Congress
Washington Post: Democrats craft revised voting rights bill, seeking to keep hopes alive in the Senate
By Mike DeBonis
Senate Democrats are preparing to release a revised voting rights bill as soon as this week, hoping to keep the legislation alive a month after Republicans blocked the consideration of a previous, more sweeping proposal.
Several key senators huddled inside Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer’s office on Wednesday to hash out the details of the bill, which is expected to at least partially incorporate a framework assembled by Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), who expressed qualms about the previous bill, known as the For the People Act.
They emerged saying a new product could be released in a matter of days…
Manchin resisted some of the more far-reaching provisions in the [previous] bill and, before voting with other Democrats to start debate on the bill, released a three-page framework that scaled back some aspects of the legislation and floated some of his ideas…
Manchin left the meeting Wednesday and said he believed a new bill could be released in the coming days…
Others who attended the meeting included Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the For the People Act’s lead author, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), chairwoman of the Senate committee overseeing election issues…
None of the senators would discuss Wednesday which elements would be included and excluded from the revised bill, but one Democrat familiar with the talks said the bill will largely follow Manchin’s outline and is also likely to include language aimed at shoring up the Voting Rights Act of 1965…
[Ed. note: Nathan Maxwell of IFS recently wrote about the serious issues with Sen. Manchin’s proposal in the Daily Caller.]
New York Post: New bill would force White House to disclose Facebook censorship requests
By Steven Nelson
A new bill would force the White House to disclose its requests for Facebook and other social media companies to censor content it considers “misinformation.”
Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) on Wednesday introduced the Disclose Government Censorship Act to reveal the extent of censorship requests.
“The recent collusion that has come to light between the Biden Administration and Big Tech is not only disturbing, but inconsistent with the government’s constitutional role in American life,” Hagerty said in a statement…
Hagerty’s new bill would require executive-branch and legislative employees to disclose “any communication… with a provider or operator of an interactive computer service regarding action or potential action by the provider or operator to restrict access to or the availability of, bar or limit access to, or decrease the dissemination or visibility to users of, material posted by another information content provider.”
That would include discussion of censorship that’s done “manually or through use of an algorithm or other automated or semi-automated process.”…
Hagerty’s bill also would ban former government employees from moving directly into Big Tech jobs.
Donor Privacy
The Center Square: California attorney general agrees to follow U.S. Supreme Court ruling on donor privacy
By Bethany Blankley
After years of legal battles, the California Attorney General’s Office changed its policy that required nonprofits to share their donors’ information with the state. The policy reversal came after a landmark decision by the U. S. Supreme Court on July 1, which held that California’s requirement was unconstitutional…
The Attorney General’s Charities homepage now states, “Effective July 1, 2021, the Registry of Charitable Trusts will no longer require the filing of Schedule B to the IRS Form 990 as part of the registration and annual reporting requirements.”
Biden Administration
The Hill: Biden says Russia spreading misinformation ahead of 2022 elections
By Morgan Chalfant
President Biden said Tuesday that he has been briefed on Russian efforts to spread misinformation related to the 2022 midterm elections.
“Look what Russia is doing already about the 2022 elections and misinformation,” Biden said during a speech at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), referencing information he said was contained in his President’s Daily Brief. “It’s a pure violation of our sovereignty.”
Biden said the intelligence community needs to “take on the rampant disinformation that is making it harder and harder for people to assess the facts, be able to make decisions.”
Free Speech
SSRN: Political Conduct and the First Amendment
By Tabatha Abu El-Haj
The First Amendment’s primary constitutional role is to defend our nation’s commitment to the collective project of self-governance. Sadly, a singular preoccupation with speech in First Amendment jurisprudence has culminated in a construction of the amendment that operates to the detriment of democracy. Attached to a thin, discursive conception of self-governance that emphasizes political discussion over political participation, the Court fails to shield conduct that is vital to political accountability, responsiveness, and change—even when explicitly protected. But contemporary First Amendment doctrine does more to undermine democracy. It also undermines the capacity of legislatures to serve their most basic constitutional function—reaching provisional decisions on contested values. None of this is necessary. Properly construed and consistent with its classic liberal commitments, the First Amendment can do better to promote self-governance and to protect the democratic process. This Article explains how a more nuanced account of the First Amendment’s relationship to self-governance can get us there. The three main pillars of the new account are: protection for political conduct; recognition of a strong anti-entrenchment norm; and a better appreciation of the significance of drawing a distinction between the domain of governance and the domain of politics in First Amendment jurisprudence.
The Media
NPR: New NPR Ethics Policy: It’s OK For Journalists To Demonstrate (Sometimes)
By Kelly McBride
NPR rolled out a substantial update to its ethics policy earlier this month, expressly stating that journalists may participate in activities that advocate for “the freedom and dignity of human beings” on both social media and in real life.
The new policy eliminates the blanket prohibition from participating in “marches, rallies and public events,” as well as vague language that directed NPR journalists to avoid personally advocating for “controversial” or “polarizing” issues…
The carve-out is somewhat narrow. Protests organized with the purpose of demanding equal and fair treatment of people are now permitted, as long as the journalist asking is not covering the event. However, rallies organized to support a specific piece of legislation would be off-limits. Other events featuring a slate of political candidates from one party are also out of bounds…
The restrictions on supporting a political candidate or a piece of legislation still feel to [one NPR employee] like a shortsighted compromise. If NPR employees were to reveal who got their vote for president, she asked, “Is the problem that we are ideologically similar or that people know we are ideologically similar?”
Online Speech Platforms
Reason: Big Tech, Watchdog Groups, and Law Enforcement Join Forces To Purge Extremists
By Robby Soave
Two recent tech stories—both appearing in Reuters—should make civil libertarians wary for the future: Social media sites and tech companies are partnering with watchdog groups and law enforcement to share information about so-called extremists using their platforms.
PayPal, for instance, will work with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to identify hate groups that use the platform to raise funds. Recall that the company previously denied accused rioters facing charges relating to the January 6 Capitol attack the ability to solicit donations for their defenses: It would seem that PayPal’s plan is to facilitate even fewer of these transactions. This is potentially concerning since the ADL defines hateful content in the broadest possible terms.
Meanwhile, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other sites will be expanding their use of a centralized database that compiles extremist content for the purposes of coordinated de-platforming. At present, the sites collude to take down content that promotes Islamic terrorism—ISIS and the Taliban, for instance—but in the future, it could be deployed against right-wing extremism as well.
“As the database expands, the risks of mistaken takedown only increase,” said Emma Llanso, director of Free Expression at the Center for Democracy & Technology.
In both of these cases, information may eventually be shared with law enforcement.
The States
San Diego Union-Tribune: Calif. task force recommends public archive for digital campaign ads
By Jeff McDonald
A task force convened by the state agency in charge of enforcing the California Political Reform Act is recommending the creation of a digital archive to track online advertisements promoting candidates for state office.
In a report released this week by the Fair Political Practices Commission, task force members say a public database of digital ads would help voters, researchers, journalists and others keep better track of campaign spending by state office seekers.
” California voters should be able to easily find out who is responsible for each ad they receive and a state-run ad archive would provide this,” said Richard C. Miadich, the commission chairman…
The online archive would be the first of its kind among the 50 states, although similar programs already exist in cities like New York and Los Angeles, the task force report noted.
Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts Revised Rule 8.4(g), Without Seeking Public Comment, Over Dissent
By Josh Blackman
In December, Judge Kenney (EDPA) declared unconstitutional Pennsylvania’s version of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) in Greenberg v. Haggerty. The judge reiterated points that Eugene Volokh and I have been making for years: this rule may be well intentioned, but it violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
In January, the Pennsylvania Bar filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit. But in March, the Bar surrendered. It voluntarily dismissed the appeal. At the time, I speculated that “the Pennsylvania Bar will presumably try to draft a constitutional version of the rule.” And so they did.
On July 26, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court approved a revised version of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g).
The Court bypassed the usual public comment period.
