By Robert Romano

For Fiscal Year 2023, the U.S. House of Representatives has successfully passed appropriations bills that defund censorship for the Departments of Homeland Security, State and Defense that have been domestically targeting what the government calls misinformation, disinformation and malinformation (MDM). Another defund for the Justice Department in the Commerce, Science and Justice appropriations bill remains stalled in the House.

But all of the bills remain stalled as far as the U.S. Senate is concerned, with funding deadlines now looming for March 1 for the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Veterans Affairs, and March 8 for Commerce, Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, Labor, and State.

In the Defense appropriations bill that passed the House, in Sec. 8148 there is a defund of the censorship stating “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used to… classify or facilitate the classification of any communications by a United States person as mis-, dis-, or mal-information; or … partner with or fund nonprofit or other organizations that pressure or recommend private companies to censor lawful and constitutionally protected speech of United States persons, including recommending the censoring or removal of content on social media platforms.”

The 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, which easily passed Congress, explicitly included a strategy to combat MDM on social media in Sec. 1239A. The defund presumably would stop the targeting of Americans’ social media postings by the Department of Defense.

Similarly, in the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill that passed the House, in Sec. 7070(d) is another such defund stating “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated or expended to … classify or facilitate the classification of any communications by a United States person as misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation; or … partner with or fund nonprofit or other organizations that pressure or recommend private companies to censor, filter, or otherwise suppress lawful and constitutionally protected speech of United States persons, including recommending the censoring or removal of content on social media platforms.”

Another such defund is included in the Homeland Security appropriations bill that passed the House, in Sec. 540 that is a bit more specific that states “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available to establish or support the activities of … a Disinformation Governance Board at the Department of Homeland Security, or any other entity carrying out similar activities relating to mis-, dis-, or mal-information in a similar manner or to a similar extent to such a Board; or … any entity responsible, directly or indirectly, under color of countering mis-, dis-, or mal-information or otherwise, for instructing, influencing, directing, or recommending that private companies censor, prohibit, or obstruct lawful and constitutionally protected speech of United States persons on social media platforms, including by … terminating speakers' accounts; … temporarily suspending accounts; … imposing warnings or strikes against accounts to stop future speech; … ‘shadowbanning’ speakers; … demonetizing content or speakers; … adjusting algorithms to suppress or deemphasize speakers or messages; … deboosting speakers or content; … promoting or demoting content; … placing warning labels or explanatory notes on content; … suppressing content in other users’ feeds; … promoting negative comments on disfavored content; … requiring additional click-through(s) to access content; or … any other such methods.”

In 2018, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Act creating CISA passed unanimously as CISA spent years bragging on its website as the agency dmitted that it “rout[es] disinformation concerns” to “appropriate social media platforms”: “The [Mis, Dis, Malinformation] MDM team serves as a switchboard for routing disinformation concerns to appropriate social media platforms and law enforcement.”

It had been going on since at least 2018: “This activity began in 2018, supporting state and local election officials to mitigate disinformation about the time, place, and manner of voting.”

And it was expanded in 2020: “For the 2020 election, CISA expanded the breadth of reporting to include other state and local officials and more social media platforms.”

The agency was bragging about its “rapport” with Big Tech firms in censoring speech so they’re on the same page: “This activity leverages the rapport the MDM team has with the social media platforms to enable shared situational awareness.”

During the pandemic, CISA also targeted Covid “disinformation” too: “COVID-19…create[d] opportunities for adversaries to act maliciously. The MDM team supports…private sector partners’ COVID-19 response…via regular reporting and analysis of key pandemic-related MDM trends.”

The defund, if it could get through Congress, would stop it and make it illegal for the Department of Homeland Security to spend money targeting Americans’ communications as MDM.

And in the Commerce, Science, Justice appropriations bill still stuck in limbo in the House, in Sec. 597 is another defund that states “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made used to … classify or facilitate the classification of any communications by a United States person as misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation; or … partner with or fund nonprofit or other organizations that pressure or recommend private companies to censor lawful and constitutionally protected speech of United States persons, including recommending the censoring or removal of content on social media platforms.”

To get the defunds on censorship through Congress and onto President Joe Biden’s desk would require the Senate to pass the House’s bills that have already passed, or perhaps go to conference after passing their own versions, or else consolidated into a single spending bill as usually happens on an annual basis via an omnibus spending bill.

Whereas, another continuing resolution without any policy riders would negate all these efforts, and technically allow the censorship regime to continue by the Departments of Defense, State, Justice (including the FBI’s foreign influence task force) and Homeland Security (including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) that have been ongoing for years.

As Congress appears no closer to coming to an agreement on appropriations, barring either a breakthrough or perhaps a partial government shutdown necessitating more negotiations, another continuing resolution appears to be the most likely outcome, leaving the government censors well-funded.

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.

To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2024/02/congress-could-defund-censorship-if-it-could-just-pass-its-appropriations-bills/

 

John Fritze: This small, conservative law firm is landing big wins at the Supreme Court

By John Fritze

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday from the owners of a North Dakota truck stop who are challenging government-approved fees that banks charge every time a customer swipes a debit card to pay for gas or a candy bar.

Almost as significant as the argument itself is who will be representing the convenience store when the justices take their seats: a conservative and relatively new law firm that has been landing some of the biggest cases at the nation’s highest court in recent years.

Created a decade ago by two former law school classmates who gave up their jobs at larger practices, the lawyers at Consovoy McCarthy have argued 11 appeals at the Supreme Court in that time – including a landmark case last year that ended affirmative action in college admissions.

The firm has established itself among Supreme Court advocates at a time when the court has moved substantially to the right with a 6-3 conservative majority following the confirmation of former President Donald Trump’s three nominees: Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

Five of its current nine partners clerked for conservative Justice Clarence Thomas.

At issue Tuesday is a Federal Reserve rule adopted in 2011 that caps debit card fees for merchants at 21 cents per transaction plus a .05% fee on the value of the purchase. Several merchant groups sued in 2021, claiming the cap was too high and that the government set it arbitrarily in violation of federal administrative law.

Seeking the case’s dismissal, the government cited a six-year statute of limitations it said barred the lawsuit. In response, the plaintiffs added the truck stop, Corner Post, which didn’t open its doors until 2018.

Bryan Weir, in his debut appearance at the Supreme Court, will argue the clock starts on the statute of limitations when a plaintiff – in this case, the truck stop – is affected. The Biden administration will counter that the clock starts when the rule goes into effect.

Two lower federal courts sided with the government. The 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals noted that Corner Post  “waited more than three years to file this lawsuit.”

The firm has developed a reputation for putting newer lawyers before the justices, rather than always relying on veteran attorneys. Co-founder Thomas McCarthy said that “no-ego” approach is a part of the firm’s philosophy.

Weir, McCarthy said, is a “lawyer’s lawyer” and “a natural choice to do the argument.”

Last year, the firm represented two borrowers who challenged President Joe Biden’s $430 billion student loan relief program. Though the court ruled that the borrowers didn’t have standing to sue, the justices nevertheless struck the plan down in a related appeal filed by six conservative states.

The firm also represented Trump in several cases in which he sought to block outside entities from obtaining his tax returns, including Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee. The high court ultimately rejected those efforts.

But perhaps the most notable recent issue Consovoy McCarthy brought before the Supreme Court consisted of two appeals challenging the consideration of race in admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Supporters said the policies significantly improved diversity at the nation’s most selective campuses.

Longtime anti-affirmative action advocate Edward Blum hired Consovoy McCarthy to argue that they violated the equal protection clause included in the 14th Amendment.

In June, the Supreme Court’s conservatives voted together against its liberals to embrace that argument.

Blum told CNN that the Consovoy firm has “an oversized influence on our nation’s jurisprudence.”

In coming weeks, the firm’s lawyers are representing Idaho state lawmakers in a major case challenging the Biden administration’s effort to enforce guidance meant to protect abortion access in health-saving situations in states where abortion is banned. The firm also has an appeal pending at the Supreme Court challenging a so-called bias response team at Virginia Tech.

David Lat, a close watcher of the court who runs a blog called “Original Jurisdiction,” described the firm as a “a small law firm with huge influence.” That influence could grow considerably if Trump is elected to a second term in November.

“They have represented Trump in several important matters,” Lat said. “And if he’s elected to a second term, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some of its lawyers join his administration.”

To view online: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/20/politics/consovoy-mccarthy-supreme-court-wins/index.html