New from the Institute for Free Speech
Another Day, Another (Employee PAC) Dollar Misrepresented
By Tiffany Donnelly
Welcome to another absurd yet completely predictable installment of misusing disclosure data.
Thanks to compulsory disclosure laws, citizens who contribute to candidates or political organizations are forced to have their name, address, and employer made publicly available in a government database. These laws are often justified as necessary to inform the public, but studies show they fail to achieve even this basic goal. Instead, information about contributors is often misunderstood or manipulated by actors with self-serving motives, leading to more confusion.
Knowing who spent what doesn’t tell you why they spent it, but some activists and members of the media love pretending to have it all figured out. Recently, a video game developer was targeted and harassed into early retirement for his political contributions, which were twisted to unfairly infer that he had anti-LGBTQ views. Our elected representatives join in the fun, too. Congressman Tom Suozzi had the bright idea to use the FEC database to create an enemies list of New Yorkers who gave to candidates opposing his pet issue, singling out donors for views they do not necessarily hold. (How many people really donated to candidates based on their position on the SALT cap?)
This time, it’s the media outlet Axios misusing data and misleading the public, writing:
Events
Cato Book Forum: The Mind of the Censor and the Eye of the Beholder: The First Amendment and the Censor’s Dilemma
Featuring Robert Corn-Revere, Catherine J. Ross, Jason Kuznicki, and John Samples
October 28, 2021, 12:00-1:30pm
Beginning in the 19th century with Anthony Comstock, America’s “censor in chief,” The Mind of the Censor and the Eye of the Beholder explores how censors operate and why they wore out their welcome in society at large. This book explains how the same tactics were tried and eventually failed in the 20th century, with efforts to censor music, comic books, television, and other forms of popular entertainment. The historic examples illustrate not only the mindset and tactics of censors but also why they are the ultimate counterculture warriors and why, in free societies, censors never occupy the moral high ground. This forum and book will interest anyone who wants to know more about why freedom of speech is important and how protections for free expression became part of the American identity.
Please join us for a lively discussion of a major new work by one of America’s leading advocates for freedom of speech.
Free Speech
The Hill: Prohibit the actions of extremism, but bear with the rhetoric
By Jeffrey M. McCall
“Extremist” rhetoric may have questionable value in national policy debates, but the government can’t be deciding which expressions need to be stifled. That approach should apply to all stripes of anti-government expression, from moms of school kids to Antifa. Trying to stifle or force extremist rhetoric underground doesn’t make it go away. Censorship ultimately doesn’t work in societies without enforcement clubs behind it.
Neither government nor self-appointed arbiters on social media can fairly referee controversial messaging — because they are both self-interested.
Pushing for conformity of thought and then calling it unity can’t work in free societies. The First Amendment was created with the confidence that robust debate would lead to rational conclusions. The nation can’t give up on that noble notion without plunging itself into chaos.
The Media
Axios: Exclusive: Billionaires back new media firm to combat disinformation
By Sara Fischer
A new public benefit corporation backed by billionaires Reid Hoffman, George Soros, and others is launching Tuesday to fund new media companies and efforts that tackle disinformation.
Good Information Inc. aims to fund and scale businesses that cut through echo chambers with fact-based information. As part of its mission, it plans to invest in local news companies.
The group will be led by Tara McGowan, a former Democratic strategist who previously ran a progressive non-profit called ACRONYM.
ACRONYM invested in for-profit companies that built media and technology solutions for progressive causes. It ran one of the largest digital campaigns to defeat President Trump in the 2020 election, totaling $100 million…
ACRONYM faced a FEC complaint last year that alleged it wasn’t transparent enough about Courier’s backing. The complaint was eventually dropped. “If I could do things differently, I would have been more transparent,” McGowan said…
Good Information Inc. will acquire Courier Newsroom from ACRONYM for an undisclosed sum as part of the deal.
Candidates and Campaigns
The City: Rep. Espaillat Campaign Paid Thousands to Online Influencers Who Delivered Flattering Posts
By Claudia Irizarry Aponte
Campaign committees for Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-Manhattan/The Bronx) have paid nearly $15,000 to bloggers for posting hundreds of flattering articles dating to his first run for Congress in 2016, Federal Election Commission filings show.
The bloggers’ posts do not disclose their financial ties with the Espaillat campaign — exploiting a legal gray area as paid social media influencers play a growing role in campaigns nationally…
Under Federal Election Commission rules that apply to Espaillat and other members of Congress, only content that explicitly advises who to vote for — or not vote for — must include a disclosure that the campaign paid for the advertisement.
The city Campaign Finance Board has even narrower disclosure rules — only requiring a notice that a campaign paid for a post if the campaign wrote or co-wrote the article or script…
“Voters always have a right to know how candidates are spending money to influence votes. And paid social media influencers can have a significant impact on voters and on elections,” said Susan Lerner, executive director of campaign ethics watchdog group Common Cause New York.
“That means they should be subject to effective disclosure requirements,” she added. “But campaign finance laws have generally not kept up with constantly evolving online political practices in just so many areas, and it badly needs to be brought up to date.”
Online Speech Platforms
Washington Post: Five points for anger, one for a ‘like’: How Facebook’s formula fostered rage and misinformation
By Jeremy B. Merrill and Will Oremus
Five years ago, Facebook gave its users five new ways to react to a post in their news feed beyond the iconic “like” thumbs-up: “love,” “haha,” “wow,” “sad” and “angry.”
Behind the scenes, Facebook programmed the algorithm that decides what people see in their news feeds to use the reaction emoji as signals to push more emotional and provocative content — including content likely to make them angry. Starting in 2017, Facebook’s ranking algorithm treated emoji reactions as five times more valuable than “likes,” internal documents reveal. The theory was simple: Posts that prompted lots of reaction emoji tended to keep users more engaged, and keeping users engaged was the key to Facebook’s business.
Facebook’s own researchers were quick to suspect a critical flaw. Favoring “controversial” posts — including those that make users angry — could open “the door to more spam/abuse/clickbait inadvertently,” a staffer, whose name was redacted, wrote in one of the internal documents. A colleague responded, “It’s possible.”
The warning proved prescient. The company’s data scientists confirmed in 2019 that posts that sparked angry reaction emoji were disproportionately likely to include misinformation, toxicity and low-quality news.
The States
Michigan Radio: Due to recall campaign technicality, Gov. Whitmer raises record-breaking $3 million
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has raised a record-breaking amount based on a technicality in state law. Whitmer raised more than $3 million in the last quarter.
Her campaign can accept unlimited amounts because there are active recalls against her.
Whitmer may have to give some of the money back if none of the recall petitions collect enough signatures.
But [Simon Schuster, Executive Director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network,] said she could still benefit indirectly by donating the money to the Michigan Democratic Party.
“Which could then use these funds to run what we call issue ads in favor of the governor, where they can’t directly advocate for the governor’s election, but they could talk about sort of the great job she’s done,” Schuster said.
