This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].
|
|
Supreme Court
By Adam Liptak
.....The Supreme Court asked the Biden administration on Monday for its views on whether the Constitution allows Florida and Texas to prevent large social media companies from removing posts based on the views they express.
The practical effect of the move was to put off a decision on whether to hear two major First Amendment challenges to the states’ laws for at least several months. If the court ends up granting review, as seems likely, it will hear arguments no earlier than October and will probably not issue a decision until next year.
|
|
Independent Groups
By Craig Holman and Lisa Gilbert
.....Worse yet, it turns out that much of this outside electioneering spending is not “independent” of candidates and party committees at all. Through surrogates, candidates and parties are now playing a very active role in setting up and directing outside electioneering groups. Roughly half of the wealthiest “super PACs” spend all of their money supporting a single candidate or party, setting the stage for wealthy donors to endear themselves with lawmakers.
A recent example of the apparent control many lawmakers have over “their” super PACs is Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) negotiations to become Speaker of the House.
|
|
Candidates and Campaigns
By Amanda Ripley
.....In early October, Tami Pyfer, a former Special Ed teacher, high-level Republican appointee and member of the Tabernacle Choir, logged onto Facebook, Twitter and Instagram and posted a carefully crafted announcement.
“Are you frustrated by the hate and negativity in our country’s political and public discourse?” the post asked. “You’re not alone.” A new tool called the Dignity Index was now on the case. It was designed to score politicians’ rhetoric on an eight-point scale based on how dignified or contemptuous it was. Voters would find the scores on the Dignity Index’s website, or, more likely, through media coverage, much like they might come across candidates’ NRA or Planned Parenthood scorecards.
|
|
Online Speech Platforms
By Naomi Nix
.....Nearly a year after Russian forces invaded Ukraine, Facebook parent company Meta is tweaking its content moderation strategy over the bloody conflict.
The most recent change removed the Azov Regiment, a Ukrainian far-right military group, from the social media giant’s list of dangerous individuals and organizations. That change will allow members of the Azov Regiment to create accounts on Facebook and Instagram and post content without fear of it being removed unless it breaks the company’s content rules. The move will also enable other users to explicitly praise and support the group’s work.
The shift in policy follows months of scrutiny over how the social media giant is drawing the line between supporting free expression about the war and mitigating rhetoric that could lead to dangerous or violent consequences offline.
|
|
International
By María Luisa Paúl
.....The political row embroiling the British Columbia village of Pouce Coupe had been baking for months. At the center: six cinnamon rolls that a candidate alleged had been used to butter up voters during the tight mayoral race in October.
|
|
The States
By Maya Shimizu Harris
.....Amid worries about “dark money” and unclear financial influences on Wyoming’s elections, a bill that would clamp down on some federal political action committee activities in the state is advancing through the Wyoming Legislature...
[Senate File 40] would specify that federal PACs are only exempt from the state’s election reporting requirements if they are exclusively making contributions or expenditures for federal candidates or federal issues.
It passed unanimously through the Senate Corporations Committee and has succeeded on two readings in the full Senate. But it still has to go through several more votes before becoming law.
The proposed legislation comes amid concern about outside influences on Wyoming’s elections and desire for more transparency around where money is coming from.
In light of these concerns, the committee also moved along a resolution requesting U.S. Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would “allow the public identification” of sources of political contributions or expenditures in campaigns. The amendment would also “limit or prohibit corporations and other entities that are not natural persons” from making campaign contributions.
|
|
By Dan Haar
.....It takes a lot these days to bring the two political parties together on a hot issue. How about a governor and his challenger spending $38.5 million of their own money in an election?
Yeah, that did the trick. This week, following an eye-popping pair of campaign finance reports, the top Republican in the state House and the top Democrat in the state Senate both submitted bills calling for sharp increases in public money that would go to candidates for governor.
Their goal: Give folks who aren’t multimillionaires a chance to live in a Georgian mansion in Hartford and direct a staff of 50,000 workers for four years.
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
