of evidence, demonstrated by nearly one-billion dark money dollars, that the Supreme Court got it wrong when they said political spending from independent groups would be coupled with necessary disclosure.” – Sheila Krumholz, Executive Director of the Center for Responsive Politics
ACS Law Blog: Citizens United Made My Career: I Wish It Had Never Happened
By Ciara Torres-Spelliscy
Citizens United made my career. I would have preferred a healthy democracy…
Twelve years ago I was a junior lawyer at the Brennan Center when the Supreme Court took the Citizens United v. FEC case. I went out on maternity leave in 2008. When I came back to work, Citizens United was scheduled for re-argument at the Supreme Court…
I attended the re-argument of Citizens United in the gallery of the Supreme Court with my fellow lawyers from the Brennan Center. I remember feeling like I was watching democracy die among high pillars and velvet drapes…By the time Seth Waxman got up to add a few points about Elihu Root, the oxygen had already left the room. The fix was in. It was a forgone conclusion that the Supreme Court was about to tear up decades if not centuries of laws that had kept corporations out of politics in federal elections and over twenty state elections. All we had to do between September 9, 2009, and January 21, 2010, was wait for the guillotine…
While the case was pending at the Supreme Court for two years, I wrote a white paper about the worst-case scenario of what the Supreme Court could do in Citizens United. When the case came out, all I had to change were the verb tenses. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision gave all corporations the right to spend unlimited amounts of money buying unlimited political ads in all Americans elections henceforth.
Independent Groups
By Victor Reklaitis
The campaigns of Republican and Democratic politicians frequently have worked in tandem with super PACs and other big-money organizations that are legally required to be independent from the candidates, says a report released Tuesday by nonpartisan reform group Issue One.
“We’ve seen a proliferation of political operatives, on both sides of the aisle, trying to outsource traditional campaign activities to super PACs and dark-money groups that can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, labor unions and corporations,” said Michael Beckel, Issue One’s research director.
“Our country’s anti-corruption laws are left in shambles when big money flows into super PACs and dark-money groups that find ways to evade the anti-coordination rules on the books,” he added…
The instances of potential coordination highlighted in Issue One’s report include candidates getting around laws that bar them from raising big money for independent groups by appearing at a group’s events but leaving it to other people to explicitly ask for contributions….
Another example of possible coordination is candidates and independent groups using the same vendor for campaign-related work while not having firewalls in place that would prevent illegal collaboration.
Privacy
Ballotpedia News: Donor disclosure legislation in 2019: the year in review
By Jerrick Adams
Legislatures in 33 states considered 74 donor disclosure bills in 2019. New York led the way with 10 bills, 13.5 percent of the total. The following states each considered at least two donor disclosure bills in 2019:
Minnesota and Missouri: 5 each
Connecticut: 4
Montana, New Hampshire, Utah, and Washington: 3 each
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia: 2 each.
Democrats sponsored 35 bills – 47.3 percent of the total. Republicans sponsored 22 bills, or 29.7 percent of the total. The remainder were sponsored either on a bipartisan basis or by committees.
These 16 bills, 21.6 percent of the total, were enacted…
One bill was vetoed in 2019: New Hampshire SB156, which would have required that political contributions from limited liability companies be allocated to individual members in order to determine whether individuals have exceeded contribution limits. The remaining 57 bills (77.0 percent of the total) either died at the end of 2019 or were carried over to 2020 sessions.
Politico: Top EU court adviser: Hungary’s NGO funding rules break EU law
By Zoya Sheftalovich
In 2017, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government passed laws that forced non-government organizations that received donations from abroad above a threshold of 500,000 Hungarian forints (about €1,500) to register with authorities and name their donors, with the information available publicly online. The NGOs also had to declare on their websites that they were foreign-backed…
The European Commission took Hungary to the Court of Justice of the [EU].
In a non-binding but persuasive opinion, the ECJ’s Advocate General Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona said the transfer of donations from abroad to Hungarian NGOs is effectively a movement of capital, and the NGO laws amount to a restriction of the principle of its free movement. Campos Sánchez-Bordona said the Hungarian rules also infringed on the right to freedom of association, as the legislation could affect NGOs’ financial viability.
The top EU lawyer also said that disclosing foreign donors’ names online infringed on their right to privacy and personal data, as it could link them to the NGO and may help to ideologically profile them. According to a press release, this “is an interference in the private life of those persons as regards the processing of their personal data.”
Online Speech Platforms
Axios: 2020 rules of the road for the Age of Misinformation
By Sara Fischer
With just weeks to the Iowa caucuses, social media platforms have finalized their rules governing political speech – and fired a starting pistol for political strategists to find ways to exploit them from now till Election Day.
“One opportunity that has arisen from all these changes is how people are trying to get around them,” says Keegan Goudiss, director of digital advertising for Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign and now a partner at the progressive digital firm Revolution Messaging…
Axios spoke with a half dozen campaign strategists, both Republicans and Democrats, as well as social intelligence experts, about what these rules will mean for the remainder of the political cycle.
(1) Ad systems will be gamed…
(2) Custom audience target lists will still be crucial…
(3) Lies will still flourish…
(4) Ad bans will set a precedent for smaller platforms: Because few ad political ad dollars were spent on Twitter to begin with, strategists don’t seem too concerned that the platform has banned political ads. But they do worry about the precedent that Twitter’s ban sets for other platforms, like Spotify and TikTok most recently, to also bar political ads.
Washington Post: Doctored images have become a fact of life for political campaigns. When they’re disproved, believers ‘just don’t care.’
By Drew Harwell
Sharing altered images and video, long a prized weapon of online trolls and meme-makers, is increasingly being seen as fair game for political leaders, reducing reality into a viral meme and flattening complex personalities into characters evoking only pity, loathing or disgust…
“They’re not necessarily trying to persuade someone to come to their side,” said Darren Linvill, a professor at Clemson University who researches social media disinformation. “They’re trying to reinforce existing beliefs and get people more entrenched in those beliefs[.]”
Misleading fakes have been used against a bipartisan cast of political leaders, including Trump, but many of the most prominent cases have targeted top Democrats. All of the Democratic front-runners for the presidential nomination, as well as the leading Democrats in Congress, have been targeted by deceptively altered images or videos within the last year…
A study by Princeton and New York University researchers last year, based on surveys and social media data from 3,500 respondents, also found that conservatives and people 65 or older were more likely than other adults to share links to fake-news sites in 2016…
“They’re broadcasting to an audience that already believes or feels a certain way about a politician, so, often, when [the truth of the alteration] comes to light, people just don’t care,” said Becca Lewis, a researcher at Stanford University who studies online extremism and media manipulation.
