In the News
Morning Consult: Lawmakers See Need to Enhance Transparency of Online Political Ads
By Edward Graham
Bradley Smith, a former Republican FEC chairman and the current chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, cautioned against a rush to impose new disclosure requirements that might limit First Amendment rights before understanding the extend of foreign involvement in the presidential election.
Smith added that current federal law already requires disclaimers for paid ads supporting or opposing candidates, including those online – although he said there are exemptions for smaller campaign items, like bumper stickers and small internet ads like Google search advertisements.
“I think we need to be careful about what the response should be, making changes that we can make that are effective,” Smith said in a Wednesday phone interview. “But we should realize that, if this is really a case of the Russian government involved, this is something in which the FEC and campaign finance disclosures have a really small role to play. It’s really something for counterintelligence operations or the Department of Justice.”
An FEC spokesperson would not comment on Klobuchar and Warner’s legislative efforts, but pointed to the commission’s vote at its Sept. 14 open meeting to reopen the comment period on proposed rulemaking on internet disclaimers for an additional 30 days.
CCP
By Joe Albanese
On Wednesday, the Brookings Institution hosted an event entitled “Democracy at risk: Solving critical problems threatening U.S. elections.” It was billed as a discussion about the “challenges” of the opened “floodgates to Super PAC and secret money in U.S. elections.” Besides the panel, Brookings also distributed a list of specific policy objectives from Democracy 21, an organization that advocates for greater restrictions on political speech. The proposals included taxpayer-funding of political campaigns, “shut[ting] down” super PACs that support individual candidates, and creating a new campaign finance enforcement agency to replace the Federal Election Commission…
One audience member asked how government could regulate the flow of money in politics when money is so necessary for campaigns to function. The two sitting lawmakers on the panel, Udall and Price, agreed with the premise that money is “obviously” important for congressional candidates and that politics “requires” money to engage with an ever-increasing population of voters…
Asking the government to regulate in that area is tantamount to asking “who should government allow to speak, and how much speech should be allowed?” That question should elicit strong skepticism from those who cherish the First Amendment.
By Alex Baiocco
On a serious note, is any of this a problem or a threat to democracy? The short answer is no. It’s simply another example of organized political advocacy occurring in a free, democratic society. What is a problem is the number of conspiratorial articles written about run-of-the-mill advocacy efforts. When other Americans attempt to do what Kimmel did, but under their right to free speech rather than free press, somehow they’re labeled a threat to democracy in the media and elsewhere. But whether you host a late-night TV show or not, you should be able to work with allies, spend money, and speak your mind about the policy issues of the day.
An even bigger problem is that activism and policy proposals based on such a conspiratorial view are a legitimate threat to the First Amendment rights of every American who chooses to join with like-minded citizens to speak about political affairs.
Efforts to paint nonprofits that engage in issue advocacy as dangerous, shadowy groups undermining democracy are unacceptable. And various proposals to strip corporations of all First Amendment rights are not only absurd, but would also, for example, remove any constitutional barrier to the Trump administration preventing ABC from airing Kimmel’s politically charged monologues.
Free Speech
Reason: When the Government Declared War on the First Amendment
By Damon Root
One hundred years ago, the U.S. government declared war on the First Amendment.
It all started with President Woodrow Wilson. On April 2, 1917, Wilson urged the nation into battle against Germany in order to “make the world safe for democracy.” But the president also set his sights on certain enemies located much closer to home. “Millions of men and women of German birth and native sympathy…live among us,” Wilson observed. “If there should be disloyalty, it will be dealt with with a firm hand of repression.”
That firm hand came in the form of the Espionage Act, which Congress passed in June 1917 and Wilson eagerly signed into law. Among other things, the act made it illegal to “convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies.” That sweeping language effectively criminalized most forms of anti-war speech. If convicted of obstructing the war effort, the guilty party faced up to $10,000 in fines and up to 20 years in prison.
With that law in place, Wilson’s threats of repression soon became reality.
National Review: This Culture War Isn’t about the Flag; It’s about Conscience
By David French
This week, a high official, the president of the United States, has repeatedly called for the punishment of American citizens for exercising the very right guaranteed by Barnette – the right to refuse to salute the flag. Or, more precisely, the right to modify their salute to the flag. Oddly enough, many members of the Right endorse this move. . . Virtually all of these folks are outraged when private corporations and private universities enforce rules on speech that systematically disadvantage and silence conservatives…
Here’s the bottom line. If you’re participating in or justifying conduct you’d despise if the partisan roles were reversed, if you’re changing your views because “the people” have spoken and rejected an “elitist” embrace of individual liberty, or if you are not confident enough in your own views to embrace and defend a marketplace of ideas, then we’re just not on the same side. I’m not your culture warrior, and though we may have great respect for each other and agree on many things, on this issue I’m your opponent. I want you to lose. I want the president to stop demanding that private corporations punish speech he doesn’t like. If football players – or any American – stand for the flag and the anthem, I want them to do so because of their love for this nation, its people, and its ideals, not because they fear the consequences of dissent.
The Hill: Colleges, the First Amendment isn’t protection from offensive speech
By Pearce Godwin
Former President Bill Clinton recently said, “One of the things that’s wrong with America today, that bothers me more than anything else about our future, is that we have separated ourselves into like-minded communities… we don’t want to be around very many people who disagree with us… The most important thing is to be humble, to listen, to realize everybody’s got a story.”…
With the Listen First movement to restore civil discourse, we inspire hope and behavior change – encouraging conversation towards increased respect and understanding across differences. I believe in the power of Listen First to restore relationships, build bridges and mend the frayed fabric of society. But it will take every generation, in every phase of life. College students are not excused. That’s why we’re rolling out Listen First chapters on campuses across America. Today’s students are establishing patterns that will dictate behavior for the rest of their lives and thus the future of American society and discourse.
In a country founded on free speech and free expression, we are not safe from challenging and troubling ideas, nor should we be. It’s when competing ideas are heard and civilly debated that the best solutions win. Let’s all take a major step forward together – listen first.
By Conor Gaffey
As well as immigrants to the United States, the new requirement would also affect permanent residents and naturalized citizens. By extension, it would also impact anyone who communicates with immigrants via social media, as their conversations could be reviewed by immigration officials.
“This would undoubtedly have a chilling effect on the free speech that’s expressed every day on social media,” said Faiz Shakir, national political director at the American Civil Liberties Union…
The notice in the Federal Register proposes expanding the categories of information that the DHS can collect about immigrants to include “social media handles, aliases, associated identifiable information, and search results.” The requirement also proposes scouring “publicly available information from the internet, public records, public institutions, interviewees, commercial data providers, and information obtained and disclosed pursuant to information sharing agreements.”…
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has said that the bill would “threaten the digital privacy and free speech of innocent foreign travelers” and would likely focus on visitors coming from majority-Muslim countries.
Supreme Court
Reason: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case Against Compulsory Public-Sector Union Fees
By Damon Root
The case is Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31. At issue is whether it is constitutional for state governments to compel public-sector workers to pay union fees as a condition of employment even when those workers are not union members.
The case was brought by Mark Janus, a state employee in Illinois who objects to paying mandatory fees to a union that he has refused to join. Janus argues that the state’s scheme violates his First Amendment rights by forcing him to support political speech and activity that he does not wish to support.
Janus’s overarching goal is to overturn the Supreme Court’s 1977 precedent in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, in which the Court approved mandatory public-sector union fees on the grounds that non-union “free riders” should have to contribute something toward collective bargaining activities that benefit them too. That ruling provided a massive boon to public-sector unions nationwide.
Independent Groups
Quartz: Facebook isn’t consulting the experts to fight Russian election meddling on its platform
By Heather Timmons
There’s a crop of experts in Washington, DC with decades of experience in running campaigns and writing legislation, who are trying to keep America’s elections free and fair.
They can be found at Democracy 21, founded by veteran campaign-finance lawyer Fred Wertheimer; at the government transparency group Sunlight Foundation; at Issue One, which aims to keep outside groups from hijacking elections; in the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign donations; and the at the Campaign Legal Center, which hopes to give regular Americans more of a voice in elections. Outside the capital, New York University’s Brennan Center looks at voting rights and elections.
As Facebook grapples with how Russia may have used its platform to influence the US election, however, it hasn’t reached out to a single one of these organizations, representatives from the groups told Quartz this week…
Zuckerberg’s changes don’t address several crucial questions. Among them are how public the information about who is buying political ads will be, how the company will identify the real buyers of ads when an intermediary is used to buy them, and what it will disclose about how much Facebook profits from the ads.
Bloomberg View: Political Reformers Have a New Asset: Trump
By Albert R. Hunt
Political reformers in Washington appreciate three realities: Patience is a necessity, incumbent politicians don’t like change, and, if the opportunity strikes, you’d better be ready (unlike the Republicans on health care this year).
Those will be the messages of a major effort launched on Wednesday morning at the Brookings Institution. The focus will be on campaign-finance reforms, including full disclosure of political contributions…
[R]eformers like Norm Eisen, the board chair of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, see the president as an unwitting asset.”Trump is the most unethical president we’ve had in the modern era,” charges Eisen, who was the White House ethics counsel under President Barack Obama. “But the damage he has done to the values of good government may make it easier to rally bipartisan support for reform.”…
On campaign finance, there will be two main objectives. One is to push for full disclosure of political donations. The Supreme Court has ruled this is constitutional, though Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is a formidable foe of transparency. There will also be a push for federal matching funds for small contributions, perhaps $5 for every private dollar, to help serve as an alternative to the political donations of the wealthy.
Candidates and Campaigns
BuzzFeed News: Neither Money Nor Trump Worked In Alabama
By Henry J. Gomez
Moore beat Luther Strange, the interim Alabama senator favored by Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and other DC insiders, in Tuesday’s closely watched GOP primary runoff. McConnell and his allies together put more than $15 million on the race, based on reports filed with the Federal Election Commission…
Strange’s own campaign spent $4.7 million and received additional help from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Rifle Association and a pro-Trump nonprofit America First Policies.
By comparison, Moore’s campaign and allied groups spent only $2.3 million. Although a number of grassroots conservative and pro-Trump groups backed Moore, they didn’t actually spend that much on him, pitching in a few thousand each…
Moore’s win – despite being outspent significantly – could push other anti-establishment candidates to mount campaigns against well-funded incumbents, forcing some major donors to be more careful about where they put their money.
Trump Administration
ABC News: Special counsel probing flow of Russian-American money to Trump political funds
By Brian Ross and Matthew Mosk
Three Americans with significant Russian business connections contributed almost $2 million to political funds controlled by Donald Trump, ABC News has learned.
The timing of contributions coming from US citizens with ties to Russia is now being questioned by investigators for special counsel Robert Mueller, according to a Republican campaign aide interviewed by Mueller’s team.
Unless the contributions were directed by a foreigner, they would be legal, but could still be of interest to investigators examining allegations of Russian influence in the 2016 campaign, said Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
“Obviously, if there were those that had associations with the Kremlin that were contributing, that would be of keen concern,” Schiff told ABC News.
New York Times: Sessions Calls for ‘Recommitment’ to Free Speech on Campus, Diving Into Debate
By Rebecca R. Ruiz
Attorney General Jeff Sessions dived into the debate over free speech on college campuses on Tuesday, inserting the Justice Department into a little-known lawsuit against a Georgia college…
“A national recommitment to free speech on campus and to ensuring First Amendment rights is long overdue,” Mr. Sessions said, addressing an audience that included students wearing tape over their mouths in protest of the Trump administration. “Protesters are now routinely shutting down speeches and debates across the country in an effort to silence voices that insufficiently conform with their views.”…
But in weighing in on the Georgia lawsuit and in vowing to voice support in similar cases in coming weeks, Mr. Sessions drew on so-called statements of interest, a technique used aggressively by the Obama administration to push the boundaries of civil rights laws. They are a legal tool, historically reserved for matters of national security and diplomacy, used to interject the federal government in private disputes.
The States
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Business group challenging Missouri campaign finance rules
By Kurt Erickson
Missouri’s new campaign finance rules are again being challenged, this time by the state’s largest business organization.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry is seeking to overturn a ruling by state campaign finance regulators that bars companies from contributing cash to their own political action committees.
The chamber argues a recent advisory opinion issued by the Missouri Ethics Commission allows businesses to donate money to other PACs, but not their own.
“This new direction taken by the Missouri Ethics Commission creates a confusing, contradictory situation for businesses. It makes no sense for the State of Missouri to allow businesses to establish political action committees and then turn around and forbid them from placing funds in those committees,” said Daniel Mehan, Missouri Chamber president and CEO…
“Amendment 2 imposes major new restrictions on campaign contributions, which severely burden political speech and association in Missouri and directly impact the First Amendment rights of the Plaintiff,” the lawsuit notes.
Ventura County Star: Brown’s legacy hinges on signing Disclose Act
By Tom Elias
[T]he one bill with the most potential to improve this state’s politics is the long-sought “California Disclose Act,” which, if Gov. Jerry Brown signs it before an Oct. 15 deadline, could do more than any modern measure to clean up California’s money-dominated initiative process.
This bill “will fundamentally change how campaign financing is disclosed,” said its latest sponsor, Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, the No. 2-ranking Democrat in the Legislature’s lower house.
It just might do that. Assembly Bill 249 requires ads for ballot propositions and independent expenditure ads for and against candidates to identify their top three funders, with no one able to hide behind phony names like “Californians for Purity” or anything of that sort.
The idea is to identify people and organizations actually trying to exert influence, possibly causing some to downsize their contributions if they don’t want to be exposed as leading donors.
