In the News
Las Vegas Review-Journal: Democrats slam Trump over willingness to accept foreign info
By Debra J. Saunders
In 2017, Common Cause filed a complaint that charged the Trump Tower meeting constituted an illegal solicitation. “Federal campaign finance law defines “contribution” to include anything of value given for the purpose of influencing a federal election. And federal law prohibits any person from soliciting or receiving a contribution from a foreign national,” the good-government group argued.
But former FEC chairman Bradley Smith, now chairman of the Institute for Free Speech, told the Review-Journal, “I don’t think speaking to somebody can be a thing of value.”
Smith painted an alternate scenario – what if an American had damaging information about an attempted rape allegedly committed by a candidate for office. If such information had value in influencing an election, telling an opponent about the incident likely would violate campaign finance contribution caps.
“I didn’t know words, oral or written, were automatically contributions, either from a foreigner or an American. The law, so far, does not regulate conversations,” said Washington, D.C., election lawyer Jan Baran, who added he did not believe conversations can be a contribution unless they involve “commercially ascertainable valuable.”
Congress
Washington Post: Democrats to launch fresh push to counter foreign interference in elections
By Mike DeBonis and Ellen Nakashima
One bill introduced Wednesday by Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.)…. would require a campaign to file a “suspicious activity report” to federal law enforcement whenever a foreign government offers assistance…
“The Trump Tower meeting was a blatant offer of help from a foreign government,” Malinowski said in a recent interview. “In that situation, it doesn’t appear that there was anything illegal in accepting the meeting. But under this legislation they would have been obliged to report the offer because it is illegal for foreign governments to interfere in our election.” …
Federal campaign law bars contributions, defined as money or some “other thing of value,” from foreign nationals. But in the Trump campaign case, when a Russian lawyer offered “dirt” on Clinton in the form of emails, that was not enough to establish a violation, in part because the dirt was never provided, and even if it were, it could be difficult to establish its monetary value.
Among the changes Democrats are discussion is clarifying that a “thing of value” would include opposition research, polling or any other campaign-related material, regardless of its dollar value.
Robert Bauer, a New York University law professor and former White House counsel under President Obama, said he believes current law is “very clear” that any research would be covered, and that the Mueller report acknowledges that.
In his view, he added, the Trump Tower meeting violated federal election law barring campaigns from soliciting help from a foreign government. “So in the case where somebody says we have something to offer you and the campaign indicates it’s open to that, schedules a meeting, invites them to come to the United States for the meeting to see what they have to provide, I think it arguably absolutely constitutes a solicitation.”
The Hill: Senate GOP blocks bill to require campaigns report foreign election assistance
By Jordain Carney
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, tried to pass the Foreign Influence Reporting in Elections (FIRE) Act by unanimous consent.
“This legislation is pretty simple, even for this body, it would require any presidential campaign that receives offers of assistance from an agent of a foreign government, has an obligation to report that offer of assistance to law enforcement, specifically the FBI,” Warner said from the Senate floor.
Under Warner’s bill, campaign officials would have to report contacts with foreign nationals who are trying to make campaign donations or coordinate with the campaign to the Federal Election Commission, which would in turn notify the FBI.
Senate rules allow any one senator to ask for unanimous consent to pass a bill or approve a nomination. But any one senator can object and block the request.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) objected to Warner’s request, saying the reporting requirements within the legislation go “overboard.” …
Warner countered that Blackburn’s reading of his legislation was “not accurate.”
“The only thing that would have to be reported is if an agent of a foreign government or a foreign national offered something that was already prohibited,” he added…
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said senators would try again to pass the legislation.
Vox: House Democrats want to make accepting dirt on campaign opponents from foreign governments a crime
By Ella Nilsen
There’s also a separate bill to put new teeth into existing campaign finance law to enforce this. Here’s how that bill would work: It would include opposition research as a thing of value in the existing foreign contribution ban already in campaign finance law. The bill would essentially clarify existing law to say that opposition research or other negative information related to a campaign solicited from or donated by a foreign government does not need to have money attached to it to make a “thing of value.” It would still fall into the foreign contribution ban that’s part of current US campaign finance law.
This could have made a difference in a major part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Mueller ultimately did not charge Donald Trump Jr. and other Trump campaign officials for their infamous June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower with Russians promising “dirt” on Hillary Clinton precisely because he couldn’t determine if money changed hands, or the information had monetary value attached. If the law was updated, Mueller and others may be able to pursue charges for similar actions in the future.
FEC
Politico: ‘Let me make something 100% clear’: FEC chair lays down the law on foreign help
By Matthew Choi
The head of the Federal Election Commission released a statement on Thursday evening reiterating, emphatically, that foreign assistance is illegal in U.S. elections.
“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election,” wrote Ellen Weintraub, chairwoman of the FEC. “This is not a novel concept.”
She also sent the statement via Twitter with the introductory line: “I would not have thought that I needed to say this.”
Weintraub’s statement comes after President Donald Trump told ABC News that he would probably hear out opposition information offered by a foreign national if given the chance in 2020…
Trump’s comments garnered fierce backlash from Republicans, Democrats and former law enforcement officials, who disputed the president’s assertion that accepting opposition research from foreign sources is a common practice among members of Congress…
Trump told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos that hearing out foreign election information was not election interference, but rather “oppo research.”
Weintraub was clear in rebutting that characterization.
“Anyone who solicits or accepts foreign assistance risks being on the wrong end of a federal investigation,” she said in her statement. “Any political campaign that receives an offer of a prohibited donation from a foreign source should report that offer to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”
Online Speech Platforms
Pacific Legal Foundation: Government regulations for social media companies that censor political speech? No thanks
By Daniel Ortner
[D]o social media sites have a legal obligation to allow equal access to all viewpoints? Do they violate the First Amendment if they exclude controversial speakers from their platform? Should the government step in to take corrective action? The answer to all these questions is a resounding no…
The First Amendment actually protects the right of social media platforms to exclude speakers they disagree with or disapprove of for practically any reason or for no reason at all. After all, the First Amendment guarantees your right NOT to speak or to be forced to associate with speech you disagree with…
[T]he idea that the government can force a property owner to allow others free access to their property would be absurd in any other context.
Imagine a local church or business hosted a community carnival on their property. Should they be restricted from asking a belligerent drunk or protesters holding signs attacking them to leave the premises? Of course not…
Another common argument is that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are monopolies, and the government should either break them up or force them to offer open access to all. But anyone with a cobweb-collecting Myspace, Friendster, or Hi5 account knows the mistake of that argument. Social platforms are constantly rising and falling in prominence. Some are more popular than others, but none control the media market completely…
Others have argued that if Facebook or Twitter are allowed to exclude some offensive or controversial content, then these platforms should be held responsible for any other inappropriate material that does end up on the site. This argument may not violate the First Amendment, but it would break the internet as we know it. Sites like Facebook or Twitter would no longer be able to create a space for the free sharing of ideas without fearing multimillion-dollar defamation lawsuits.
The Federalist: Twitter Is Now Banning Conservatives For Investigative Journalism About Big Tech’s Abortion Activism
By Madeline Osburn
After investigative reporters at Project Veritas published information from a whistleblower in Pinterest headquarters, revealing the social media site’s bias against pro-lifers, Twitter joined in the censorship. On Wednesday, Twitter banned Project Veritas for violating its “rules against posting private information.”
In this case, the “private information” was screenshots of Pinterest’s internal communications and Slack messages, which showed one Pinterest employee calling Ben Shapiro a “white supremacist” and adding him to the “sensitive terms list.”
Project Veritas also discovered that the term “Christian” was removed from auto-fill search functions, and that for a time, users were not allowed to post any pins that linked to the pro-life Live Action website. An internal list showed that Live Action was on a banned list of porn sites, then banned entirely…
The layers of censorship here are overlapping. First, Pinterest censors content that offends their employees’ personal or political beliefs, despite what their users want to post or share according to their own personal or political beliefs. Second, Twitter then censors the investigative journalists exposing the Pinterest censorship. Then, YouTube removes content Project Veritas put up about the Pinterest and Twitter censorship. It’s a social media blackout.
Candidates and Campaigns
Roll Call: Trump’s comments blur line between ‘oppo research’ and stolen information
By Bridget Bowman and Emily Kopp
South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham deflected criticism of Trump by drawing an analogy to a lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016 helping to fund research on Trump by a British national, Christopher Steele…
But campaign finance experts said Graham’s argument ignores the difference between soliciting intelligence on an opponent from a foreign entity and hiring a foreign national in a standard commercial transaction to do campaign work.
“Opposition research is not illegal and can lead to important information voters may be interested in knowing,” said Erin Chlopak, a campaign finance expert with the Campaign Legal Center and former lawyer with the Federal Election Commission. “Depending on the nature of information, it may require ascertaining information from foreign countries. There’s a difference between a foreign country inserting itself into our elections and offering free services or contributions to influence our election, and commercial transactions.”
By Larry Noble
The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 52 U.S.C. §30121(a)(1), prohibits foreign nationals from “directly or indirectly” contributing “money or other thing of value” in connection with any US election. Another part of the law prohibits a person from “knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals.” If a person acts knowingly and willfully, meaning with general knowledge that their actions were unlawful, and the value of the contribution is $2,000 or more, it is a criminal violation. If the value is $25,000 or more, it is a felony.
When Trump Jr. replied he loved it to the offer of free Russian opposition research intended to help his father win the election, and then attended a meeting that included Kushner and Manafort to receive that information, he solicited an illegal contribution from a foreign government…
FEC regulations, 11 C.F.R. § 100.52(d)(l), define “anything of value” as including “the provision of any goods or services without charge,” and FEC Advisory Opinion 2007-22 held that a campaign would violate the foreign national prohibition if it accepted campaign materials without charge from a foreign national, even though “the value of these materials may be nominal or difficult to ascertain.”
Politico: Trump smashed months of FBI work to thwart election interference
By Darren Samuelsohn and Natasha Bertrand
Some linked Trump’s remarks to Mueller’s deliberation over whether his team could have charged anyone on the Trump campaign if they had obtained the promised hurtful information on Hillary Clinton from a Kremlin intermediate during a much-scrutinized Trump Tower meeting. Mueller’s report said he wasn’t sure the potential information had financial value, meaning it might not qualify as an illegal campaign contribution from a foreign entity. The report also raised questions about whether there was a free-speech right to receive the information.
“It’s turning the First Amendment into a suicide pact that allows our own government to be undermined,” said Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California Irvine’s law school, who called the special counsel’s findings “a green light for foreign intervention in the 2020 election, and that was affirmed by what Trump said to ABC.”
Trump Administration
Wall Street Journal: Trump Says He Would Alert FBI Over Foreign Information on Rivals
By Alex Leary
“If you don’t look at it, you won’t know it’s bad, but, of course, you give it to the FBI or report it to the attorney general or somebody like that,” Mr. Trump told Fox News in a 50-minute phone interview. He added: “You couldn’t have that happen with our country, everybody understands that, and I thought it was made clear.”
The comments came after Mr. Trump faced heavy fire from Democrats and some Republicans over remarks on the subject earlier in the week, in which he said he wouldn’t consider it wrong to look at information gathered by a foreign country about rivals and wouldn’t necessarily alert the FBI…
Separately, Mr. Trump said he wouldn’t fire top adviser Kellyanne Conway, dismissing concerns she made improper political statements in her official role.
“It looks to me like they’re trying to take away her right to free speech,” Mr. Trump said on Fox News.
Fundraising
Fortune: The Campaign Finance Power Behind Trump Impeachment Efforts
By Alisha Green
“The diversification of ways that candidates are getting money is going to give them the freedom to take stances that aren’t necessarily in line with the party line,” says Sarah Bryner, research director at CRP. “That has to do with the weakening of the parties overall and the sort of protectiveness of knowing that you can campaign with small donor donations and don’t need support from traditional PACs, which a lot of candidates have rejected anyway, or from party elite.”
The States
Oregonian: Judge strikes down Portland campaign finance limits
By Gordon R. Friedman
A Multnomah County judge struck down voter-approved campaign finance limits for Portland elections, stating the regulations violate the free expression guarantees of Oregon’s constitution.
The decision, issued Thursday by Judge Eric. J Bloch, mirrors one the judge issued in March 2018 that struck down limits for Multnomah County races. Both times, he did in part citing a 1997 Oregon Supreme Court decision.
Campaign finance reform advocates have said their fight is not over and suggested that appeals may be successful. They have pointed out that the Oregon Supreme Court of 1997 included some Republican justices whereas today’s court is comprised entirely of Democrats who may view the issue differently.
“The Oregon Supreme Court is already scheduled to reconsider that position, with briefs due this summer and oral argument at the court on November 1,” said Dan Meek, attorney representing campaign finance reform backers.
On Thursday Bloch upheld portions of the voter-approved campaign rules that require Portland political advertisements to prominently disclose their top five financial backers.
By Brent Johnson and Matt Arco
Murphy and advocates say there are “freedom of speech” issues with the bill that must be fixed because it would make it harder for smaller grassroots organizations to raise money.
“The Governor looks forward to signing the legislation while working with the Legislature to resolve outstanding issues by the end of the month,” spokeswoman Alyana Alfaro said Monday…
On Tuesday, a coalition of more than 40 progressive groups, labor unions, and faith leaders called on Murphy not to sign the bill until lawmakers agree to the cleanup.
The coalition said the current measure is “a direct attack” on the progressive community and will have a “chilling effect.”
New York Post: City Council hits up taxpayers to fund 2021 mayoral campaigns
By Rich Calder
Following weeks of behind-the-scenes arm twisting, council members overwhelmingly voted 41-6 with one abstention in favor of a recently tweaked bill by Councilman Ben Kallos (D-Manhattan) that retroactively changes the fundraising rules for campaigns already underway for the 2021 elections.
“Today’s bill ignores, at least in part, what the voters enacted seven months ago,” said Councilman Kalman Yeger (D-Brooklyn), who voted against the measure. “You don’t have to believe me, in the first two paragraphs of the bill, the word ‘repeal’ is there twice.”
He also said he doesn’t “know how” council members supporting the bill “can look homeless New Yorkers in the eye and tell them we can’t find them an affordable place to live” because there’s not enough money in the budget or claim they’ve done all they can to keep property taxes down.
Last November, voters approved changes to go into effect after the 2021 election cycle that will reduce the maximum legal donations to $2,000 while increasing the taxpayer “match” of small public donations to 8:1 for the first $250 of a contribution.
However, Kallos’ bill lets candidates opt into the new system now…
The November referendum called for increasing the maximum amount of public funds allowable in a candidate’s war chest from 55% to 75%.
Kallos’ bill actually increases the number to nearly 89 percent beginning in 2021 when the city elects its next mayor…
[Amy Loprest, executive director of the city’s Campaign Finance Board] said the board is also concerned about pouring more taxpayer money into noncompetitive races, a common scenario in many races featuring incumbents.
