The Dispatch
Share this post
Democrats' Election Bill Is a Disaster for Free Speech
thedispatch.com

Democrats' Election Bill Is a Disaster for Free Speech

The For the People Act has been hailed as an expansion of voters’ rights, but its real effect will be chilling political speech.

Ryan Morrison
Mar 9, 2021
46
218
Share this post
Democrats' Election Bill Is a Disaster for Free Speech
thedispatch.com
(Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images.)

If Congress passed a law that put your name and address on the internet because you gave money to a nonprofit, would it scare you? If politicians wrote a law that matched their campaign donations by 600 percent with public money, would you be angry? And if you were forced to fill out a bunch of complicated government forms to promote some Facebook posts about the Biden administration’s school reopening guidelines, would you speak out or remain silent? Congress is trying to enact all this and more right now. 

These proposed regulations lurk in the so-called “For the People Act,” (aka H.R. 1 and S. 1), which the House passed without any Republican support last week. It’s been hailed as an expansion of voters’ rights, but its real effect would be to chill political speech.

Under the proposed law, an advocacy group that so much as mentions the name of a member of Congress in an ad about important issues will almost always have to expose its major donors. For example, a group could advocate for or against “Biden’s COVID Recovery Bill” and the new regulations will apply. The donors may not know about the ad and may not even agree with its message. It doesn’t matter. They still will be listed on the group’s government filings and posted on the internet for the world to see.

Naturally, potential donors will hesitate to give to an organization, especially if the group promotes controversial issues. Think about it. The government is requiring nonprofits to create an “enemies list” for their political opponents. And politicians are not bashful about using this kind of information. For example, in 2019, Rep. Joaquin Castro tweeted the names and employers of major Trump donors in his congressional district. Almost immediately, donors were flooded with harassing and threatening phone calls. No one deserves this abuse, regardless of their political beliefs. Political participation should not come with the risk of a mob showing up in your front yard or losing your job as the latest victim of today’s cancel culture.

The consequence of all this will be less speech. Fewer individuals will give to causes they believe in for fear of receiving threats or harassment. Nonprofits will think twice before speaking about the government so they can protect their donors. In a country that prides itself on freedom of political expression, people will be silenced, and organizations will not advocate for their causes. 

Equally appalling is how the bill will use public money to feed the campaigns of politicians. All campaign donations to House candidates up to $200 would be matched with six times the amount given. Accordingly, if someone gives a member of Congress $200 for his campaign, then that member will get another $1,200 in matching public financing. This could be available for all 435 members of the House and their opponents. Doling out a few hundred thousand dollars to study the mating habits of cocaine-addicted quail is one thing. But subsidizing politicians to the tune of hundreds of millions annually is madness, especially when those funds could be allocated to other priorities that directly benefit the public. 

The authors of H.R. 1 also want to regulate online speech by grassroots groups as if these organizations were candidates or PACs. Now, online political speech is mostly unregulated unless it occurs in the form of paid advertisements. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) adopted this internet exemption rule in 2006 to wide acclaim. It allowed individuals and groups to post content on websites as well as YouTube and other social media platforms. The FEC took this approach so individuals without vast financial resources could create their own political commentary online and actively engage in political debate, instead of just reading the views of the news media.

H.R. 1 will end the exemption and force groups of any size to calculate and report far more of their costs for speaking online. This is likely to include the costs of their tweets and Facebook posts, as well as materials on their own web sites, and more. Just speaking online could trigger the FEC’s existing disclaimer requirements, and communications that cost as little as $250 to produce will require financial reporting. It will be a paperwork nightmare. These new regulations will increase the costs of online political speech and force grassroots groups to risk legal complaints, investigations, and penalties from the FEC if they choose to exercise their First Amendment rights. Until these rules are tested in court, only groups that can afford high-priced lawyers to help them navigate FEC regulations will continue to speak out.

The issues described above, and more, are documented by my organization, the Institute for Free Speech. Now that the House has acted, all attention turns to the Senate, where the text of its version of the bill has not been released. Accordingly, things could get worse. Regardless, it is clear that politicians will always look for new and creative ways to silence their critics. This monster of a bill will serve only to silence speech and diminish our constitutional rights. It should not become law.

Ryan Morrison is an attorney at the Institute for Free Speech in Washington, D.C.

218
Share this post
Democrats' Election Bill Is a Disaster for Free Speech
thedispatch.com
218 Comments

Create your profile

0 subscriptions will be displayed on your profile (edit)

Skip for now

Only Dispatch Members only can comment on this post

Already a paid subscriber? Sign in

Check your email

For your security, we need to re-authenticate you.

Click the link we sent to , or click here to sign in.

Mandy
Mar 9, 2021

This piece is...puzzling. Is he saying that we shouldn't be transparent about who's giving large amounts of money to campaigns because then those donors might be too scared to give large amounts of money to campaigns? Sorry. If you want to attempt to use your deep pockets to influence elections and eventual policymaking, you have to do so in the light of day.

"Think about it." Seriously? I do. All the time. I have to think really, really hard before I put that campaign sign in my yard or that magnet on my car supporting a candidate whom I really believe will bring positive change for my family/community/country because - very sadly - I know that I could suffer social isolation or vandalism as a result. As a center-left Christian with lots of Trumpy friends and family (and I fully appreciate that this happens on BOTH sides of the aisle, in ALL directions), I'd like to welcome big political donors to the world of having to make hard decisions about owning your views. Yes, the threats in question extend beyond relational woes when you're bringing thousands of dollars to the table, but the solution isn't allowing folks to hide in the shadows. It's the exact opposite. The anonymity is feeding the crazy behavior that results in harassment and death threats. Let's take issue with THAT.

If entities have to think twice before they throw money or inflammatory content into the conversation, maybe that will help to elevate it. And if I'm going to invest my support and donations into making sure that someone's NOT silenced, I'll first focus my energy on protecting the individual citizens whose voices are in danger of not being heard.

Expand full comment
ReplyCollapse
32 replies
Logical
Mar 9, 2021

Stop "diasterizing" and tell us what you would keep in the H.R.1.

The list of what you would keep tells me a lot about why you want stuff thrown out. Otherwise it's just Lowry and Breitbart.

Also, tell me why the Bulwark crowd is excited? They seem to care a lot about preserving democracy. Are they unamerican?

Expand full comment
ReplyCollapse
30 replies
216 more comments…
TopNewCommunity

No posts

Ready for more?

© 2022 The Dispatch
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Publish on Substack Get the app
Substack is the home for great writing