Honest Ads Act Would Regulate Americans Far More Than Foreigners

RNLA member Eric Wang wrote today about how the "Honest Ads Act" currently pending in Congress would burden Americans' free speech rights while doing very little to prevent foreign political ads:

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.

Mr. Wang explained the statutory changes that the bill would make:

S.1989 begins by undoing the Federal Election Commission’s “internet exemption,” under which online political speech generally is not regulated unless it is a “communication placed for a fee on another person’s website.” . . . The change may appear subtle, but it makes a world of difference as groups making even minimal expenditures could be regulated for content on their own websites, blogs and mass emails. . . . Videos that groups post on YouTube and anything they publish on Facebook and Twitter also possibly could be regulated under S.1989. 

S.1989 next expands regulation of so-called “electioneering communications” to include online ads that refer to elected officials and candidates within certain pre-election periods. Again, this legislative rhetoric obfuscates reality. In fact, many “electioneering communications” are non-electoral issue advocacy. . . . At least under current law, only TV and radio ads targeted to those eligible to vote for the referenced candidates are “electioneering communications.” Despite the bill’s legislative findings about the ability to microtarget internet ads, S.1989 would indiscriminately regulate online ads even when they are not targeted at eligible voters. Thus, ads inviting New Yorkers to contact House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) about the pending tax bill could be regulated, as could ads asking Texans to urge Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer(D-N.Y.) to stop blocking judicial nominees. 

S.1989 also would effectively impose a new reporting requirement — on top of the existing FEC reporting burdens — for political and issue advertising costing as little as $500. A publicly accessible database would have to contain a copy of all regulated ads and details about how each ad was targeted, when it ran, the average rate charged, the candidate or “national legislative issue of public importance” discussed, and information about the sponsor and its officers or board members. . . . The compliance costs, when combined with the liability that S.1989 would impose on online platforms for recordkeeping errors, may drive online advertising costs out of the reach of many small grassroots organizations. . . .

Mr. Wang concludes by proposing some alternate, and much more effective, means of addressing the problem of foreign purchases of ads.  Notably, Congress could amend the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which is a law actually tailored to address foreign influence without impacting the important rights of Americans.  That is precisely the problem with the proposals to date: they regulate Americans' free speech rights without actually preventing objectionable foreign speech.

FEC Commissioner Lee Goodman on Rush to Regulate Social Media

FEC Commissioner Lee Goodman spoke to the TechFreedom podcast about alleged Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election and what our response should be to it.  We covered this twice last week (Thursday and Friday), but Commissioner Goodman's important message bears repeating:

My primary concern is that we not overreact to things that we cannot control and out of frustration, start regulating American citizens and make them guilty or responsible or punish them for what some bad actors do abroad. . . . It would be very difficult for the U.S. government to enforce our laws against a foreign person sitting on foreign soil posting information about U.S. politics on a foreign computer on a foreign server.  That would be very difficult.  We shouldn't, out of frustration, start regulating and punishing American citizens in their use of the internet because there's a lot of social good in the United States from that use. . . . 

Recent news reports are that there may have been $100,000 to $150,000 in ads spent by foreign sources on a range of subjects, some of which may not be in the Federal Election Commission's jurisdiction but under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice in the Foreign Agents Registration Act.  But those ads are a drop in the ocean of information available from foreign sources on the world wide web. . . . We have all sorts of foreign information available to use from U.S. politics generally. . . . 

I'm not sympathetic to foreign meddling or influence in our elections.  I'm just saying that it is ubiquitous, ok?  Let's not go attacking the free speech rights of American citizens first as an effort to get to capillaries of foreign speech.  Let's target foreign speakers in whatever we do, and let's not at first target the civil liberties of American citizens. . . . We have a long history of overreaction and diminishing the civil liberties of American citizens in order to get at some of the pores that may be open for foreign influence, and I say let's get at the pores. . . .

The entire podcast provides an excellent overview of this issue, the factual realities, current law, and how the free speech of Americans could be threatened by a rush to regulate political advertising on the internet. 

Is the Obama Justice Department Protecting Hillary’s Friends and Aides

We have written here, here, and here about possible illegal or at least unethical ties between Hillary Clinton aides and friends and foreign governments/companies.  Turns out, Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley was inquiring about yet another example with the Justice Department over a year ago.  In a April 22, 2015 letter Senator Grassley wrote:

According to recent news reports, it appears that Mr. Sidney Blumenthal, a self-described “advisor” to the Clinton Foundation, and Mr. John Kornblum, a lawyer working for the opposition party in Georgia, attempted to influence Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and potentially the President, on behalf of a foreign entity.  News reports indicate that Mr. Kornblum passed along a personal letter to Secretary Clinton via Mr. Blumenthal from Mr. Bidzina Ivanishvili, the leader of the opposition Georgian Dream.  In that letter, Mr. Ivanishvili requested Secretary Clinton’s support for Georgian Dream, which was opposing the sitting Georgian government in an upcoming election. Notably, the letter states, “Our nation is still controlled by single-party institutions in the hands of a leader who rejects the most basic principle of democracy – that he must someday leave office…” and “…[t]he government of Mikheil Saakashvili is using every method available to it to undermine the election process.” 

The letter ends with Mr. Ivanishvili asking for Secretary Clinton’s help.

In their recent response the Department of Justice seemingly said there was little they could do and would do.  Remember this letter was over a year before the recent incidents have surfaced.  As Senator Grassley’s office stated yesterday in a news release:  

The Justice Department recently acknowledged that it relies on publicly available material and “voluntary compliance” with records requests when determining whether representatives of foreign entities are required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The Justice Department said it lacks the authority to compel potential FARA registrants to produce records that may indicate their obligation to disclose their activity on behalf of a foreign government or entity while working to influence U.S. public policy.

This seems to be saying that the Obama Justice Department could care less and is not going to anything about violations of FARA, at least by friends of Hillary.  Even if the Hillary Clinton-led State Department was effectively for sale through her aides and confidantes.