March 8, 2024

Congress

FedScoop: Bipartisan bill would mandate disclosure of ‘substantial’ AI use in political ads

By Madison Alder

.....Political advertisements containing AI-generated images, audio or video would need to include a statement disclosing the use of that content under a new bipartisan Senate bill.

The bill, called the “AI Transparency in Elections Act” (S. 3875), is co-sponsored by Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and comes amid increasing concerns that artificial intelligence could be used to deceive voters... 

The legislation would require the Federal Election Commission to create criteria for determining when a “covered communication” contains content “substantially generated by” AI and develop what to include in the disclosure, according to bill text provided to FedScoop. The FEC would also be required to deal with violations promptly, per the release.

Daily Caller: Jim Jordan Tees Off At Hearing After Democrat Says There Are ‘Limits’ To Free Speech

By Nicole Silverio

.....Republican Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan got heated at Thursday’s hearing on the Weaponization of the Federal Government…

Democratic New York Rep. Dan Goldman argued the committee is “chilling the federal government” to “undermine” the severity of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

“We all agree with the First Amendment, but the problem is that the First Amendment is not absolute. It does not protect any single thing anyone says, and there are limits, and that’s important,” Goldman said. “And what this committee has been trying to do for the last year and a half is to chill the federal government for monitoring what is going on on social media and otherwise out there so that misinformation and disinformation can run rampant on Elon Musk’s social platform and every other social platform so that they, the Republicans, can benefit from it in the November election. That’s why this committee exists and we have gotten no evidence to support any of these allegations.”

Jordan pushed back against Goldman’s allegations of the committee trying to “chill the federal government.”

New York Post: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse backed laws to benefit wife’s company and their ‘financial interests’: ethics complaint

By Josh Christenson

.....Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a crusader for new ethics guidelines at the Supreme Court, was himself hit with an ethics complaint last month after backing two dozen pieces of legislation that have benefited his wife’s environmental consulting company.

The conservative government accountability group Judicial Watch asked the Senate Ethics Committee to “immediately investigate” Whitehouse (D-RI), alleging there was “strong evidence” he “violated ethics conflicts of interest rules,” according to a copy of the Feb. 21 complaint exclusively obtained by The Post...

The complaint further urged Ethics panel chairman Chris Coons (D-Del.) and ranking member James Lankford (R-Okla.) to subpoena relevant parties should an investigation be launched.

Donor Privacy

RealClearPolicy: Nonprofits See Threats to Privacy Ahead of 2024 Elections

By Matt Nese

.....In many states...the ability of nonprofits to speak freely about government policies and the actions of elected officials is under threat. Politicians from both parties aim to choke nonprofits in red tape while exposing the sensitive personal information of their supporters, such as their name and home address. These laws, often promoted as a means of exposing so-called “dark money,” are harmful to both personal privacy and free speech.

My organization, People United for Privacy, recently identified no fewer than 31 states presenting potential threats to nonprofit donor privacy in the 2024 legislative sessions. They include 14 states where Democrats control the legislature, 12 where Republicans are in control, and 5 where control is shared. The lesson: Long-held privacy rights are under attack in blue states, red states, and purple states.

People United for Privacy: Debunking the Misinformation Surrounding Two Recent Michigan Indictments Involving Nonprofits

By Eric Wang

.....Recently, two separate criminal indictments involving Michigan nonprofit organizations have spurred calls for state lawmakers to enact broad new reporting requirements for nonprofits. Unfortunately, the commentary surrounding these cases has been misinformed and, at times, nonsensical. Contrary to recent claims, enacting broad new reporting requirements for nonprofits on the basis of misinformation and nonsense would likely violate Supreme Court precedent, which strongly protects the rights of donors and nonprofits to associate privately. This course of action would simply exacerbate the harm that has already been done by the alleged bad actors.

James Madison Institute: Pr⁠i⁠vacy ⁠i⁠n Assoc⁠i⁠a⁠t⁠⁠i⁠on ⁠i⁠s ⁠t⁠he Free Speech Issue of Our T⁠i⁠me

By Heather Lauer

.....The IRS’s privacy problems are so severe that the agency took the rare step of relinquishing some power over Americans’ confidential nonprofit donation records in 2020. Agency officials admitted they did not use the donor lists collected annually from these groups and that safeguarding such sensitive information was an unnecessary burden. In response, a widely supported agency rulemaking dramatically reduced the number of nonprofits subjected to annual donor reporting.

Yet in legislatures across the country and in Congress, some politicians are pushing hard in the opposite direction. They want to expose Americans’ nonprofit donations in hopes of chilling support for groups that speak out about their agendas or voting records. Their efforts strike at the heart of one of the most important but least celebrated First Amendment rights in our democracy: freedom of association.

Free Expression

New York Times: Civil Discourse on Campus Is Put to the Test

By Pamela Paul

.....The same week that a U.C. Berkeley protest ended in violence, with doors broken, people allegedly injured, a guest lecture organized by Jewish students canceled and attendees evacuated by the police through an underground passageway, a group of academics gathered across the bay at Stanford to discuss restoring inclusive civil discourse on campus. The underlying question: In today’s heated political environment, is that even possible?

Over the course of two packed days of moderated and free discussion, we would try to test it out.

Candidates and Campaigns

AP News: Third-party group No Labels is expected to move forward with a 2024 campaign, AP sources say

By Thomas Beaumont and Steve Peoples

.....The third-party presidential movement No Labels is planning to move toward fielding a presidential candidate in the November election, even as high-profile contenders for the ticket have decided not to run, two people familiar with the matter said Wednesday.

After months of leaving open whether the group would offer a ticket, No Labels delegates are expected to vote Friday in favor of launching a presidential campaign for this fall’s election, according to the people familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the group’s internal deliberations.

The States

OPB: In landmark vote, Oregon lawmakers approve campaign finance limits

By Dirk VanderHart 

.....A bill to cap political giving in the state easily cleared the Oregon Senate on Thursday, in a landmark vote that could reshape how campaigns are run in the state.

With a 22-6 vote, senators sent House Bill 4024 on to Gov. Tina Kotek, who has indicated she will sign it.

Once fully implemented, the bill will limit how much individuals, businesses, labor groups and others can contribute to candidates. Those limits vary widely, depending on the entity writing the checks.

At its most basic level, the bill caps contributions from individuals at $3,300, on par with federal limits. Committees formed by labor unions and nonprofits created by business and advocacy groups would have far higher limits.

The proposal also would create a new system for forcing disclosure of “independent expenditures,” money that is spent in support of a candidate without the candidate’s knowledge or blessing. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled such spending amounts to free speech, and cannot be limited.

Oregon Capital Chronicle: Oregon is one signature away from ending unlimited campaign contributions

By Julia Shumway

.....Sen. Elizabeth Steiner, D-Portland, begrudgingly voted for the bill, saying she thought Oregon’s elections are already transparent and it’s easy to follow money in ORESTAR, the state’s campaign finance database. Steiner, who came under criticism for proposing an unsuccessful wildfire funding proposal that would have saved the timber industry millions of dollars after she accepted $24,000 in campaign contributions from the industry, also bristled at suggestions from some people who provided testimony that campaign contributions could sway lawmakers. 

“I frankly resent the implication that I can be bought and paid for or that any of you can be bought and paid for,” Steiner said.

She warned that implementing a new system would mean the Legislature has to send more funding to the Secretary of State’s office. 

 “I’ll vote for this bill because it beats the heck out of the alternatives, but I don’t think Oregonians are getting what they think they’re getting,” she said. 

Cleveland.com: Case’s First Amendment Clinic joins fight over anonymous Yahoo comments critical of Cleveland-Cliffs

By Cory Shaffer

.....A law school clinic devoted to protecting the First Amendment will represent the anonymous online critic of Cleveland-Cliffs that the company is seeking to unmask.

The commenter hired Case Western Reserve University Law School Professor Andrew Geronimo and the school’s First Amendment Law Clinic to oppose the company’s attempt. It is urging a judge to order Yahoo to turn over the personal information identifying the owner of an account that has posted hundreds of comments critical of Cleveland-Cliffs and CEO Lourenco Goncalves on stock watching message boards.