In the News
Forbes: Trump Has Now Shifted $1.9 Million From Campaign Donors To His Business
By Dan Alexander
Billionaire Donald Trump still has not donated a cent to his 2020 campaign, opting to fund the effort with money from supporters around the country. At the same time, Trump’s private companies are continuing to charge the campaign for expenses like rent and consulting, according to the latest federal filings…
The payments did not seem to trouble Bradley Smith, a Republican who served as a FEC commissioner from 2000 to 2005. “There’s no problem, so to speak, doing business with yourself, as long as you’re not giving yourself some kind of super-favorable deal that the public can’t get,” he said.
Free Expression
Wall Street Journal: China Expels Three Wall Street Journal Reporters
By WSJ Staff
China revoked the press credentials of three Wall Street Journal reporters based in Beijing, the first time in the post-Mao era that the Chinese government has expelled multiple journalists from one international news organization at the same time.
China’s Foreign Ministry said the move Wednesday was punishment for a recent opinion piece published by the Journal…
The expulsions by China’s Foreign Ministry followed widespread public anger at the headline on the Feb. 3 opinion piece, which referred to China as “the real sick man of Asia.” …
“Regrettably, what the WSJ has done so far is nothing but parrying and dodging its responsibility,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said in a daily news briefing Wednesday. “The Chinese people do not welcome those media that speak racially discriminatory language and maliciously slander and attack China.”
The Atlantic: Evidence That Conservative Students Really Do Self-Censor
By Conor Friedersdorf
Last spring, three professors at the University of North Carolina surveyed undergraduates to get a sense of the campus climate. Rather than focus on discrete controversies, such as the time in 2015 when UNC student protesters seized control of a room where a journalist was speaking, or the time in 2019 when a UNC student assaulted a sign-carrying anti-abortion activist, they sought to understand day-to-day undergraduate experiences. The results of the survey, distilled from more than 1,000 responses to email questionnaires, can’t be applied to every college in America, but the findings do illuminate what’s happening at a highly selective public institution in a swing state, where more than 20,000 undergraduates are enrolled.
Online Speech Platforms
Axios: Exclusive: News industry wants to cut Big Tech’s safety net
By Sara Fischer
The News Media Alliance, a trade group which represents thousands of U.S. newspapers, plans to propose limits to a rule that, to-date, has helped Big Tech companies dodge responsibility for the content people upload to their platforms…
According to a written testimony provided to Axios, NMA will tell parties on Wednesday at the Justice Department’s upcoming workshop on Section 230 that policymakers should limit the safe harbor exemption within the law that protects tech platforms from being sued for the content that other people post on its site:
“[W]e should start by limiting the exemption for just the very largest companies who both derive the most benefits from Section 230 and have the greatest capacities to take legal responsibility for their commercial decisions around content and reach,” the testimony says.
NMA CEO David Chavern will be testifying.
Washington Examiner: ‘More guidance and regulation’: Zuckerberg requests government rules on ‘what discourse should be allowed’
By Joel Gehrke
Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg called on Western governments to provide regulatory guidance for how social media companies can identify the boundaries of “what discourse should be allowed” on their platforms.
“There should be more guidance and regulation from the states on basically – take political advertising as an example – what discourse should be allowed?” Zuckerberg told an assembly of Western leaders Saturday at the Munich Security Conference.
“Or, on the balance of free expression and some things that people call harmful expression, where do you draw the line?” …
“There are a lot of decisions in these areas that are really just balances between different social values,” Zuckerberg said. “It’s about coming up with an answer that society feels is legitimate and that they can get behind and understand that you drew the line here on the balance of free expression and safety. It’s not just that there’s one right answer. People need to feel like, ‘OK, enough people weighed in, and that’s why the answer should be this, and we can get behind that.'”
Washington Post: The Technology 202: Meme-makers are newest frontier in Facebook’s political content debate
By Cat Zakrzewski
Facebook told reporters last week that it would allow political campaigns and candidates to pay social media influencers to create sponsored content – the most high-profile example is the recent flood of Instagram memes purchased by presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg. But critics are concerned the social networking giant is not subjecting the paid posts to the same standards as traditional ads…
The company’s new policy is splitting Democrats leading the polls in the presidential election. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said on Twitter that Facebook’s new policy represented a “workaround” and that the company’s refusal to catalogue the sponsored posts would result in less transparency.
But Bloomberg’s campaign has defended his use of sponsored content, commonly called “sponcon.”
Candidates and Campaigns
Washington Post: Buttigieg and super PAC improperly coordinated on Nevada ads, watchdog group says
By Michelle Ye Hee Lee
A campaign finance watchdog group has filed a complaint alleging that the presidential campaign of Pete Buttigieg improperly coordinated with VoteVets, a super PAC supporting the campaign of the former mayor of South Bend, Ind.
In the complaint, filed Tuesday with the Federal Election Commission, the Campaign Legal Center alleged that Buttigieg’s campaign improperly accepted more than $639,000 in contributions, in violation of federal rules barring candidates from coordinating with independent groups that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money.
The complaint centers on a tweet by Buttigieg senior strategist Michael Halle analyzing the strengths of a particular campaign message in Nevada, and a subsequent ad campaign in that state by VoteVets that appeared to follow the strategy outlined in the tweet.
Axios: Sign of the times: A pro-Warren super PAC
By Margaret Talev and Alexi McCammond
A group of women progressives who back Sen. Elizabeth Warren has formed Persist PAC, a super PAC airing pro-Warren ads starting Wednesday in an effort to boost her performance ahead of Saturday’s crucial Nevada caucuses…
Warren told her rivals during the Feb. 7 Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire that “everyone on this stage except Amy [Klobuchar] and me is either a billionaire or is receiving help from PACs that can do unlimited spending,” and if the others meant what they said about wanting to reduce unlimited spending and special interests they should “put your money where your mouth is and say no to the PACs.”
Klobuchar is also now getting some late uncoordinated help from a super PAC. Kitchen Table Conversations, a new political action committee supporting the Minnesota senator, filed with the FEC last Friday.
Washington Post: Democrats’ fixation on where money comes from is silly
By Jennifer Rubin
Democratic rivals make a mistake in chastising one another about how they raise their campaign funds. It assumes that voters think someone like former vice president Joe Biden, former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg or Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) is in the pocket of people who give a couple of thousand dollars. It assumes that no one should take money from rich progressives, something even Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) did a few years ago. (Nor did her solicitation of high-dollar donations at swanky fundraisers make her any less progressive in the Senate.) …
Are they really going to turn away donations from, say, Tom Steyer or Mike Bloomberg (or Bernie Sanders, for that matter), who have vowed to support whomever the nominee might be? If, for example, Oprah Winfrey wants to spend $10 million helping elect Democrats, they will not, I assume, turn up their noses at the largesse from a progressive celebrity…
If one is concerned about the corrupting influence of money in politics, Buttigieg’s and Biden’s attendance at fundraisers in New York or California surely cannot be the central issue. Rather, they and all candidates should be telling us what finance system they would prefer and how they plan on “reversing” Citizens United (which doesn’t have anything to do with millionaires spending their own money).
Now This News: Stacey Abrams: We Need To Fix The Entire Political System
By Versha Sharma
Stacey Abrams: So I want to decouple something. Money has always been in politics. What happened with Citizens United is that we’ve allowed more of it to pour in from other places. And those places don’t have to say who they are. But throughout American history, Michael Bloomberg can spend as much money as he wants. So there’s nothing about Citizens United or the McCain-Feingold Act that would have stopped him from spending…. But for me, the reality is, I’m less concerned with how we’re financing our elections than winning these elections so that we can fix the entire system. The notion that we can fix the system through goodwill has proven to be false. It’s up to every voter to decide if they want a Bloomberg or a Biden or Warren or Klobuchar or Buttigieg or whomever. It’s the voters’ decision. And we need to create a system where they really get information so they can make the best decision possible.
New York Times: Bloomberg’s Billions: How the Candidate Built an Empire of Influence
By Alexander Burns and Nicholas Kulish
A Times examination of Mr. Bloomberg’s philanthropic and political spending in the years leading up to his presidential bid illustrates how he developed a national infrastructure of influence, image-making and unspoken suasion that has helped transform a former Republican mayor of New York City into a plausible contender for the Democratic nomination…
Since leaving City Hall at the end of 2013, Mr. Bloomberg has become the single most important political donor to the Democratic Party and its causes…
It is not simply good will that Mr. Bloomberg has built. His political and philanthropic spending has also secured the allegiance or cooperation of powerful institutions and leaders within the Democratic Party who might take issue with parts of his record were they not so reliant on his largess.
In interviews with The Times, no one described being threatened or coerced by Mr. Bloomberg or his money. But many said his wealth was an inescapable consideration – a gravitational force powerful enough to make coercion unnecessary.
Washington Post: The power of Michael Bloomberg
By Daniel W. Drezner
If it seems unfair to compare Bloomberg to Trump, that’s because it is. First of all, Bloomberg is much, much richer than Trump. This means he can pour far greater sums of money into his campaign. The guy is paying campaign staff heretofore-unheard-of amounts and commissioning influencers to tweet about him and create favorable memes. Political scientists tend to be skeptical about whether campaign spending tips the scales in politics (see Tom Steyer’s performance to date for evidence). Simply put, however, no one has attempted campaign spending on this order of magnitude, until now.
Second, unlike Trump, Bloomberg had already invested heavily into his party’s infrastructure before launching his presidential campaign… Even more than his overt political spending, however, it has been Bloomberg’s philanthropy that has bolstered his standing within the Democratic Party…
Outside the Beltway’s James Joyner is correct when he notes that Bloomberg in 2020 is what “Donald Trump claimed to be in during the 2016 campaign: he’s so rich that it would be next to impossible to bribe him.” …
The only virtue of this scenario playing out? Watching Republicans eventually call for Citizens United to be overturned.
Washington Post: Bloomberg’s billions are burying Biden
By Phillip Bump
Bloomberg’s strategy hasn’t been simply to compete in Super Tuesday states. It has been to completely bury voters in those states with ads. The amount of money Bloomberg could spend on his campaign is mind-boggling; the amount he has spent is exceptional…
In a Yahoo News-YouGov poll conducted last week, two-thirds of respondents said they had seen a Bloomberg ad – perhaps during the Super Bowl…
A poll from NPR and PBS NewsHour conducted by Marist shows the change in support since December…
Bloomberg has gained 15 points…
In 2020, Trump’s campaign has the resources to similarly overwhelm voters with ads. This is actually part of Bloomberg’s sales pitch: He can overpower Trump’s campaign money. That’s not the pitch he makes in his ads, but the ubiquity of those ads makes the point indirectly.
With Super Tuesday approaching, Bloomberg seems to be proving that this may be a viable strategy.
Wall Street Journal: Bernie’s Millions Beat Mike’s Billions
By Dan Palmer
Mr. Bloomberg has flipped the donor’s traditional money-for-access-and-influence proposition on its head. Wealthy donors are invited to join his campaign as supporters and advisers-without writing checks. Instead the proposition seems to be access and maybe influence in exchange for not contributing to other campaigns…
In the end, Mr. Bloomberg’s billions may be worth less than Mr. Sanders’s millions. Attracting small donors both signals and cements a loyal following. Spending your own fortune doesn’t…
So far Mr. Bloomberg’s defensive maneuver is to cut his competitors off from wealthy donors…
Awaiting the eventual Democratic nominee is President Trump, who has enviable assets: the biggest list of small donors, earned media coverage at will, and a stockpile of cash. In the New Hampshire’s primary Mr. Trump received 129,696 votes. That’s far more than Barack Obama (49,080), George W. Bush (53,962) or Bill Clinton (76,797) received in their respective New Hampshire primaries for re-election.
What motivates 129,696 people to come out on a February day in New Hampshire to vote for an incumbent president running virtually unopposed? The kind of enthusiasm that money can’t buy.
New York Times: Who Will Turn Out the Lights at Trump’s White House?
By Gail Collins and Bret Stephens
Gail: Bloomberg would of course not be on anybody’s radar if he wasn’t a multi-multi-billionaire spending his own cash on a flood of campaign ads…
I presume his billions aren’t a concern to you – but what about the wine cave thing? Do you think there should be any curbs on how much money candidates get from rich insiders?
Bret: So here’s a piece of heresy: No. Eugene McCarthy would never have been able to challenge Lyndon Johnson in 1968 save for the support of a handful of big-money donors. Campaign-finance laws have had all kinds of perverse effects, including the fact that they force politicians to spend inordinate amounts of time raising money in relatively small increments. And, because rich people can spend unlimited money on themselves, they have a built-in advantage over candidates like Buttigieg. I’d like to see fewer limits on donations coupled with radical transparency about the sources of funding.
Politico: Memo to America: Your Primary System Is Great
By Ryan Heath
And let me tell you how much I love the rivers of money in American politics. I get a tingle every time I see the quarterly fundraising totals and numbers of donors come in. Granted, dark money is nasty, and few like the idea of billionaires spending themselves into office. But all that money also trains new generations of campaigners and pays them a living wage, letting the good and the hardworking find their place in democratic institutions. In other countries, campaign staff are often on the public docket or are limited to those who can afford to work as volunteers. Without a long primary and the money needed to run it, the campaign would be even more of an upper-class affair.
Money in politics has a bad reputation, but it is a pure expression of political engagement. Millions of Americans put their money where their mouth is each month. And all they get is a crappy bumper sticker or wine cave visit in return. Do you know how many times my family members have donated to a political campaign in Australia? Zero. I’m certain it’s the same with our neighbors.
The States
Washington Examiner: The war on private charity
By James Piereson and Naomi Schaefer Riley
” A solution in search of a problem.” That’s how Lawson Bader, president and CEO of Donor’s Trust, describes a bill introduced in the California legislature last month. AB 1712 would require the organizations that manage donor-advised funds to report to the state government the individual activity of each of the accounts they oversee.
It’s not just an attack on donor privacy. It’s also the newest front in the Left’s war on private philanthropy…
As with other recent attempts to regulate philanthropy, the proponents of this California bill, the original version of which has been pulled but is expected to be resubmitted later this month, argue that the tax deduction donors receive means that the public should get a say over how, where, and when these donors give their money. NextGen California, a group founded by Kat Taylor (wife of Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer), spent almost $200,000 lobbying legislators on a number of bills, including in favor of this one, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Taylor told the publication: “We want to be sure that the philanthropic deduction is given in the public interest and those funds get put out expeditiously to nonprofits who are doing work in the world.”
But there’s nothing in the law governing the tax deduction that says contributions must meet some standard of “public interest.” And who would set such a standard anyway?
Tampa Bay Times: St. Pete is doing what the feds won’t-keeping dark money out of local elections
By Ellen L. Weintraub
Our democracy is under unprecedented attack from overseas, but the federal government has been unable or unwilling to protect our campaign-finance system. We shouldn’t have to, but America is depending on our local and state governments to fill the void with innovative solutions. That’s what St. Petersburg is doing.
The city’s “Defend Our Democracy” ordinance, which the City Council passed in 2017, is a national model for dark money reform.
This terrific ordinance is now itself under attack – but from a domestic adversary. Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, has attached a last-minute amendment to an unrelated election bill that would preempt St. Pete’s rule and prevent any Florida county or city from enacting any restrictions on contributions to political committees or spending on electioneering communications and independent expenditures.
ABC 4 WOAY: Campaign signs in Beckley are causing some controversy
By Yazmin Rodriguez
Signs of new campaigners have been emerging early all through Beckley for the election; however, some say they are in violation of rules.
Political yard signs are everywhere during elections. Officials want candidates to know campaign signs should not be put up before 60 days of the election…
The ACLU has sent a letter to city officials saying, “Laws like Beckley’s are in violation of the First Amendment, which prohibits the enactment of laws abridging freedom of speech,” ACLU-WV Legal Director Loree Stark said.
“The City should repeal this unconstitutional ordinance and inform residents publicly, via social media or otherwise, that the City no longer intends to penalize individuals for displaying political signs,” Stark said in the letter.
“ACLU-WV will continue to monitor the situation and keeps all options on the table going forward.”
CalMatters: For California lawmakers, charity can begin at home
By Laurel Rosenhall
In one of its first acts of charity in 2018, the assemblyman’s foundation [The Bonta Foundation] gave $25,000 to Literacy Lab, a nonprofit where [his wife] Mialisa Bonta at the time was earning a six-figure salary as CEO. The arrangement – which the Bontas say is consistent with their other philanthropy – appears to be legal, according to experts in federal tax law and California’s political ethics law.
But governmental watchdogs and the state law’s author say it also reveals a regulatory gap that invites conflicts of interest.
“This should not be allowed, and the law should be amended to prohibit it,” said Bob Stern, who was the principal co-author of California’s Political Reform Act, the landmark 1974 law that amounts to the state’s tool for preventing corruption.
Clermont Sun: In support of anti-SLAPP laws
By Editorial Board
To counteract these sorts of lawsuits, about 30 states have enacted anti-SLAPP laws, some more narrow than others, to discourage meritless lawsuits.
Ohio is one of the states without an anti-SLAPP law, but Senate Bill 215 aims to change that. Re-introduced in October 2019 by State Senator Matt Huffman (R-Lima), the bill, “Ohio Citizen Participation Act,” would expedite the process for the dismissal of meritless lawsuits against individuals trying to exercise their right to free speech.
The new law would give defendants the right to have a judge decide whether the speech is protected at the beginning of the case, not at the end.
A number of organizations have stood in support of the legislation, including the Reporters Committee, Ohio News Media Association, Gannett, which owns The Cincinnati Enquirer, Americans for Prosperity, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Ohio Domestic Violence Network.
Cape Cod Times: Support amendment to restrain big money’s influence on politics
By Ann Shea
The “Massachusetts Citizens Commission Concerning a Constitutional Amendment for Government of the People” (CitzComm’s) first report was released in January, and its overarching conclusion is that at every level of government, our elections are unfair…
Constitutional lawyer Steve Simpson, director of legal studies at the Ayn Rand Institute, holds that it would be a “disaster” if Citizens United is overturned…
But CitzComm members disagree. Their report states that the appearance of unfair influence and access is already causing the electorate’s disillusionment. Any proposed amendment should broaden the Court’s definition of corruption to widen limits on contributions.
The report points out that the primary goal of the First Amendment is to create an informed public…
In addition, as the CitzComm drafts its amendment, members will continue to encourage and welcome additional viewpoints and testimonies from within our state and across the nation, especially from those who may disagree with their beliefs.
