This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].
|
|
In the News
By Kate Ackley
.....David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, which opposes the bill, said [the DISCLOSE Act] would chill lobbying efforts aimed at swaying lawmakers, not the outcome of elections, and that it amounts to elected officials seeking to mute criticism of themselves.
“This bill basically is trying to regulate grassroots lobbying,” he said. “They’re trying to put it under the banner that all of this is campaign-related speech, 365 days a year, for speech about legislation pending before Congress.”
Though some advocacy groups obviously fund independent expenditures aimed at influencing elections, such organizations also run ads and other messaging to convince lawmakers to take specific positions on legislation. A liberal group may fund ads urging Democrats to take specific positions on climate legislation, but don’t necessarily want those lawmakers to lose an election.
Keating also noted that the $10,000 threshold for disclosure was not indexed for inflation.
“They want to shut people up,” Keating said.
Advocates for the bill said they would continue to press for more disclosures, no matter what happens Thursday.
|
|
Congress
.....“The Democrats try to ram through political-takeover bills like this zombie ‘DISCLOSE Act’ once or twice every year.
“This legislation would give Democrats’ friends in the unelected bureaucracy even more power to police the political speech and activism of private citizens.
“Remember, donations to political action committees and electioneering nonprofits are already publicly disclosed. That’s already law. What Democrats want is a huge new step that would reduce private citizens’ privacy and chill Americans’ constitutional rights.
“The same Democrats who wouldn’t condemn angry mobs gathering outside the private family homes of federal judges now believe that vastly more information about private citizens’ political views should be made public.
“It’s no mystery how those things fit together.
“Even the liberal ACLU warned years ago that what the Democrats want to pull off, quote, ‘unconstitutionally infringes on freedom of speech and the right to associational privacy.’
“Instead of addressing the reasons why Americans are upset with Democrats, Democrats are trying to legislate our citizens into sitting down and shutting up.”
|
|
By Austin Denean
.....David Primo, a professor of political science and business administration at the University of Rochester, said his research and other studies have found [that the Citizens United ruling has had] limited impact on trust in government and policy outcomes.
“Citizens United created more opportunities for corporations, unions, and individuals to spend money on elections, in part by paving the way for the creation of so-called ‘super PACs,’” said Primo, who is also co-author of “Campaign Finance and American Democracy: What the Public Really Thinks and Why it Matters.” “Some studies have found evidence that Citizens United shifted election outcomes, but the effects have been nowhere near as dramatic as predicted by reformers.” ...
“Campaign finance reform is held up as a cure-all for what ails American politics, but distaste for politics runs far deeper than money. My coauthor and I have conducted studies of reform efforts dating back to the 1970s, and we find no evidence that stricter campaign finance laws have a meaningful impact on faith in government.”
|
|
.....Over the years, some Members of Congress have made sensational and wildly inaccurate statements about the so-called DISCLOSE Act, completely disregarding how the bill would harm the First Amendment rights of Americans by outing their support for nonprofit causes. Here’s the truth about this dishonest and reckless effort.
|
|
.....The Senate should reject this legislation because it would violate critically important First Amendment free speech protections. The DISCLOSE Act is designed to effectively exempt labor unions from its reach while chilling the political speech of the business community and others engaged in the political process. The DISCLOSE Act is blatantly political and ultimately unconstitutional legislation that detracts from much more significant efforts to solve challenges confronting America.
|
|
FEC
By C. Ryan Barber
.....But in a 3-2 vote, the bipartisan FEC's three Republican commissioners blocked an investigation, rejecting a recommendation from the agency's general counsel to "find reason to believe" that True the Vote and the Georgia GOP violated federal campaign finance law.
Their reasoning: True the Vote's activities were not for the "purpose of influencing an election" as defined by campaign finance law.
In a statement explaining their votes, two of the Republican commissioners said True the Vote made its services available to both political parties and would have undertaken its "voter integrity" efforts even without the meeting with the Georgia GOP.
|
|
Free Expression
.....We have another anti-free speech incident involving liberal protesters shutting down an event. Fox News pundit Tomi Lahren was cancelled at the University of New Mexico by students who refused to let others hear her remarks. There is, however, a major (and hopeful) difference in this incident: the school is actually pledging to hold the students accountable.
|
|
Online Speech Platforms
By Margaret Harding McGill
.....A new report out Monday from New York University faults Meta, TikTok, Twitter and YouTube for amplifying false claims about U.S. election fraud and urges the platforms to be more transparent and consistent in their content policies...
The study, from the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, zeroed in on practices by each platform that it says helped to spread lies about the 2020 presidential election, including:
|
|
By Christian Paz
.....Now, as the 2022 midterm elections pick up, researchers and academics tell me that the problem of false and misleading information in the Latino community is becoming more widespread — and that it’s getting harder to separate misinformation from standard political speech.
|
|
The States
By Peter Valencia
.....The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled to let an initiative appear on the November ballot that would provide greater transparency to Arizona voters, letting them know who is funding their campaigns.
The “Voter’s Right To Know Act” requires any group spending more than $50,000 on a statewide race or $25,000 on a local race to discuss who’s funding them. Arizona’s Family previously reported earlier this year that conservative groups failed in court to block the proposition from going to voters.
|
|
Read an article you think we would be interested in? Send it to Tiffany Donnelly at [email protected]. For email filters, the subject of this email will always begin with "Institute for Free Speech Media Update."
|
|
The Institute for Free Speech is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that promotes and defends the First Amendment rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government. Please support the Institute's mission by clicking here. For further information, visit www.ifs.org.
|
|
Follow the Institute for Free Speech |
|
|
|
|
|
|
