By Eric Wang
Since the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, proponents of stricter campaign finance regulation have increasingly prescribed “disclosure” as an antidote to “dark money” in politics. Advocates of more extensive donor disclosure laws typically invoke Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’s famous maxim that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants,” but they seldom acknowledge the harm of excessive sunlight.
This paper urges a more critical and balanced look at the issue, especially concerning disclosure requirements for independent political speech (i.e., speech that is not coordinated with candidates). Of primary focus is the Court’s jurisprudence in this area, which is often invoked to support additional compulsory donor disclosure laws but lacks coherence, especially as it applies to independent speech. Even assuming that the Court’s jurisprudence in this area remains sound, many arguments being advanced for compulsory donor disclosure laws are untethered from the justifications the Court has articulated, rendering them especially susceptible to challenge in litigation. This paper concludes with recommendations on how, and how not, to enact disclosure laws.
Cato: Staring at the Sun: An Inquiry into Compulsory Campaign Finance Donor Disclosure Laws (In the News)
By Eric Wang
Analysis of Klobuchar-Warner-McCain Internet Ads Legislation (S. 1989, 115th Cong.): So-Called “Honest Ads Act” Is Dishonest About Its Effects
PDF of Legislative Brief available here Analysis of Klobuchar-Warner-McCain Internet Ads Legislation (S. 1989, 115th Cong.) So-Called “Honest Ads Act” Is Dishonest About Its Effects By Eric Wang, Senior Fellow Introduction and Executive Summary Americans’ First Amendment rights to free speech are foundational to our open society, our democratic discourse, and our way of life. […]
Filed Under: Blog, Disclosure, Disclosure Comments, Disclosure Federal, External Relations Comments and Testimony, Federal, Federal Comments and Testimony, Amy Klobuchar, Foreign Agents Registration Act, Foreign Influence, Honest Ads Act, Internet Speech Regulation, John McCain, Mark Warner, Russia, S. 1989
The Hill: Federal move to undo internet freedom would make US more like Russia, not less (In the News)
By Eric Wang
This week, three congressional committee hearings will probe Russian attempts to influence our election campaign last year on social media. S.1989, the recently introduced, so-called “Honest Ads Act,” likely will feature prominently. The bill is being sold “first and foremost [as addressing] an issue of national security.”
But unless Americans exercising their First Amendment rights is now “an issue of national security,” the bill and its sponsors are not being honest about its effects. With Americans bearing 99.99 percent of its regulatory impact, the “Honest Ads Act” is a sledgehammer for a problem better addressed with a scalpel.
According to the bill’s own legislative findings and its sponsors’ remarks, more than $1.4 billion was spent on online political advertising last year. Of that amount, some $100,000 (less than 0.01 percent) has been reported thus far as coming from Russian interests. But S.1989 fails at even a perfunctory attempt to target foreign interference. Instead, the bill would almost entirely regulate Americans.
By Eric Wang
China censors any agitators, foreign or domestic, on social media. Politically sensitive topics like Tibetan self-determination, the Tiananmen Square demonstrations, or resistance against the Communist Party are off-limits. Of course, the Great Firewall also completely blocks access to Facebook, Twitter, and thousands of other websites. Through these measures, Chinese citizens can rest assured that they are free from foreign interference…
Emulating China’s disregard for free speech may seem like mere satire for Americans. But is it? There is always risk for overstatement when resorting to “slippery slope” arguments. But recent calls to regulate online political speech by foreign interests directed at Americans seem to articulate no bounds. There is a real risk that a rush to regulate will threaten basic civil liberties…
Recent debates show the difficulty in blocking foreign nationals from speaking without also compromising Americans values. For example, consider immigration. Many of those publicly voicing support for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy have been undocumented immigrants. Some of the most vociferous opponents of the Trump administration’s “travel ban” have been citizens of affected countries. Could we prevent these foreign nationals from speaking to American voters about these issues during election season, and would that not end up stifling part of the debate?
By Bradley Smith and Eric Wang
This latest allegation of foreign interference with our elections inevitably will be used as fodder to support the newest iteration of the so-called “Disclose Act.” Over the summer, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) introduced a tweaked version of this perennial bill to include features he claimed would “head off foreign election interference.” Upon closer inspection, the legislation turns out to be an exercise in distraction rather than disclosure. The bill’s foreign spending provisions are poorly disguised ploys for clamping down on public debate and dissent…
Aside from its foreign national provisions, the latest Disclose Act also contains numerous purported disclosure requirements (hence its name). But those disclosure provisions are also ploys to shut down political speech. For example, the bill would require any corporation (even one that has no foreign owners at all) making a “campaign-related disbursement” to disclose all of its “beneficial owners,” a term which likely includes any shareholder…
Whitehouse’s latest Disclose Act also would expand the existing “electioneering communications” law to regulate ads that merely mention a congressional candidate or a member of Congress up for reelection beginning on the first day of an election year through Election Day.
PDF of Legislative Brief available here By Eric Wang, Senior Fellow Introduction and Executive Summary Ever since the Supreme Court issued its Citizens United ruling in 2010, opponents of the decision in Congress have been trying to counteract it with the “DISCLOSE Act” (“Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act”). Sen. […]
Filed Under: Blog, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Corporate Governance, Corporate Governance Comments, Corporate Governance Federal, Corporate Governance Press Release/In the News/Blog, Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure Federal, Disclosure Press Release/In the News/Blog, External Relations Comments and Testimony, Federal Comments and Testimony, Issues, DISCLOSE Act of 2017, Donor Privacy, Electioneering Communications, foreign nationals, Harassment, sheldon whitehouse
By Eric Wang
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra hit a low note recently during a press conference marking his first 100 days in office. Out of the blue, Becerra lashed out at nonprofit groups for “doing politics.” He threatened to investigate “these groups that are getting tax breaks [while] influencing our political system,” and claimed their donors were illegally taking charitable tax deductions. In his tirade, Becerra misstated the law. As California’s top law enforcement official, he should know better. Then again, his remarks continue his predecessor’s war against nonprofits’ First Amendment rights.
If Becerra’s claim that nonprofits are illegally participating in politics were true, that would mean he was the ringleader and beneficiary of a criminal enterprise during his 20 years in Congress. After all, his congressional campaign committee – which existed for the sole purpose of promoting his election and reelection – was a nonprofit organization under the tax code. If Attorney General Becerra wants to crack down on nonprofit groups engaging in politics, he should begin by prosecuting himself. Fortunately for Becerra, he’s wrong about the law.
By Eric Wang
Senate Bill 255 appears to require an “independent expenditure committee” to file ongoing campaign finance reports as a political “committee” – commonly known as “PAC.” The bill’s extreme ambiguity on this point is, in and of itself, a fatal flaw. What is clear is that the bill intends to publicly out the donors to such groups – even if their donations were completely unrelated to any political purpose. Names, addresses and employer information would have to be reported not only for donors, but also for a group’s employees and vendors.
“Not surprisingly,” the Post and Courier editorial noted approvingly, the state officials pushing this bill are ones whose legislative initiatives advocacy groups have opposed. We fail to see the virtue here. Yes, it is “not surprising” that certain public officials would lash out at citizen groups that do not fall in line with those officials’ agendas. But far from promoting ethics, a bill to intimidate those groups into silence is a recipe for more corruption.
Citizens who want to know donors’ identities are free to discount messages from groups that do not provide that information. Forcing disclosure, however, deprives citizens of the chance to hear from groups that would be silenced by bills like SB 255.
Analysis of South Carolina S. 255: An Unconstitutional Bill Seeking to Reshuffle the Titanic’s Deck Chairs – After the Ship Has Sunk Already
PDF of analysis available here By Eric Wang, Senior Fellow The Center for Competitive Politics (“CCP”) provides the following analysis of the bill designated as S. 255 to regulate certain “campaign practices,” which is currently pending before the South Carolina Senate Committee on the Judiciary. To invoke a metaphor that is overused, but one that […]
Filed Under: Blog, Disclosure, Disclosure Comments, Disclosure State, External Relations Comments and Testimony, State, State Comments and Testimony, Issue Advocacy, SCCFL, SCFRG, South Carolina Citizens for Life v. Krawcheck, South Carolinians for Responsible Government v. Krawcheck, South Carolina
By Eric Wang
For both policy and administrative reasons, most laws must set thresholds below which they do not apply. If every time someone acting below a regulated threshold prompts someone else to advocate lowering the threshold, the law’s scope will constantly expand until everything is regulated. This is both socially undesirable and practically untenable.
Indeed, we see this ill-advised trend in proposals to expand the federal and state lobbying laws, and many of which states have implemented. Last year the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics decided to regulate certain public relations consultants as lobbyists. After a wave of protest and litigation, brought in part by the Center for Competitive Politics on behalf of PR firms, the state legislature acted to reign in JCOPE’s overreach…
Many state and municipal lobbying laws and regulatory agencies also purport to impose no minimum threshold for lobbyist registration. In Missouri, the Center for Competitive Politics is representing Ronald Calzone, a concerned citizen who merely shared his views on proposed legislation with state legislators, against the Missouri Ethics Commission’s charges that he failed to register as a lobbyist.