In the News
Roll Call: Wide splits evident on voting and campaign finance as Senate panel takes up overhaul
By Kate Ackley
Here are five takeaways from the first eight hours of debate over the [S. 1]:
One of the bill’s signature provisions sets out an optional public financing system that would allow congressional candidates to tap into a 6-to-1 matching program for small donations of up to $200. To pay for that, the bill would create a Freedom from Influence Fund, which would come from additional assessments, or surcharges, on fines already paid by tax cheats or companies fined for criminal or civil penalties. Blunt offered an unsuccessful amendment to strike that portion from the bill.
In addition to McConnell’s amendment to divert the money for opioid efforts, Mississippi Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith offered another amendment, which was also rejected, to direct the money to rural hospitals. But the point of their amendments was to say that they believe public money can be better spent, instead of financing political campaigns.
“We don’t need welfare for politicians,” Texas Republican Ted Cruz said…
Republicans on the panel blasted the bill’s overhaul of the FEC, the agency that enforces federal election laws. The agency has often deadlocked on enforcement decisions because it is evenly divided. The measure would restructure it to a five-person commission, giving one party an advantage.
It was originally created, in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, so that it could not become “a partisan weapon,” said Bradley A. Smith, a former Republican commissioner who is now chairman of the Institute for Free Speech.
The change is in response to frustration from campaign finance overhaul advocates, who have criticized the agency for deadlocking too often and not enforcing the laws.
The Hill: Cheney sideshow distracts from important battle over Democrats’ partisan voting bill
By Liz Peek
Most Americans have no idea what the innocuous sounding 886-page “For the People Act” is all about. Democrats want to keep it that way…
A bigger gift to Democrats is the billions of dollars which would be made available in federal 6:1 matching funds for candidates who receive small donations. In past years, Democrats have typically hauled in more contributions of less than $200 than have Republicans.
H.R.1 is not only partisan, it is also poorly conceived. Small campaign contributions flow disproportionately to candidates at the ideological boundaries of their party, like Reps. Alexandria-Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) or Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who attract a lot of media attention. It is not clear that this element of the rule would favor Democrats, but most Americans might consider large-scale funding of party extremists against the best interests of the nation. David Keating, head of the Institute for Free Speech, called this aspect of H.R.1 “a subsidy for Congress’ most powerful, famous, and notorious members.”
Congress
New York Times: Do Democrats Have a Realistic Path Forward on Their Voting Bills?
By Giovanni Russonello
The Senate on Tuesday took up the For the People Act, a sweeping bill to overhaul the country’s election system, the first step in what will probably be a long and winding legislative process. Democrats are faced with not only the all-out resistance of Republicans, but also the hesitation of their own 50th vote, Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the lone Democrat in the chamber who hasn’t signed on as a sponsor of the bill…
But their inability to unify their own caucus around the bill — let alone to map out a path to the finish line in the face of unified Republican opposition — appears to be setting up a showdown within the party, posing a crucial test of Mr. Manchin’s so-far granite commitment to keeping the filibuster in place…
[T]he bill’s size leaves a lot of exposed surface area for opponents to attack, and the proceedings in the Senate on Tuesday pointed to a hard road ahead. Republican senators spent the afternoon tossing darts at the bill in the form of amendments and attacking it as a sign of Democratic overreach…
Mr. Manchin has expressed worries that passing an election bill along partisan lines would feed into that Republican narrative. But the bill’s supporters insist that he will ultimately have to let that go and ease his opposition to removing the filibuster, a Senate procedural tactic that has often stymied major legislation…
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, has said that August is his probable deadline for moving the bill to a final vote — a timeline that would allow it, if passed, to take effect before the 2022 midterm elections.
By Tyler Olson
The Senate Rules and Administration Committee Tuesday defeated an amendment from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to Democrats’ sweeping elections bill.
McConnell’s amendment, which was defeated on a 9-9 party-line vote, would keep the Federal Election Commission (FEC) at six members rather than five, which the Democrats bill would do if enacted.
The bill, S. 1 in the Senate and H.R. 1 in the House, would change the composition of the FEC from six members with three from each party to five members with two from each party and a fifth not associated with either party but chosen by the president.
McConnell, R-Ky., making a rare appearance at a committee markup, said that Democrats’ proposed change to the FEC would make it partisan and go against the goals of the Democrat-controlled Congress that created it.
“The FEC was created back in 1974 in the wake of Watergate. That was a period during which our Democratic colleagues had overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate,” McConnell said. “They could have crafted the FEC any way they chose to. But they realized that it ought to be evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. It was broad bipartisan understanding that the new panel needed to be beyond reproach. That’s why it was built with an even-numbered membership.”
He added: “And yet in this sweeping legislation which our Democratic friends keep characterizing as a voting rights bill, they go out of their way to make the FEC partisan… The exact outcome that was originally feared — the regulator of our Democracy becoming controlled by one side would be hardwired into the rules entirely by design. This is so plainly unfair, so plainly an attempt to stack the deck, that I’m not really sure what more needs to be said.”
Politico: GOP-aligned group launches ad blitz against Democratic election legislation
By James Arkin
An outside group aligned with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is launching a seven-figure wave of TV and radio ads this week aimed to build opposition to S. 1 (117), Democrats’ election reform legislation.
One Nation, the political nonprofit, is spending nearly $1.9 million across five states over the next 10 days, with the ads launching Tuesday to coincide with the legislation being marked up in a Senate committee. The ads are the first spending from the outside group so far in 2021, demonstrating Republicans’ focus on opposing the election legislation, which is a top priority cosponsored by nearly the entire Democratic caucus.
The ads are running in three states that are top targets for Republicans in the 2022 midterms — TV and radio ads in New Hampshire, TV ads in Arizona and radio ads in Nevada — as well as two states, West Virginia and Montana, represented by moderate Democratic senators. Georgia, another top midterm Senate battleground, is not among this initial ad campaign, though other GOP groups have spent on this issue there…
The TV ads focus on two aspects in particular, ballot collection by third-party groups and public funds to match small-dollar political contributions.
IVN Network: HR1/S1 Hypocrisy: Under The Guise of ‘For the People’, Democrats Support Voters Rights, But Suppress Voter Choice
By Michael Feinstein
HR1/S1 contains a clause that would drive smaller parties off the ballot, eliminating minor party competition for the Democrats.
For Green Party members like myself, this isn’t surprising, because Democrats have long pursued legal challenges to deny Green candidates a place on the ballot before the voters…
HR1/S1 would raise the threshold to receive presidential primary matching funds to put it out of reach of most minor party presidential candidates; when the bill could easily provide for a two-tier matching funds system that would preserve the ability of the public to fund minor party campaigns. Losing presidential primary matching funds would not only substantially weaken minor party presidential campaigns, but it would mean those candidates and their parties will also have a harder time getting on the ballot.
Fox News: Democrats’ HR1 election bill boosted by liberal dark money group financed by foreign national
By Cameron Cawthorne and Joe Schoffstall
A liberal dark money group bankrolled by a Swiss foreign national is spending big on lobbying in favor of Democrats’ election overhauls, including H.R. 1, filings show.
The Sixteen Thirty Fund, a fiscal sponsor and clearinghouse for dozens of left-wing groups and projects, has poured nearly $2 million into the efforts to sway senators on issues ranging from H.R.1 to D.C. statehood to the Voting Rights Act Amendment…
The New York Times revealed that Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss, who in 2014 said he is not a U.S. citizen, is a significant financial backer of the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which does not identify its donors. From 2016 to 2020, the foreign national directed $135 million into the fund, but it is unclear how his money was spent.
While the Sixteen Thirty Fund is primarily used to house nonprofits that are backed by secretive donors, the incubator was also used as an avenue to steer $55 million in anonymous cash into super PACs that backed President Biden’s 2020 campaign.
FCC
Daily Signal: FCC Commissioner Slams Baltimore Prosecutor’s ‘Chilling’ Request for Investigation Into Fox Affiliate Over Bias
By Thomas Catenacci
The senior Republican on the Federal Communications Commission criticized the Democratic Baltimore City state attorney’s recent request for an investigation into a local Fox affiliate as an attack on free speech.
Brendan Carr, the top Republican on the Federal Communications Commission, condemned Baltimore City State Attorney Marilyn Mosby’s request, saying it was part of a broader effort by Democrats to censor news coverage and political speech they don’t like. Carr demanded that the commission dismiss Mosby’s complaint by the end of the day “with prejudice.”
“The State’s Attorney’s Office, led by Democrat Marilyn Mosby, has launched a chilling and direct attack on free speech and journalistic freedom,” Carr said in a statement Monday. “The complaint her office filed with the FCC asks the Commission to censor a newsroom simply because journalists are doing their constitutionally protected jobs and shining a light on the work of the State’s Attorney.”
“Invoking the power of the state to silence journalists for unfavorable coverage strikes at the very heart of the First Amendment,” he continued.
Fundraising
Bloomberg Government: PACs Toughen Criteria as They Move to Resume Political Donations
By Megan R. Wilson
A number of corporate PACs are tightening their donation standards including barring contributions to candidates who foment violence as they move to resume giving after the Jan. 6 Capitol riots.
Surveys by two business groups suggest political action committees are revamping their donation policies but are hesitant to impose long-term giving bans on all the 147 GOP lawmakers who objected to the election of President Joe Biden.
The National Association of Business Political Action Committees, or NABPAC, polled its members about their plans for political giving this cycle and found that 55% of the respondents “envision making changes to candidates and committees they support this cycle.”
Nearly 70% of those surveyed reported halting their PAC operations at least temporarily after the January insurrection. They used the time since to hold focus groups, have PAC board meetings, and one-on-one conversations with employees and shareholders.
But the pauses in contributions, including to those who challenged the election, may not last much longer.
Online Speech Platforms
Mother Jones: Researchers Say They’ve Uncovered a Massive Facebook Bot Farm From the 2020 Election
By AJ Vicens
A group of security researchers say they’ve unmasked a massive bot farm that aimed to shape public opinion on Facebook during the heat of the 2020 presidential election.
According to Paul Bischoff of Comparitech, a British cybersecurity company, the network includes 13,775 unique Facebook accounts that each posted roughly 15 times per month, for an output of more than 50,000 posts a week. The accounts appear to have been used for “political manipulation,” Bischoff says, with roughly half the posts being related to political topics and another 17 percent related to COVID-19. Each account has a profile photo and friends list—likely consisting of other bots, the researchers suggest—and they’ve joined “specific Facebook groups where their posts are more likely to be seen and discussed by legitimate users.”
Candidates and Campaigns
Politico: Ted Cruz bets big on Facebook
By Theodoric Meyer
[Sen. Ted] Cruz’s burst of ad spending comes as his ties with corporate America have frayed. Corporate PACs have pulled back their support for the Texas senator after he voted not to certify Biden’s victory in January…
Even if corporate PACs were to give, Cruz has said he won’t accept their donations. He has blasted “woke” corporations and chief executives that have criticized Republicans in Georgia and other states for passing new voting laws. And he has vowed to stop taking their money [in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed]…
Cruz has echoed that message in his recent Facebook ads.
“I’m done with these woke corporations,” reads a Cruz ad that started running last week. “I’m never taking their money again. I won’t owe them a single thing and I’m going to spend every day stopping their radical agenda. But if I’m going to win, if I’m going to beat them, then I need patriots like you to step up and make a donation today!”
The strategy is reminiscent of many Democrats’ approach to fundraising during the Trump administration, as more and more Democratic candidates swore off corporate PAC contributions and relied on small-dollar donors to make up the difference.
The States
The Detroit News: Michigan GOP lawmaker floats bill to register, fine ‘fact checkers’
By Beth LeBlanc and Craig Mauger
A Michigan lawmaker who’s been at the center of efforts to question the 2020 election introduced a bill Tuesday that would require “fact checkers” to register with the state.
Rep. Matt Maddock, R-Milford, wrote the legislation, which was co-sponsored by eight other Republican House members, about five months after Maddock floated the idea of licensing fact checkers on Twitter.
The “Fact Checker Registration Act” defines a fact checker as someone who publishes in print or online in Michigan, is paid by a fact-checking organization and is a member of the International Fact Check Network…
The bill requires qualifying fact checkers to file proof of a $1 million fidelity bond with the Secretary of State’s office, which will be tasked with developing the “form and manner of registration and filing.” …
In a Facebook post last week, Maddock said the bill would allow people to understand who is fact checking information.
“Social media companies deplatform people, politicians, and businesses on the basis of ‘fact checkers’ who relish their roles punishing those whom they deem ‘false,'” Maddock wrote, after alleging in April that fact checkers were largely “body-checking conservatives.”
“Many believe this enormous economic and social power is being abused,” Maddock wrote. “…My legislation will put fact checkers on notice: Don’t be wrong, don’t be sloppy, and you better be right.”
The nation’s founders established protections for the press so it can operate without government intrusion, said Sen. Jeremy Moss, D-Southfield, who studied journalism at Michigan State University.
“This is an affront to the First Amendment,” Moss said of the proposal.
Cato: Florida Social Media Bill Overshadows Tech Week
By Will Duffield
Florida Senate Bill 7072 is intended to prevent supposedly biased content moderation and punish monopolistic firms, but it is unworkable and unconstitutional…
The bill is comprised of two main sections. The first section establishes a state “antitrust violator vendor list” of disfavored firms. The second enumerates a host of new prohibitions and mandates planned to produce fairness in content moderation. Many are fairly technical; platforms must offer accurate view count tools, “provide a user with the number of other individual platform participants who were provided or shown content or posts,” give written explanations of all content moderation decisions, and store all data from banned accounts for free for 60 days. Platforms are prohibited from moderating journalists’ speech. These requirements may be enforced via private suit or administrative action under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Private suits utilizing the new causes of action are likely precluded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which give platform broad leeway to moderate, and stipulates that;
“No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.”
While Section 230 wouldn’t prevent administrative enforcement of the new requirements, the First Amendment would. The bill makes a “deceptive act or practice” of platform operators’ exercise of their basic First Amendment rights to speak or refrain from speaking. As Berin Szoka and Corbin Barthold explain, courts have repeatedly held that onerous regulation, even regulation intended to promote speech, raises First Amendment concerns if it makes carrying speech more costly or difficult.
Bangor Daily News: What the heck is going on with some of these license plates?
By Editorial Board
The Maine Legislature is considering several bills that would re-establish the Maine Secretary of State’s ability to review and reject obscene license plates. There is room for carefully crafted action here that respects the First Amendment. Any action should be guided by the recent experiences of other states.
Federal judges in California and Rhode Island, for example, have ruled against those states’ attempts to ban offensive vanity plates. In those cases, the judges rightly found those particular efforts ran afoul of the First Amendment.
