Respect For Free Speech Dwindles Under The Left’s Assault

Last week's op-ed by RNLA Vice President for Election Education David Warrington on efforts by Democrats on the FEC to regulate political speech on the Internet provoked an odd, though perhaps predictable, response on Twitter, ending with former FEC Commissioner Ann Ravel tweeting that the "point of the article" was to generate death threats against her.  This week in the Daily Caller, RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen responded:

No, former Commissioner Ravel, it is not. The purpose of the editorial was to oppose Commissioner Weintraub’s veiled attempt to retrench the free speech rights of American citizens on the Internet, regulations such as your proposal to establish a national database of the names of all Americans who post political opinions on the Internet and to regulate even free posts, and your calls—even as late as this morning—to “rethink all the exemptions for the internet.”

Mr. Thielen then described how former Commissioner Ravel's response was a classic avoidance technique used by the left to avoid engaging in a policy debate on the issues that they will lose:

But liberals like Ravel apparently prefer not to defend the substance of past votes or the effects of current proposals but instead dismiss our opinion as just another extremist threat.  It’s certainly a more convenient tact. It is much easier to dismiss a contrary opinion than to debate it on the merits.  But resorting to that old liberal meme that conservative speech can be so easily dismissed as extremism or invitation to violence does a disservice to the American people whose free speech rights are at stake.

After repudiating the use of violence, shouting down speakers, threats, and other inappropriate responses to speech that a person disagrees with, Mr. Thielen pointed out how liberals' favorite tactics to intimidate and regulate threaten free speech rights of all Americans:

Ravel and her allies on the left are trying to promote their worldview by limiting speech through intimidation (dismissing all criticism as a threat) and regulation.  Regulation—the favorite tool of liberals for every issue—suppresses speech in subtle and not so subtle ways. 

Regulations, especially vague ones, make speech cost more.  Consider the complex web of campaign finance laws that organizations wishing to speak on political issues and candidates have to navigate simply to express their views: disclaimer requirements, registration and reporting requirements, disclosure rules, and so on.  Consider how Democrats are constantly trying to raise the price of speaking through even more regulation, such as through the DISCLOSE Act reintroduced in Congress every year.  Consider how campus groups such as the Berkeley College Republicans have had to retain counsel and file lawsuits simply to invite conservative speakers to campus on the same basis as liberal speakers, due to campus speech regulations.  Fortunately, there are many civic-minded attorneys, such as RNLA Board of Governors member Harmeet Dhillon, to represent these individuals and organizations at greatly discounted or pro bono rates.

Mr. Thielen also discusses how there is a very important policy debate -- the regulation of political speech on the Internet -- underlying this, and liberals' tactics only distract from the debate and the threat to citizens' free speech rights.

Liberals' Russia Narrative Crumbles as They Rush to Regulate Online Speech

The narrative of Russian interference with the 2016 election that has been one of liberals' favorite tools to attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Trump Presidency continues to crumble.  

Last week, we noted how the Department of Homeland Security had finally notified 21 states where they had evidence of Russian activity regarding their election systems.  Except now California and Wisconsin have been told that this was not actually true, and the election hacking narrative, which started with the Obama DHS, may collapse even further.

Now, Facebook has delivered ads purchased by Russians to Congress and issued some FAQs about them, including these revealing facts (emphasis added):

• An estimated 10 million people in the US saw the ads. We were able to approximate the number of unique people (“reach”) who saw at least one of these ads, with our best modeling [RNLA note: The number of registered voters during the 2016 election was over 157 million and the total citizens of voting age was over 224 million.] 

• 44% of total ad impressions (number of times ads were displayed) were before the US election on November 8, 2016; 56% were after the election. 

• Roughly 25% of the ads were never shown to anyone. That’s because advertising auctions are designed so that ads reach people based on relevance, and certain ads may not reach anyone as a result. 

• For 50% of the ads, less than $3 was spent; for 99% of the ads, less than $1,000 was spent.

But, before their narrative completely crumbles, liberals are rushing to use it as an excuse to regulate online speech, which has long been a goal of campaign finance "reformers" such as former FEC Commissioner Ann Ravel, who advocated overturning the FEC's longstanding exemption of internet activity from certain regulations to apply the regulations to conservative YouTube videos ex post.  Liberal outlet Quartz recently demonstrated how the "reform" community is using the Russian Facebook ads as a pretext to argue for government control of speech by American citizens on the internet (while non-ironically lamenting that Facebook had failed to reach out to any "experts" in the "reform" community as it amended its ad policies).  And Democratic Senators Amy Klobuchar and Mark Warner are expected to introduce legislation to regulate political advertising online soon (more on that here once it is introduced).

FEC Commissioner Lee Goodman's TechFreedom podcast on these issues, that we highlighted on Monday, summarizes the serious constitutional dangers with the liberals' rush to regulate and what factors should be considered in a more measured approach that respects Americans' important political speech rights on the internet.

Ravel Misunderstood FEC's Role and Attacked GOP Commissioners on Exit

Former FEC Commissioner Ann Ravel left the FEC last week in a storm of her usual rhetoric about the FEC's dysfunction and the woes of entities spending money to engage in political speech.  But as RNLA member Paul Jossey points out, she never understood the role of the FEC:

She misunderstood both her and the commission’s role. And when she couldn’t mold the FEC into a federal version of the state agency she previously headed, she lashed out in ways that did little but aid her self-promotion and increase tension. . . .  

In Washington, Ravel tried to remake the FEC into . . . [a] bureaucrat-dominated colossal that overreached, bullied, and pursued “social goals” in the name of democratic integrity. . . . Congress created the FEC shortly after Watergate with six commissioners and barred more than three commissioners from one political party. It rightly worried about partisan control over an agency that would regulate political campaigns.  Without the FEC’s even format, partisan agendas can run wild. . . .  

But Ravel bitterly complained the format enabled intransigent Republican commissioners to cause gridlock. She cited statistics showing increasing ties on enforcement matters. Republicans slice the numbers differently. Regardless, tie votes aren’t nefarious attempts to skirt the agency’s mission. They represent the agency working as planned where actions must be taken on a bipartisan basis. . . .  

Ravel’s complaint about colleagues “thwarting” and “obstructing” the law to produce these ties is especially rich. She blatantly ignored the FEC’s own internet-speech regulations because she didn’t like them. . . . The commission’s lack of control irks Ravel who sees cyberspace as one more place the government can lord over. Bloggers in California became YouTube videos at the FEC.

RNLA member Steve Klein also wrote about Ravel's speech on leaving the agency, in which she attacked her Republican colleagues and continued to misrepresent statements by former FEC Commissioner and current White House Counsel Don McGahn:

Ravel, a Democratic appointee, comes off a tumultuous time at the FEC, a tumult for which she takes no responsibility. In her opening remarks this afternoon, Ravel argued that the ethical duties of attorneys were one reason the Republican commissioners—with whom she quit honestly engaging only “about a week” after arriving at the FEC—were obligated to agree with her about campaign finance law and enforcement. 

More ominously, she charged these commissioners did not “uphold the highest professional and ethical values” as attorneys, claiming Republican commissioners cited cases or law in their arguments that “don’t exist” or stood for propositions different than those claimed. “They don’t cite the part that’s actually applicable to the matter,” she fumed. Not offering a single example of this, Ravel instead moved on to state [a selective quote from then-Commissioner McGahn, misrepresenting his correct position].

Unfortunately, we have not heard the last from former Commissioner Ravel, but at least she no longer has the power to vote to regulate political speech based on her policy ideals instead of on campaign finance law and FEC policy.  We can hope that the next Democrat FEC commissioner better understands the role of the agency in enforcing existing law and his or her role as a commissioner in working with, and not attacking, his or her colleagues.

Partisanship and Hypocrisy on Free Speech by FEC Democrats Should Concern Citizens

RNLA Vice President for Communications Ron Hicks wrote about the dangers of partisanship and hypocrisy regarding free speech from the Democrats at the FEC:

In the name of democracy and equal speech, campaign finance “reformers” demand broad power for the FEC to regulate the political speech of average citizens, organizations, and corporations, requiring disclosure, repeated filings, and compliance with complicated regulations (that not even the FEC understands), while asserting freedom and anonymity rights for their own political speech. This hypocrisy has been demonstrated numerous times in recent months. . . .  

Part of this desire to investigate and regulate political speech on the Internet is to defeat anonymity through requiring registration and disclosure with the FEC. This would be especially hypocritical if Center for Public Integrity’s supposition is true and former Commissioner Ravel is involved with the altFEC account. . . . 

Strong partisanship on the part of FEC Democrats shakes the public’s confidence that the FEC will apply the law equally without regard to partisan or policy goals. And when the “reform” community within and without the FEC applies different standards for speech and anonymity to themselves and others, it not only further de-legitimizes the agency but also reveals the “reform” movement’s goal: to silence speakers that disagree with them through actual or threatened government regulation.

In the end, the question is whether Americans should be concerned about the strong partisanship of this FEC’s Democrats. In my opinion, the answer should be “yes,” because the reformers’ right to speak in the name of democracy should not be greater than the right of those in the democracy who disagree with them.  

Last week, we covered this partisanship and hypocrisy in detail, as Ron does in his op-ed:

Left Reveals View of FEC as Tool to Oppose Republicans 

FEC Commissioner Weintraub: Using FEC Resources to Engage in Partisan Activity 

FEC Commissioner Weintraub: Hypocrite on Speech Seeks Control Over All Aspects of Federal Elections

We hope that the Democrat FEC commissioners, including whomever is selected to replace former Commissioner Ann Ravel, will reduce their strident partisanship and apply consistent standards to restore public confidence in the FEC's ability to interpret and apply the law fairly. 

Left Reveals View of FEC as Tool to Oppose Republicans

Over the long weekend, Democrat FEC Commissioner Ann Ravel resigned from the FEC.  We've catalogued Commissioner Ravel's partisanship, passion for regulating internet speech, questioning of citizens' loyalty based on their employer, charges of dysfunction aimed at Republican commissioners following the law, inconsistent application of the law, and many other questionable statements and actions during her tenure at the FEC.  

Of course, in her letter of resignation to President Trump and a 24-page exit report on "Dysfunction and Deadlock," she repeated the same trite campaign finance "reform" rhetoric perpetuated by the left despite being disproved by recent history:

Ravel’s resignation letter is filled with the same sort of tired Democratic rhetoric on campaign finance, demanding the overturning of Citizens United, pushing for expanded public (i.e., taxpayer) financing of political campaigns, and decrying the evils of “dark money.”  

Yet President Trump showed the complete intellectual bankruptcy of the campaign-finance “reform” movement in his stunning presidential-election victory. According to the FEC’s own data, among large donors ($2,000+), Hillary Clinton out-raised Trump $175 million to $27 million, a ratio of 6.5 to 1. Despite this, and the almost unanimous support she enjoyed from our media and cultural elites, Clinton couldn’t defeat Trump. Furthermore, Bernie Sanders, an eccentric and aging socialist with no establishment backing, came close to beating Hillary in the Democratic primary despite being outspent among those same $2,000+ donors by a ratio of more than 50 to 1. . . . 

The 2016 election was, for anyone who had eyes to see it, the most dramatic repudiation possible of the false notion that big donors determine the fate of our candidates or our politics. Given such facts, Ravel’s cri de coeur is more unintentional comedy than serious political analysis. But the media refuse to report it that way because to do so would be to repudiate their Democratic party allies, while casting a favorable light on the candidacy of Donald Trump, whom they loathe.​ 

But to keep the anti-Trump "reformers" from being too distraught about Ravel's departure, Ravel and her allies at the FEC have the strongly partisan, "resistance" altFEC Twitter feed, which, according to Ravel's friends at the Center for Public Integrity, "offers decidedly Ravel-esque, and often anti-Trump, critiques of the agency."  Recent tweets have been illuminating and have confirmed what many in the conservative community have long known and feared: that Democrats see "effective" speech regulation as a tool to oppose and hurt Republicans.

Even with the exit of Commissioner Ravel, no Republican or conservative speaker, especially those who must wade through the bureaucratic nightmare of an FEC complaint, can trust the FEC to act impartially while Democratic commissioners and "reform"-minded FEC staff sponsor explicitly anti-Republican messages and use campaign finance regulation as a tool to disadvantage Republicans.  Look for a post tomorrow on Ann Ravel's friend and ally at the FEC, Commissioner Ellen Weintraub.

FEC Commissioner Ann Ravel on Disloyal Americans – A Gilda Radner Moment

People over the age of 40 probably recall Gilda Radner’s character Miss Emily Litella on SNL.  She would harangue and spout off about a misperceived problem until her mistaken premise was corrected at which point she would abruptly squeal, “Never mind.”  She once editorialized against the harm to children due to violins on television, until corrected that the issue was violence on television.  Never mind.

Well, Ann Ravel had a Gilda Radner moment last week at the FEC.  She harangued against the right of American citizens to associate in PACs sponsored by their employers if those employers are U.S. companies owned by foreign companies.  Chrysler and Ben & Jerry’s are two examples.  She argued that American citizens who work for U.S. companies owned by foreign companies are loyal first and foremost to foreign interests and cannot be trusted to associate and make contributions through employer-sponsored PACs.  Based upon this rationale, she moved the Commission to reverse a 2006 advisory opinion acknowledging the First Amendment right of American citizens to so associate.

Ravel’s proposal presumed that American citizens who work for Chrysler or Ben & Jerry’s are inherently disloyal Americans.  When confronted with this mistaken premise, she at first doubled down, but 55 minutes later, after it sunk in, she changed her mind.  Changing her tune, she said that perhaps she had not portrayed her concern correctly, that perhaps American citizens who work for Chrysler could be trusted, and the FEC simply needed greater assurances that Chrysler employees were indeed exercising America-first loyalties.  It ended with a “never mind” moment.

Ravel for weeks had demagogued a false premise.  And she completely missed that the advisory opinion she assailed, along with a dozen or more that preceded it and post-dated it, indeed set forth an elaborate set of guardrails to ensure that Americans associating in corporate-sponsored PACs make their political decisions free from foreign national participation or influence.  But here she was engaged in a thoughtless effort to completely jettison four decades of careful thinking on those appropriate guardrails as well as the First Amendment rights of American citizens. 

We doubt this was well-considered by a commissioner more interested in grabbing headlines than understanding the meaning or consequences, or constitutionality, of her regulatory actions.  At least public debate by Republican commissioners corrected her misconception.        

Excerpts from the September 15 FEC Meeting

RAVEL:

It's about the corporate sponsored PAC and there's no question that they as Americans or citizens with foreigners with green cards or all of the others, can participate in the political process. And that's what we want. It's the question of whether or not they can be influenced as Commissioner Weintraub talked about but also there is some evidence. There is a recent study put out and I believe one of the authors is from the University of Arizona. I can provide it to you offline where say said they found that political giving and political activity by employees is very influenced by CEOs of corporations. So there is evidence of that. And then just if you look at corporate structure as I referred to before. The subsidiaries, the employees they are all working for the corporation. The fact that they're a subsidiary. It's not an entity unto it. They are loyal to and must do what is in the best interest or perceived best interest by the CEOs of that corporation. That's the difficulty that we have in formulating some kind of a rule here honestly and why we have to look at what we have set forth in the AO as being incomplete because it doesn't actually address that problem.

GOODMAN

I take it, so that's why I said you're questioning their loyalty and whether their loyalty is an American interest or it's to Fiat in Italy.

RAVEL

I think their loyalty is to the corporation. Through the senior leadership, the CEO and the senior leadership which happens to be a different foreign corporation. That's the rule of corporate law. That is. I'm not saying anything about loyalty per se of a particular employee.

55 Minutes Later

PETERSEN

If we have totally different ideas of what a foreign national is, if we believe that, by that, you mean not from a foreign national, that no foreign national is involved in the decision and that any monies were from, you know, domestically-generated revenue, if that's what we're thinking, but you're thinking that if anything were to come from a corporation that has foreign shareholders or a significant number of foreign shareholders, then even that becomes a difficult hill to climb. So, what I'm saying is that I don't want to foreclose the possibility of us trying to find some common ground, because I think that our interests in enforcing the ban are there, but I think that there may need to be a little bit more discussion or legwork to figure out, are there some first principles that we can start from that would allow a potential compromise to be reached.

RAVEL

I think you do, and maybe I portrayed that in a way that made you think that, but what I was saying was in the AO, in the [TransCanada] AO, those constraints were insufficient…. They were insufficient to ensure that there really isn't foreign influence, and that's the concern. I mean, if we were to devise some scheme that comes up, for an SSF that comes up in the course of the rule-making where we would get information from people and be able to consider ways to have that clear assurance, despite the corporate structure, that we could put in, and I don't know that certification would be the thing that I would feel comfortable with necessarily, but some way that would enable us to even enforce that rule, I think what we have now, we don't have the capability of enforcing the prohibition on foreign nationals.

PETERSEN

Okay, because the concern I had had about the earlier comments was the statement that one cannot help, even if someone who's an American citizen and who's on the board of directors and is in charge of making decisions for, um, a domestic subsidiaries pack or independent expenditure effort, if the notion is that they can't help but be influenced by the fact that I've met the foreign nationals who own this organization, and therefore, just the way in which the corporation is organized, you can't help but be influenced by that foreign source, that's what I thought was being said earlier, in which case that would have seemed to exclude all domestic subsidiaries.

RAVEL

That was not my intention.

That was Ann Ravel’s Gilda Radner moment.  Never mind!  All that demagoguery for months about rescinding one advisory opinion that permitted an American company (owned by a foreign company) to sponsor a PAC for its American employees because the employees would be loyal first and foremost to the foreign owner in an instant disappeared with a simple “That was not my intention” after all.  Perhaps Ravel should think through her proposals before she moves to abandon decades of law.  The term half-baked comes to mind.  Surely somebody thought of the problems with her proposal years ago.  But thoughtfulness has never constrained Ravel, who has been more eager to grab superficial headlines than understand the law, consequences, or constitutionality of her regulatory actions.    

Commissioner Weintraub had her moment of backtracking too.  In March she published an op/ed inthe New York Times setting forth an all-new legal rule prohibiting all publicly-traded U.S. corporations from exercising their First Amendment right to make independent expenditures or contribute to PACs that do.  She threatened all U.S. corporations and their attorneys with findings of legal violations, and she reiterated her threats at the beginning of the FEC’s meeting.  But when challenged with the correctness of her op/ed, she backtracked:  “What I wrote in the New York Times was intentionally provocative. It was intended to stimulate discussion and I hope that it has but I am not saying today that that is the only thing that I would consider or is there aren't many other ideas that I think would be well worth entertaining….”

So much for the credibility of two Democrat Commissioners.  They change their tunes to say whatever it takes in the moment to advance their ulterior motive – reverse the decision their agency lost in Citizens United v. FEC and take away corporate free speech rights in America.  Democrats clearly view the FEC not just as a First Amendment free zone but a credibility free zone.  

FEC Democrats Vote in Favor of Regulating the Internet...Again

We recently discussed how the three Democrats on the FEC voted to ignore the settled exemption from campaign finance regulations granted to internet communications in the complaint against Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America:

Democratic Federal Election Commissioner Ann Ravel moved this week to deny a conservative nonprofit group legal protections that exempt most online political communications from federal political spending limits and disclosure laws. 

Experts say the move is an attempt to undermine the “internet exemption,” as the provision is known, without going through normal legislative and regulatory processes. In effect, they say, Ravel was denying legal protections to the group simply because she disagrees that those protections should exist.  

The FEC Democrats voted against applying the internet exemption in yet another complaint regarding internet videos:

The commission also split 3-3 in a recent case that asked if the Internet exemption also exempts a webcast of a discussion with political candidates that provides a link to contribute to candidates. The Republicans said it was exempt; the Democrats disagreed.  

Goodman, a Republican, said the decisions are likely to have a chilling effect on free speech. 

“Political speakers who are careful about what they do, and who are advised by lawyers, may be chilled from communicating on the Internet, in the light of a 3-3 divide on the commission,” he said. “There is definitely a chilling effect.”

As the FEC is currently constituted, the three Republican commissioners protect against the Democrat commissioners ignoring the law to regulate speech on the internet, but there are proposals to change the composition of the FEC:

Goodman said while the 3-3 split on the commission stalls any Internet regulatory push, he warned that if legislation in Congress passes to make the body a five-person body, it could give the Democrats the majority they need. 

“If the commission were to be reconstituted, I believe we’re looking at full-blown regulation of political speech on the Internet,” he warned.

We thank Chairman Petersen and Commissioners Goodman and Hunter for standing up for the rule of law and protecting free speech on the internet.

FEC Democrats Continue to Ignore the First Amendment

Three Democrat Commissioners are continuing their relentless effort to regulate and impede free speech on the Internet.  Despite the existence of a clear set of regulations adopted unanimously by the Commission in 2006, the three Democrat Commissioners have voted as a bloc twice in the past weeks to countermand the clear regulations.  This is further proof that Democrat Commissioners enforce only the laws they like on any given day, depending on the regulatory outcome they desire, and with respect to the respondents they prefer (or don't prefer).  

In the first vote, three Democrat Commissioners ignored a clear law that exempts Internet communications from regulation as public communications and in-kind contributions.  In 2006, the Commission decided, as a matter of policy, to let citizens speak freely on the Internet without worrying about the federal government treating their low-cost communications as in-kind contributions to candidates.  The law couldn't be clearer on this point.  But last month Commissioner-for-Life Ellen Weintraub, Commissioner I-Don't-Apply-The-First-Amendment Ann Ravel, and "Independent" Commissioner Steven Walther voted to countermand clear law.  They voted to treat a webcast as an in-kind contribution to a candidate.  The relevant Statement of three Republican Commissioners can be found here.  

Double Standard FEC Democrats

Following up on our post of Tuesday, a month ago, yet another organization, Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America, posted videos on YouTube.  The three Democrat Commissioners voted against applying the Internet exemption to dismiss the case.  This is the second time in two years the Commission split 3-3 over YouTube videos posted for free.  The Republican Commissioners' Statement on the case can be found here.   

Both times, Commissioner I-Don't-Apply-The-First-Amendment Ann Ravel issued statements explaining that she voted to countermand existing law because she -- get this -- needs additional information about technology and politics before she can vote to enforce well-established law.  Well, Commissioner Ravel has been on the FEC for three years.  She's had three years to get the necessary information.  But her votes to countermand the 2006 Internet exemption aren't about more information -- Commissioner Ravel tried to regulate bloggers as head of the California Fair Political Practices Commission and she's still trying to regulate free speech on the Internet at the FEC.   Her obfuscating Statement can be read here.   

Of course, a few months ago, Ravel, Weintraub and Walther needed NO additional information about technology in politics in order to apply the Internet exemption and vote to dismiss a complaint against Obama for America. So the 2006 Internet exemption remains good law when it's convenient.  The Commission's Factual & Legal Analysis dismissing the Obama campaign under the 2006 Internet exemption is located here. 

So much for consistent treatment of all Americans under the rule of law as duly adopted and written.    

Dem FEC Commissioners Snoop Around RNC, Party at DNC

Democrat Federal Election Commissioners Ellen Weintraub and Ann Ravel have made clear they are Democrats first and FEC Commissioners second. Earlier we detailed how they went after Fox News but not CNN for the debates. Now they are attending the political party conventions for different purposes. At the Republican Convention last week, they snooped around looking for violations.

@JoshDStewart @AnnMRavel @SFpartytime Glad you asked. We’re on it — RNC vendors appear to be compliant! pic.twitter.com/lrQpULfO5d

— Ellen L Weintraub (@EllenLWeintraub) July 21, 2016

At the Democrat Convention, they party.

Full house in Philly pic.twitter.com/COmq6adBA7

— Ellen L Weintraub (@EllenLWeintraub) July 26, 2016

A little blocked..but Bridge Over Troubled Waters sounded just as it did in the 60's. https://t.co/mmJKUqwUJM

— Ann Ravel (@AnnMRavel) July 26, 2016

Rocking out to Paul Simon aside and not to take away the fun of the Commissioners, but the possible double standard is scary in light of their actions and declarations by Commissioner Ravel, such as “My role in the commission is not to apply constitutional principles” like the First Amendment.

Regulating Digital Speech Is Closer Than You Think

We have addressed the left’s persistent attacks on the first amendment frequently on this blog. Take a look back at Obama’s Lawyer, the attacks on Fox News, Ann Ravel’s unintelligible partisan dribble about her own agency, and even Attorneys General issuing harassing subpoenas on non-profit organizations for expressing a point of view.  The concerns are numerous and provide a grim picture of the underlying intent of the attacks.  

Those who get in the way are being dealt with through threats, intimidation, and far worse. Kimberly Strassel recently published a book detailing the various methods and actions taken by those who would see the First Amendment limited to only their point of view on any range of topics.  Liberal Senators and Congressmen/women are taking a cue from Commander in Chief. They are seeking to expand and lop side government agencies to allow for extensive regulatory overreach. Nowhere is this more prevalent than at the FCC and the FEC. For those familiar with the legislation, the concern is that the left has been and continues to seek to regulate the internet.

The Cato Institute recently held an event discussing the reality of the situation. Digital speech is under attack and has been for some time. The event featured Lee Goodman, Commissioner, FEC; Ajit Pai, Commissioner, FCC; and Rudy Takala, Watchdog Reporter, Washington Examiner. Goodman, Pai and Takala provided an exceptional overview of the current state of “Digital Speech”. In the interest of brevity, this is a paraphrase of the bulk of the concerns discussed.

The Internet is the last stronghold of what is truly free speech available to Americans and for that matter, the world.  As much as the left paints Citizens United as a horrible SCOTUS decision (which both Democratic presidential candidates seek to overturn), the internet as it is equalizes the decision by giving a voice to anyone willing to use it. Money makes little difference in the world of the internet. And while it may not be the end-all solution, it is the best and most readily available to all in our country. The wealthy, indigent, blacks, whites, Catholics, Muslims, conservatives, liberals, and moderates . . . we all have a chance to voice our opinion to weigh in on issues and express our opinions and partake in rational debate.

Debate is one of the things that makes this country great. The ability to share ideas and disagree with one another is what moves our nation forward. If you can get to a computer, at home or at the library, you have a platform to share your thoughts and ideas with others from across the world. That should be encouraged, not stifled through regulation overreach and the left-leaning media.  

You need not look too far to see oppressive governmental regimes heading down the path of over regulation, stifling speech and ideas, as well as outright banning of content. This is the path envisioned by many who continue to seek additional regulations. The intent is to regulate and control the flow of information, to tax it, and ensure that the ideas of many are drowned out in the favor of the ideas of a select few. This is the risk. These are the ideas being put forth by those who claim to be supporting minorities and giving them a voice. Which voice is that? Because if all remains constant, in the end, it most certainly will not be their own unless they can afford to pay for it and its message supports that of the current administration. 

Ann Ravel - Enemy of Free Speech

FEC Commissioner Ann Ravel, often joined by her colleague Ellen Weintraub, consistently makes statements about expanding the FEC’s role in regulation of both political speech and the internet. This dynamic duo of FEC commissioners has become known as the proverbial Batman and Robin of irrationality, absurdity, and preposterous commentary.  Here are some of the left field quotes and articles discussing the illogical and almost unbelievable comments made by the chair of this crucial federal agency.

While all three GOP-backed members voted against restrictions, they were opposed by the three Democratic-backed members, including FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel, who said she will lead a push next year to try to come up with new rules govern[ing] political speech on the Internet.
LINK

In the latest display of FEC Democratic efforts to regulate speech and target Republicans, Commissioners Ann Ravel and Ellen Weintraub backed a complaint against Huckabee, who made the joke during his May 2015 presidential candidacy announcement.
At that event, he said, "I will be funded and fueled not by the billionaires, but by working people across America who will find out that $15 and $25 a month contributions can take us from Hope to higher ground. If you want to give a million dollars, please do it, but most can't."
LINK

“I think we have to examine disclosure for bloggers and other Internet pundits who receive funding for their endorsements,” Ravel said during a conference on campaign funding co-sponsored by USC. “If we made a connection between a funder and somebody’s opinion so that opinion isn’t really that of the blogger, or the perception is that it might not be, people should be able to know about it.”

LINK

We hear a lot these days about a “dysfunctional” Federal Election Commission, including from the Agency’s own Chair, Ann Ravel, who, after a promising start, has apparently decided it’s not worth the trouble to work constructively within the Agency she nominally heads, and Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, whose lengthy tenure has coincided with the alleged agency problems against which she rails.
Of course, the claim of a dysfunctional FEC has been a stock trope of the so-called “reform” community for, literally, decades. The claim, as I’ve pointed out in the past, serves as a handy all-purpose excuse for the general failure of campaign finance regulation to achieve its stated objectives. If there is one thing that the “reformers” would hate more than the existing FEC, it would be a new agency headed by someone like Don McGahn (or, come to think of it, Lee Goodman, Caroline Hunter, or Matthew Petersen). Their complaint is not really the FEC, but the law, which, hemmed in by the First Amendment and driven by a real world in which speech costs money and political speech is a good thing, is too often not as they would like it.
LINK

In a recent interview with Watchdog.org, Federal Election Commission Vice Chair Ann Ravel compared campaign finance disclosure with the nutritional information on a box of cereal, stating that such “information is important for people to know whether they want to buy it or not . . . similarly people should know who’s making large contributions to campaigns so they can get a sense of how to vote.” But is voting really like purchasing cereal? A recent election-related controversy in Montana suggests some flaws in this analogy.

LINK

Ann Ravel, the Democratic Chair of the Federal Election Commission, made headlines early this month when she told The New York Times that her agency was “worse than dysfunctional” and that “the likelihood of the [federal campaign finance] laws being enforced is slim.” Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub chimed in, saying “the few rules that are left, people feel free to ignore.” Such statements are, of course, catnip to the so-called “reform” community—groups that want more regulation of political speech—and to news reporters covering “money in politics.”
LINK

Teddy Roosevelt once said, “Complaining about a problem without proposing a solution is called whining.” The truth of "what is wrong with Washington" is that we have organizations like the FEC chaired by individuals incapable of bridging the partisan gap because their own beliefs are so radical and because they are unwilling to follow the law as written. Instead of partaking in the debate, Ravel seeks to silence it (both figuratively and literally) by placing blame on others via petty partisan attacks, defeatism, and by threatening the very freedoms upon which our country has been built.