In the News
ABC News: California lawmakers consider new rules for political ads
By Andrew Oxford, Associated Press
California legislators are considering a proposal by Assemblyman Kevin Mullin that would require groups buying such “issue advocacy ads” about legislation to identify themselves and major funders in the same sort of disclaimers required in election campaign commercials…
Proponents say the measure would be the first in the U.S. to address what they see as a burgeoning issue in the world of influence peddling as interest groups seize on the anonymity afforded by the internet and social media advertising.
“I’ve never seen so many issue ads,” said Trent Lange, president and executive director of California Clean Money Campaign, which is sponsoring Mullin’s bill.
Critics argue the proposed law would discourage grassroots activism, particularly around hot-button issues…
The California Teachers Association and some other labor unions – big spenders in California politics – have opposed the bill, saying it would stifle advocacy.
David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech in Washington, D.C., argued that requiring a group to put the names of its top three funders on advertisements could discourage people from supporting campaigns involved in divisive issues.
That would mean fewer ads and awareness campaigns about legislation, he said.
“You’re going to get less speech, less information about what’s going on in Sacramento,” Keating argued.
Capital Research Center: The Etymology of “Dark Money”
By Michael E. Hartmann
Bradley A. Smith, a prominent defender of free political speech and a former FEC chairman who now chairs the Institute for Free Speech, observes that “dark money” is “merely a pejorative label for nonprofits-such as the NAACP, the Chamber of Commerce, and Planned Parenthood-that may not legally make campaign contributions, whose donors are private, and whose political speech is therefore both limited and independent from candidate campaigns.” …
If lack of disclosure is the critical factor in “dark money,” other methods of funding that are sometimes called “dark” do not deserve the loaded term. For example, contributions to political candidates or to conventional political-action committees are not “dark.” Both candidates and regular PACs, as Bradley Smith has noted, must publicly disclose all donors whose aggregate contributions exceed $200. Smith made that point in response to recent attacks on supposedly “dark money” made by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)…
If Smith is correct, if the term “dark money” has come to mean funds spent on speech or activities with which the user disagrees, then perhaps the term should be shelved. At a minimum, the public should insist that mainstream media use the term just as often to describe left-of-center donors’ giving as they do to describe giving by right-of-center donors. For as Hayden Ludwig of the Capital Research Center has documented, the Left has vast empires of “dark money” of its own.
Supreme Court
Federalist Society: Justice Kavanaugh, Technology, and the Future of Free Speech
By Ashley Baker
[O]nline speech was clearly on Kavanaugh’s mind in his opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc in United States Telecom Association v. FCC (2016). Writing that the government may not “regulate the editorial decisions of Facebook and Google,” or ‘impose forced-carriage or equal-access obligations on YouTube and Twitter, as he asks: “Can the Government really force Facebook and Google and all of those other entities to operate as common carriers? Can the Government really impose forced-carriage or equal-access obligations on YouTube and Twitter?”
Some may be surprised that Justice Kavanaugh, in writing the Court’s opinion in [Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck], missed an opportunity to address Internet platforms in dicta. Kavanaugh writes:
Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. After all, private property owners and private lessees often open their property for speech. Grocery stores put up community bulletin boards. Comedy clubs host open mic nights.
…
Explaining the “constitutional basis on which private ownership of property rests,” Justice Kavanaugh writes, “[t]he Constitution does not disable private property owners and private lessees from exercising editorial discretion over speech and speakers on their property.” He then drops a footnote:
A distinct question not raised here is the degree to which the First Amendment protects private entities such as Time Warner or MNN from government legislation or regulation requiring those private entities to open their property for speech by others.” (emphasis in original).
Congress
Washington Post: The Technology 202: Democrats slam record-setting FTC fine as a gift to Facebook
By Cat Zakrzewski
U.S. Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) today will send a letter to the FTC asking the agency to investigate how major tech companies curate content. The letter sets the stage for a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing focused on allegations that Google censors conservatives, hosted by Cruz tomorrow.
“Big tech companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter exercise enormous influence on speech,” Hawley and Cruz write in the letter. “They control the ads we see, the news we read, and the information we digest. And they actively censor some content and amplify other content based on algorithms and intentional decisions that are completely nontransparent.”
The senators are hoping the FTC can use its regulatory power to compel Facebook, Twitter and Google to divulge their moderation guidelines. Both Cruz and Hawley have accused social media companies of censoring conservatives, claims the White House elevated during a summit last week that brought together right-wing figures and lawmakers. Tech companies have consistently denied claims of bias against conservatives.
The new letter, in addition to recent actions by President Trump, indicate that Republicans may be ramping up attacks on alleged social media bias as the 2020 election nears.
“Companies that are this big and that have the potential to threaten democracy this much should not be allowed to curate content entirely without any transparency,” the senators write. “These companies can greatly influence democratic outcomes, yet they have no accountability to voters.”
Yahoo Finance: Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple will be under fire on Capitol Hill this week
By Jessica Smith
On Tuesday afternoon, Facebook, Amazon (AMZN), Google (GOOGL) and Apple (AAPL) representatives will go before House Judiciary’s antitrust subcommittee. This is the second hearing in the panel’s bipartisan big tech antitrust investigation.
Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) is leading the hearing, and has promised a “top-to-bottom review” of the big tech companies’ potentially anti-competitive behavior. He has also urged the FTC to investigate Facebook.
Experts from Yale and Columbia Universities are set to testify at the hearing as well…
The antitrust panel held a hearing looking at big tech’s impact on journalism last month. The companies’ chief executives will likely be called to testify at some point in the investigation…
A Senate Judiciary subcommittee is holding a hearing on Tuesday afternoon called “Google and Censorship through search engines.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) will lead the hearing. Cruz has consistently argued that tech companies censor conservative voices.
Cruz, the chairman of the subcommittee on the Constitution, held a censorship hearing with Facebook and Twitter (TWTR) in February – but at the time, the committee declined a witness from Google, because the company was not offering a senior enough official.
Karan Bhatia, Google’s vice president of public policy, is scheduled to testify on Tuesday…
A spokesperson for Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) told Yahoo Finance that the Senate Judiciary’s big tech task force will be “up and running” this week. The spokesperson would not elaborate on the task force’s plans, but said Blackburn would be leading it.
New York Times: Expansion of Secrecy Law for Intelligence Operatives Alarms Free Press Advocates
By Charlie Savage
The C.I.A. is quietly pushing Congress to significantly expand the scope of a law that makes it a crime to disclose the identities of undercover intelligence agents, raising alarms among advocates of press freedoms.
The agency has proposed extending a 1982 law, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime to identify covert officers who have served abroad in the past five years. Under the C.I.A.’s plan, the law would instead apply perpetually to people whose relationships with the intelligence community are classified – even if they live and operate exclusively on domestic soil.
Lawmakers have attached the C.I.A.’s proposed language to defense and intelligence bills moving through Congress. The provisions have sparked objections among press freedom and government transparency advocates…
The C.I.A.’s proposal “seriously expands the felony criminal penalties that could be used against journalists, against whistle-blowers and against public-interest organizations,” said Emily Manna, a policy analyst for Open the Government, a group promoting accountability. “It opens the door to a ton of abuses and secrecy to a much greater extent,” she said…
The C.I.A.’s push comes against the backdrop of a sharp increase in the prosecution of current and former officials accused of providing government secrets to the news media in recent years. It also comes against the unprecedented Justice Department decision in May to expand the criminal case against the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, to include Espionage Act charges for soliciting, obtaining and publishing classified information – including files that identified people in dangerous countries who had helped Americans.
Online Speech Platforms
Fox News: Google VP Karan Bhatia: Google isn’t politically biased and doesn’t censor conservative speech
By Karan Bhatia
A core part of our mission is our work to provide access to high-quality information for everyone.
Over the last few years, though, there have been accusations that tech companies like Google are censoring conservative speech by injecting political bias into our products. As the head of Google’s government affairs team, I’ll be testifying on this topic before a Senate subcommittee Tuesday afternoon where I’ll be clear: Google’s products are not politically biased.
Indeed, we go to extraordinary lengths to build our products and enforce our policies in such a way that political leanings are not taken into account…
Our users overwhelmingly trust us to deliver the most helpful and reliable information out there. Distorting results for political purposes would be antithetical to our mission and contrary to our business interests…
Every day, our search engine handles billions of searches of hundreds of billions of webpages. To manage this volume, we rely on an algorithmic approach and implement rigorous user testing and evaluation before we make any changes to our algorithms.
These algorithms don’t detect political perspectives, much less use them in any way to determine how webpages are ranked. Objective third-party studies – including, most recently, a comprehensive year-long assessment of Google News results by The Economist – have found no evidence of ideological bias in either direction…
Ultimately, the growth of the Internet has fostered an unprecedented era of speech and the free flow of ideas…
I believe that the Internet and products like Search and YouTube have created opportunities for the expression of diverse political views and a more dynamic political discourse in America – for the benefit of everyone.
Fundraising
Campaigns & Elections: Candidates Ignore Traditional Fundraising At Their Peril
By Nick Daggers & JR Patton
Some progressives believe that call time is a dark art, a time for candidates to schmooze long-distance with lobbyists and interests that rarely align with the core beliefs of most Democrats.
If you liked a tweet Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) recently sent boasting of not having dialed a single time “this year,” that’s likely your view.
The problem is that, in 2019, not everyone has a devoted base of supporters on platforms like Twitter who can chip in $5, $10, and $27 every time they’re attacked by right-wing media – or even leaders of their own party…
Democratic fundraising consultants and finance directors don’t make candidates do call time because we are sadistic slave-drivers, although some candidates might think that’s the case. We do it because it’s the most efficient and logical way to connect with donors coast to coast.
The fundraising market is as crowded as ever, with 25 Democrats running for president, a Senate majority that’s within reach, a new House majority to protect, and hundreds of new progressive candidates running for office all across the country…
Often, the only way a candidate will stand out to a donor is to call personally to introduce themselves, share their story and ask directly for support. Donors should get that personal outreach from candidates. Reaching out directly is the only way to truly resonate with many donors short of that viral moment every candidate covets.
Let us make a prediction: like it or not, dialing for dollars will remain the most important fundraising tool candidates for Congress can utilize in what will undoubtedly be the most expensive campaign cycle in history.
Mediaite: Mayor Pete Defends Big Fundraisers to David Axelrod: ‘How Else Can We Fund Campaigns?’
By Connor Mannion
2020 presidential contender Mayor Pete Buttigieg defended high-value fundraisers to CNN’s David Axelrod, saying “we are trying to reach everybody at every level.”
“You raised quite a bit of money, almost $25 million in a quarter which was phenomenal,” Axelrod said. “You’ve done 70 fundraisers in places like Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Wall Street. … Does it give you any concern?”
“We are trying to reach everybody at every level. In addition to the traditional political work we do we have a lot of grass roots fund raisers where tickets are very affordable,” Buttigieg said.
“Until we change our campaign finance system, we are going to continue to have this problem that the people we elect and expect to spend their time solving our policy problems are spending way too much time raising the dollars they need to in order to play the field,” Buttigieg explained.
“Including you?” Axelrod asked.
“Yeah, how else can we fund the campaigns?” Buttigieg responded.
Axelrod noted “you are playing the rules as they are written now and try and change them if you get the chance.”
“I can’t change them until we get the chance,” Buttigieg said.
DOJ
CNN: Prosecutors unlikely to charge Trump Org executives, sources say
By Erica Orden and Kara Scannell
A federal investigation into whether Trump Organization executives violated campaign-finance laws appears to be wrapping up without charges being filed, according to people familiar with the matter.
For months, federal prosecutors in New York have examined whether company officials broke the law, including in their effort to reimburse Michael Cohen for hush-money payments he made to women alleging affairs with his former boss, President Donald Trump.
In recent weeks, however, their investigation has quieted, the people familiar with the inquiry said, and prosecutors now don’t appear poised to charge any Trump Organization executives in the probe that stemmed from the case against Cohen…
There is no indication that the case has been formally closed, and former federal prosecutors cautioned that it is always possible that new information could revive the inquiry. The Manhattan US Attorney’s office continues to have at least one other ongoing Trump-connected investigation, a probe concerning the President’s inaugural committee.
Candidates and Campaigns
Washington Post: For Democratic presidential hopeful Steve Bullock, it’s all about the ‘dark money’
By Michelle Ye Hee Lee
To describe what he would do as president in 2021, Steve Bullock harks back to the Gilded Age of the late 1800s, when the wealthy copper mining barons of Montana wielded political influence across the state.
To rein in the copper kings, the state banned corporate spending in elections in 1912. “Served us well,” the Montana governor said wistfully to a crowd of Democratic caucusgoers gathered at a local bar here, “until Citizens United came down.”
For the next three minutes, Bullock ranted against the 2010 Supreme Court case that opened the door to the modern era of big-money politics, bemoaning the looming “threat of expenditures” by corporations and the influence of “dark money,” from county supervisor elections to his own race as governor.
If this feels arcane, well, it is. Yet, at the end of the three minutes, the Democratic activists gathered here applauded, as one voter yelled out: “Hear, hear.”
Money in politics is the signature campaign issue for Bullock, the 22nd to join the 25-candidate race for the Democratic presidential nomination. To Bullock, the most urgent issues on voters’ minds – income inequality, climate change, taxes, collective bargaining rights and more – stem from the lasting influence of moneyed interests.
The States
Associated Press: Capitol Watch: GOP decries Cuomo campaign finance pick
By David Klepper
In New York state government news, Republicans say Gov. Andrew Cuomo is playing politics with a board creating the rules for a new public campaign finance system.
State Republican Chairman Nick Langworthy says Cuomo’s appointment of Democratic Party Chairman Jay Jacobs shows Democrats are trying to hijack a commission that should be apolitical…
He said Jacobs’ appointment shows Democrats plan to hijack the task force and use it to craft rules that benefit their candidates at the expense of Republicans, who are wary of public financing as a waste of tax money. The task force should be apolitical, he said, instead of dominated by the same party that already controls the Senate, Assembly and all four statewide offices.
“This is like putting the hen in charge of the henhouse,” he told
Cuomo shrugged off Langworthy’s complaint, noting that the minority leaders in the Senate and Assembly got to appoint members to the task force as well, and were free to select anyone they wanted.
“They appointed who they wanted to appoint and I appointed who I wanted to appoint,” he said. “Their appointees have political relationships and knowledge and my appointees have political relationships and knowledge.”
Indeed, the two appointments from Republicans include a former chief counsel to the Senate Republicans and a top attorney at the state’s Board of Elections who had previously served as chief of staff to the Assembly Republican leader.
