FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to Address National Policy Conference on April 27

The RNLA is pleased to announce that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai will speak at the National Policy Conference next Friday.

Chairman Pai joined the FCC as a Commissioner in 2012 and was designated as Chairman by President Trump in January 2017.  He has been a leader in the effort to restore the rule of law to federal communications regulation.

Last November, Chairman Pai gave remarks explaining the "Restoring Internet Freedom" order, which undid the FCC's unprecedented overreach in 2015 that created the so-called "net neutrality" policy:

First: what will the plan do? When you cut through the legal terms and technical jargon, it’s very simple. The plan to restore Internet freedom will bring back the same legal framework that was governing the Internet three years ago today and that has governed the Internet for most of its existence. . . . Until 2015, the FCC treated high-speed Internet access as a lightly-regulated “information service” under Title I of the Communications Act. A few years ago, the Obama Administration instructed the FCC to change course. And it did, on a party-line vote in 2015; it classified Internet access as a heavily-regulated “telecommunications service” under Title II of the Communications Act. If the plan is adopted on December 14, we’ll simply reverse the FCC’s 2015 decision and go back to the pre-2015 Title I framework. . . . 

Much of the problem stems from the vague Internet conduct standard that the Commission adopted in 2015—a standard that I’m proposing to repeal. Under this standard, the FCC didn’t say specifically what conduct was prohibited. Instead, it gave itself a roving mandate to second-guess new service offerings, new features, and new business models. Understandably, businesses asked for clarity on how this standard would be applied. My predecessor’s answer, and I quote: “We don’t know, we’ll have to see where things go.” That’s the very definition of regulatory uncertainty. . . . 

Many critics don’t seem to understand that we are moving from heavy-handed regulation to lighttouch regulation, not a completely hands-off approach. We aren’t giving anybody a free pass. We are simply shifting from one-size-fits-all pre-emptive regulation to targeted enforcement based on actual market failure or anticompetitive conduct. . . . By turning back time, so to speak, and returning Internet regulation to the pre-2015 era, we will expand broadband networks and bring high-speed Internet access to more Americans, not fewer. . . . 

This reminds me of another point, one that’s been brought home to me the past few days. This debate needs, our culture needs, a more informed discussion about public policy. We need quality information, not hysteria, because hysteria takes us to unpleasant, if not dangerous places. We can disagree on policy. But we shouldn’t demonize, especially when all of us share the same goal of a free and open Internet. . . . So when you get past the wild accusations, fearmongering, and hysteria, here’s the boring bottom line: the plan to restore Internet freedom would return us to the light touch, market-based approach under which the Internet thrived.

We are grateful to Chairman Pai for his leadership, his commitment to the rule of law, and his steadfast support for freedom from regulatory overreach in the face of harsh and violent criticism.  We are honored for to address the RNLA next Friday, and we invite you to join us.   

President Trump Had Considerable Success Restoring The Rule of Law In 2017

RNLA Co-Chair Joanne Young wrote today in The Daily Caller about how successful President Trump has been restoring the rule of law in 2017.  It began with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Department of Justice:

At every turn, Sessions has had to fight against entrenched, liberal career employees and Obama holdovers. But Sessions has remained dedicated. He has increased focus on vigorous and equal enforcement of the laws to reduce violent crime, ended third-party settlement practices that directed taxpayer dollars to liberal outside groups, and defended the rule of law in litigation, such as supporting voter ID laws, free speech, and religious liberty. The process of restoring the rule of law to the Department of Justice will take years, but President Trump and Attorney General Sessions have had an effective first year.

And continued with Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and other exemplary new federal judges:

At just 50 years old, Justice Gorsuch will serve on the nation’s highest court for many years to come. In his 10 years on the Tenth Circuit, he had demonstrated a commitment to adhering to the text of the Constitution, statutes, and regulations, even when it led to unfortunate results on the facts. He had shown his dedication to the principle that it is for the legislature to decide policy and enact it in law and for judges to apply that law, without inserting their own policy preferences. While his commitment to the rule of law and textualism has earned him the scorn of liberals, it protects the right of the American people to be ruled by the law written by their elected representatives, not by the whim of unelected judges.

President Trump has also started rolling back overreaching regulations and unlawful policies across the Executive Branch:

On taking office, President Trump immediately began rolling back the regulatory overreach that was the hallmark of the Obama years. On January 30, he directed that when an agency promulgated a new regulation in 2017, it had to identify two regulations to repeal. He has periodically directed agencies to review the permissibility of particular rules or interpretations that have impermissibly expanded the scope of certain laws and regulations, such as when he directed the Environmental Protection Agency’s Administrator to review the “Waters of the United States” rule on February 28. 

As the agency personnel nominated by President Trump have taken office, they have worked to review and undo the harmful and expansive interpretations of the Obama years in their agencies. For example, in October, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt ended the “sue and settle” practices whereby radically liberal environmental organizations controlled how the EPA interpreted its own rules through litigation, often being paid with taxpayer money for their efforts. . . . Or consider Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, [whose] proposal to undo the FCC’s own regulatory overreach of the Obama years, “net neutrality,” was approved last Thursday, despite personal, racially tainted attacks against Pai and his family by outraged liberals. . . . Net neutrality was imposed through an FCC power grab whereby, after 20 years of bipartisan agreement over the Internet, the FCC unilaterally reinterpreted its own governing laws without congressional authorization, despite the previous FCC Chairman admitting that he did not know how the new rule would be interpreted.

Ms. Young concludes by pointing to the very real world consequence of decreased and clearer regulations: a booming economy.  Likewise, judges and a Department of Justice that respect the rule of law protect the rights of all people, ensuring a brighter future for all Americans.

Trump Must Continue Undoing Obama’s Massive Federal Power Grabs

RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen wrote today in The Daily Caller about how leaders in the Trump Administration are starting to undo the regulatory power grabs of the Obama Administration and being attacked for it by liberals:

For the eight years of the Obama Administration, liberals worked through extra-legal means to achieve the policy goals they desired that did not have enough popular support to be passed by the legislature. Sometimes this took the form of convincing judges to ignore the text of statutes and regulations and decide cases on the basis of policy, over-ruling the will of the people expressed through their representatives. Other times, it took the form of agencies ignoring the rule of law, seizing power, and enacting new policies without regard to their statutory limits and without proper procedures such as rulemaking following notice and comment.

He began with the example of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal to undo the "net neutrality" rules enacted in 2015:

The “telecommunications service” classification was designed for monopoly telephone services and gives the FCC extremely broad authority to regulate. Extending this regulatory authority to Internet service is unquestionably an extension of the FCC’s authority. It was an extension that was authorized not by Congress but by the FCC itself. 

Even worse, this power grab was unclear. . . . Chairman Pai’s proposed plan would return Internet service regulation to the previous regulatory framework—which had been upheld by the Supreme Court—and restore the FCC’s authority to the level granted by Congress. He publicly released it, unlike in 2015 when the details were released only after the FCC had already adopted them.

Mr. Thielen also points to the examples of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) deputy director's desperate bid to maintain control of the CFPB against President Trump's newly appointed acting director, who has announced a regulatory freeze, and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt ending the "sue and settle" practices by which activist outside groups controlled the interpretation and implementation of the EPA's statutes and regulations.  Mr. Thielen concludes by noting:

These are just a few examples of the immense amount of work remaining to be done in the Executive Branch to restore the rule of law. This effort is the opposite of a power grab. It is giving power back to the people through their elected representatives and taking power away from unelected activists inside and outside of government.

We thank these courageous leaders and President Trump for fighting to restore the rule of law to the federal government against the attacks of liberals and obstruction of Obama-holdover and career staff members in federal agencies.

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. 

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai Warns of Overreaching Regulations

Ajit Pai, a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), opposes the federal government’s expanding control of the internet such as the regulation of Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Pai agrees that ISPs are “information services” providers and should not be subject to federal regulation unlike public utilities.

While the FCC is expected to vote on a ruling related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TPCA), Pai called for the FCC to make clarifications to the TPCA in an op-ed published in Politico. Pai wrote:

Congress enacted the TCPA in order to crack down on intrusive telemarketers and over-the-phone scam artists…But trial lawyers have twisted the law’s words to target useful communications between legitimate businesses and their customers. And thanks to the $500 penalty, the TCPA has become their ATM.

Pai exposed President Obama’s influence of policy at the FCC while the FCC is supposed to be an independent agency. Pai highlights that:

the agency suddenly chang[ed] course from where it was to mimic the president’s plan…[and] suggests that the independence of the agency has been compromised to some extent.

Unfortunately, the consequences of the FCC’s regulation will include taxes on broadband bills, reduced competition, and smaller Internet service providers may find it difficult to stay in business. Pai also declares that Net Neutrality is "a solution that won't work to a problem that doesn't exist." When FCC regulations mean higher prices and less online innovation, Pai also notes:

[T]he federal government is a pretty poor arbiter of what is reasonable and what is not, and it's exceptionally poor when it comes to having a track record of promoting innovation and investment in broadband networks. That's something the private sector has done a remarkable job of on its own.

Although FCC’s new regulations passed with a 3-2 vote, Pai continues to warn the public about the impact of President Obama and FCC Chair, Tom Wheeler’s plans.

Join fellow the RNLA members on a Conference Call Featuring FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai on June 14, 2015 at 11:30 am. To RSVP to participate in the call and to submit questions, click here.

More Hypocrisy on the Government Takeover of the Internet

President Obama’s unprecedented attempts at a government takeover of the Internet have another element, Hypocrisy.

A key Republican lawmaker in Congress called for Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler to make proposed net neutrality regulations public before a planned Thursday vote on the measure.

[House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason] Chaffetz urged Wheeler to publicly release the 332-page draft order that was given to the other four commissioners nearly three weeks ago and appear at a House Oversight hearing Wednesday before a vote at the FCC's monthly meeting Thursday.

Also today, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly too asked for Wheeler to release the proposal to the public and postpone the Thursday vote to allow for 30 days of public comment.

Chairman Wheeler is refusing to do so even amid allegations of undue influence by the White House.  This is particular ironic in light of what then Senator Obama stated in 2007:

A senator who supported the FCC's postponement back then, Chaffetz notes, was then-senator Barack Obama. "He specifically noted while a certain proposal 'may pass the muster of a federal court, Congress and the public have the right to review any specific proposal and decide whether or not it constitutes sound policy. And the commission has the responsibility to defend any new proposal in public discourse and debate,'" Chaffetz said citing the original letter sent by Sen. Obama to Martin.

In 2007 the proposed rules for a less important FCC matter were made public so there could be a debate.  Not now.  

[Note:  RNLA is pleased to announce that both Republican Commissioners of the FCC will be speaking at our March 20 National Policy Conference.]