October 31, 2024

In the News

Forbes: Super PAC Backing Ted Cruz Continues To Receive Revenue Payments From His Podcast Producer

By Zach Everson

.....“While we don’t know exactly what happened and the campaign’s assertion isn’t proof of anything, there would be no concern (from a campaign finance perspective) with individuals bringing pro-Cruz signs that they previously obtained or purchased to a campaign event, even if those signs were provided by a super PAC,” said Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at Campaign Legal Center, the group that raised initial concerns over Cruz’s podcast payments. But, he added, if the campaign was in fact distributing super PAC-produced signs at a campaign event, it could be problematic because it would almost certainly involve unlawful coordination between the two groups.

Campaign finance attorney Brett Kappel agreed. “If these were Cruz campaign events where volunteers held PAC-paid signs, it may indicate illegal coordination between the campaign and the super PAC,” Kappel said...

However, former FEC chair Bradley Smith downplays the issue, noting that campaign finance laws are meant to prevent campaigns from shifting costs to third parties. "There’s no concern if the campaign transmits or amplifies another group’s message," said Smith, who now chairs the Institute for Free Speech.

The Oklahoman: Federal judge says Ryan Walters, spokesman aren't entitled to jury trial in KFOR lawsuit

By Murray Evans

.....A federal judge said state schools Superintendent Ryan Walters and his spokesman, Dan Isett, are not entitled to a jury trial as part of a lawsuit filed against them by an Oklahoma City television station.

KFOR and three of its journalists sued Walters and Isett on Sept. 23 after the journalists were barred from the Oklahoma State Board of Education meeting room during meetings and from subsequent news conferences held by Walters

In the lawsuit, KFOR contended Walters and Isett have engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by arbitrarily deciding which media outlets can attend public events. The lawsuit seeks to prevent state officials from denying press access based on perceived legitimacy or viewpoint and to strike down any unwritten policies limiting media attendance.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Jones ruled against the request Tuesday...

Courtney Corbello, an attorney for the Institute for Free Speech – which is representing KFOR and its journalists – said the case shouldn’t be determined by a jury trial, because her clients weren’t seeking monetary damages beyond the symbolic amount requested.

“Our clients are interested in being allowed to access areas open to the press, which is something that a judge can order, but a jury cannot,” Corbello said. “We appreciate that Judge Jones agreed and issued a quick ruling, which allows us to continue to litigate the case in the coming months in the way the parties had initially agreed upon.”

The Courts

Wyoming Tribune Eagle: Wyoming federal judge sides with defendants in electioneering lawsuit

By Ivy Secrest

.....A federal judge has denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in a case that addresses two competing First Amendment rights — the right to vote free of undue influence and the right to free speech.

In July 2020, John Frank sued state and local officials, challenging Wyoming’s electioneering statute and the constitutionality of Wyoming’s no-electioneering buffer zones around polling places, with emphasis on the 100-foot absentee buffer zones around the Laramie County Governmental Complex.

Frank sued Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray, Laramie County District Attorney Sylvia Hackl and Laramie County Clerk Debra Lee in their official capacities, claiming that the current limitations on electioneering also limit free speech.

Frank wanted to distribute campaign literature within 100 yards of the entrance of his nearest polling place and within 100 feet of the county’s absentee polling place during both the August primary election and the November general election.

U.S. District Judge Kelly Rankin’s decision Tuesday upheld the restrictions in place that stop Frank from doing this type of electioneering, and will continue to do so unless the plaintiff decides to continue to pursue his legal options and eventually win his case.

Frank’s lawyer, Stephen Klein, argued earlier this month that polling locations often hold multiple purposes outside of voting, and to limit free speech within 100 feet of the absentee voting location for 28 days prior to the primary and general election is simply too limiting.

Additionally, he argued that the “overbreadth,” or broad terminology in the statute’s language, should be considered as further limiting free speech.

Congress

The Hill: Republicans subpoena Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue

By Juliann Ventura

.....Committee on House Administration Chair Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) on Wednesday issued a subpoena to ActBlue, a popular Democratic fundraising platform that has collected record donations for the Harris campaign.

The subpoena concerns the platform’s potential use to influence U.S. elections through illicit money laundering, according to a press release.

In the letter, Steil has asked the platform to comply by Nov. 6.

“We cannot allow foreign actors to influence our elections through campaign financing. The Committee’s investigation uncovered that foreign actors might be taking advantage of ActBlue’s inadequate security protocols,” Steil said in the release.

New York Post: Treasury finds hundreds of transactions linked to fundraising platform ActBlue flagged by banks: GOP memo

By Josh Christenson

.....The Treasury Department has found records of hundreds of transactions linked to Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue that have been flagged by banks as potentially suspicious, according to a congressional memo exclusively obtained by The Post.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer briefed his panel’s Republican members last week on the “potentially fraudulent and illicit financial activity” involving the political donations portal following briefings with Treasury Department staff.

“Although Treasury has not yet produced any records, it is currently reviewing hundreds of potentially responsive records,” Comer (R-Ky.) revealed in the Oct. 25 memo.

“Treasury revealed this is one of the largest records reviews it has conducted this Congress,” he added.

Those records could include evidence of money laundering, fraudulent or counterfeit use of credit or debit cards, wire transfer fraud, identity theft or other financial crimes flagged since Jan. 1, 2023, in Suspicious Activity Reports that financial institutions file with the federal government.

Comer told Oversight panel members that his staff was “working closely with Treasury to obtain the materials expeditiously.”

FEC

NextGov/FCW: Federal Election Commission’s Shana Broussard’s insights follow the agency’s recent decision surrounding generative AI in political ads.

By Alexandra Kelley

.....Ahead of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Commissioner Shana Broussard of the Federal Election Commission said that the rulemaking process related to artificial intelligence in political advertisements revealed the popularity of disclaimers.

Broussard’s comments follow the FEC’s decision released last month that reiterated existing regulations in the Federal Election Campaign Act expand to AI-generated content, following a petition from nonprofit group Public Citizen asking for an outright ban on using deepfakes in political ads. 

Although the FEC ultimately did not deliver a rule that outlawed using deepfakes, Broussard said during the GovAI Summit in Virginia on Tuesday that the “thousands” of public comments indicated that Americans want disclaimers on synthetic content. 

“I think that the greatest discovery that we made, at least, is that people are really looking forward to disclaimers,” she said. “Something that gives information, in fact, that this is an AI generated communication.”

Broussard added that the FEC has to continue to balance First Amendment rights to freedom of speech with ensuring that federal elections are conducted fairly in the age of AI. Although she noted the agency can’t require a disclaimer at this stage, Broussard said there is “promising” action in Congress on the legislative front. 

“From the standpoint of what the petitioners really want and what the public really wants, [it] is knowledge,” she said. 

The Media

Washington Post: The hard truth: Americans don’t trust the news media

By Jeff Bezos

.....In the annual public surveys about trust and reputation, journalists and the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress. But in this year’s Gallup poll, we have managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.

Let me give an analogy. Voting machines must meet two requirements. They must count the vote accurately, and people must believe they count the vote accurately. The second requirement is distinct from and just as important as the first.

Likewise with newspapers. We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion. It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility (and, therefore, decline in impact), but a victim mentality will not help. Complaining is not a strategy. We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility.

Free Expression

Cornell Daily Sun: Whose Foot?

By Michael Kotlikoff

.....Coming back to the question the student asked, no one has been referred for their speech, and free expression remains fully protected at Cornell. But we must understand the difference between protected speech and speech or actions that are designed to suppress the speech and rights of others. Recent Sun letters similarly appear to confuse this issue. Shouting or writing “f*ck you Boeing” is free speech and fully protected; preventing Boeing from discussing jobs with students is not. Calling someone a “kapo” is offensive, but protected speech; breaking through a police line is not. 

When I quickly tried to point out this distinction to my questioner, she responded that “Boeing kills babies.” That is not a free speech argument, but rather one that asserts a moral justification for violating the rights of others; that assumes the right to decide what activities other students may pursue, what conversations they may have and with whom they may have them. Whatever their argument, whatever the grounds on which they see their actions as justified, we need to be cleareyed about what those actions are: not the assertion of the right of free speech, but the presumption of the right to suppress the speech of others. Jefferson, the flawed individual, but great political theorist and proponent of free speech, asked when arguing against censorship and for religious freedom: “Whose foot is to be the measure against which ours are all to be cut or stretched?” Indeed, who gets to decide which university activities are acceptable and which are not? 

Online Speech Platforms

Washington Post (Tech Brief): Candidates flocked to TikTok in 2024, even as many weighed a ban

By Cristiano Lima-Strong

.....A likely record number of candidates for federal and state office are using TikTok to reach voters this election cycle, even after many pushed for legislation that could ban the app in the United States, according to a new report released Thursday and shared exclusively with the Tech Brief.

More than 250 candidates campaigning for congressional office or top state posts have accounts on the popular video-sharing app, making up 27 percent of all those running, the German Marshall Fund of the United States think tank found in its latest review of TikTok use on the election rail. The analysis looked at House, Senate, gubernatorial and secretary of state contests.

That’s a higher rate than during the 2022 midterm elections, when the group reported that 23 percent of candidates had set up accounts, and likely represents a high mark for U.S. elections given how the app’s usage by public officials and aspiring politicians has soared in recent years.

Researchers said the findings show that despite political leaders’ stated concerns about the app’s national security risks, they are still increasingly turning to the platform to try to amplify their message, particularly among young adults on TikTok.

Washington Post: Elon Musk says X users fight falsehoods. The falsehoods are winning.

By Will Oremus, Trisha Thadani and Jeremy B. Merrill

.....Musk has touted the crowdsourcing program, called Community Notes, as “the best source of truth on the internet.” But the majority of accurate fact checks proposed by users on political posts are never shown to the public, according to research from the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and a separate data analysis by The Washington Post — suggesting that the feature is failing to provide a meaningful check on misinformation.

The consequences are potentially profound. False posts on the service were recently blamed by federal officials for hindering hurricane relief. And X is poised to play a prominent role in the U.S. presidential election, a race in which Musk is a major backer of Republican nominee Donald Trump and spreading unfounded claims of voter fraud — most of which go unchallenged by his fact-checking program.

Independent Groups

New York Post: Mysterious super PAC with potential Dem ties props up third party to undercuts GOP in tough races: Republicans

By Ryan King

.....GOP operatives are deeply suspicious that a mysterious new super PAC is working to sabotage Republicans in tight House and Senate races by propping up Libertarian candidates.

The Save Western Culture PAC, which appears to be targeting the Maryland and Texas Senate races and at least a dozen equally close House contests, registered with the Federal Election Commission on Oct. 11.

Its late-stage FEC registration means that there is no public information available about its donors — and there very likely won’t be before the Nov. 5 election, further raising suspicions, including over whether it could be trying to siphon votes from GOP candidates. Details about its spending are also limited.

“Every election cycle, national Democrats set up dark-money groups designed to confuse voters and prop up third-party candidates who have no chance at winning,” said National Republican Senatorial Committee Communications Director Mike Berg to The Post.

“This seems to be more of the same, and voters should reject this disingenuous tactic.”

The Post attempted to call Save Western Culture PAC’s listed treasurer, Seth Martin, but the number on the FEC file was no longer in service. Additionally, The Post reached out to the group’s email address on file, which had the username “Libertyordeath2024,” but didn’t receive a response.

New York Times: In Election’s Final Days, Dark Money and ‘Gray Money’ Fund ‘Dirty Tricks’

By Theodore Schleifer and Kenneth P. Vogel

.....Gray money is particularly useful when partisan operatives and donors want to meddle on the other side of the aisle, as when supporting third-party candidates to siphon votes.

That appears to have been the case with a new super PAC called Badger Values, which was started by a Republican consultant in late September. As of Oct. 16, it had raised $0. But two days later, the super PAC somehow had at least $225,000 in its coffers to spend on what has now become a seven-figure campaign in Wisconsin primarily supporting Jill Stein, the Green Party’s presidential candidate whose support presumably draws from Ms. Harris.