Sunday, October 22, 2017
https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr4077/BILLS-115hr4077ih.pdf
A bill called "The Honest Election Ads Act" is probably about censorship. I expect to be reading it and making a few comments, so this post will be updated
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Honest Ads Act’’.
To enhance transparency and accountability for online political advertisements by requiring those who purchase and publish such ads to disclose information about the advertisements to the public, and for other purposes.
i'm on a bus and the wifi is iffy so thismay not post took a few tries.
6 The purpose of this Act is to enhance the integrity
of American democracy and national security by improving
8 disclosure requirements for online political advertisements
in order to uphold the United States Supreme Court’s
2 well-established standard that the electorate bears the
3 right to be fully informed.
The Supreme Court has not recognized succh a right, rather the opposite; citizens enjoy a right to remain silent or to choose to reveal some but not all information.
So we'll call that Lie #1, and start to build a "Lie List" of false claims made in the proposed text.
section 3 is findings, going into detail on the russians and facebook.
this is typical of incident-based legislation, which often ends up being overbroad or ineffective.
In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform 2 Act became law
Sort of. I have pet peeve over the use of the term "law" to describe a void unconstitutional statute. Some 5 cases have overturned parts of BCRA, and there will be more to come.
For instance,
19 the largest platform has over 210,000,000 American
20 users—over 160,000,000 of them on a daily basis.
yikes.
Those same 2 companies accounted for 99 20 percent of revenue growth from digital advertising in 21 2016, including 77 percent of gross spending. more yikes.
(11) The Federal Election Commission, the
10 independent Federal agency charged with protecting
11 the integrity of the Federal campaign finance proc-
12 ess by providing transparency and administering
13 campaign finance laws, has failed to take action to
14 address online political advertisements.
That's Lie 2.
(13) Current regulations on political advertise-
18 ments do not provide sufficient transparency to up-
19 hold the public’s right to be fully informed about po-
20 litical advertisements made online.
Repeats lie #1.
Lie #4: (2) free and fair elections require both trans-
6 parency and accountability which give the public a
7 right to know the true sources of funding for polit-
8 ical advertisements in order to make informed polit-
9 ical choices and hold elected officials accountable;
10 and
The Supreme Court disagrees, saying fair elections require free speech. "hold accountable" means threaten and silence.
Page 10, line 9, finally says what the bill is actually about, disclaimers, not disclosure.
The description of the bill does say and for other purposes, so it technically correct but deliberately misleading. So not a lie exactly.
19 SEC. 7. APPLICATION OF DISCLAIMER STATEMENTS TO ON-
20 LINE COMMUNICATIONS.
21 (a) CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS MANNER REQUIRE-
22 MENT.—Subsection (a) of section 318 of the Federal Elec-
23 tion Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30120(a)) is 24 amended....
This is the unconstitutional part. What it is doing is taking an already unconstitutional section and adding internet.
This is a long blog post already, but I need a digression here about litigation tactics.
Two cases, McConnell v FEC and CU, have upheld extending unconstitutional disclaimer policies to new kinds of media.
In both cases, the argument was about seeking an express advocacy exemption, rather than a direct challenge under controlling precdents.
This has inserted some indeterminacy into what were once brighter lines. While express advocacy cases have their place [and Jim Bopp has made and spent a fortune doing them,] this is a known losing argument and should be avoided, in favor pointing to controlling cases such as ACLF.
ACLF was a case brought by Paul Grant of Grant v Meyer, part of the team that brought the referendum that legalized weed in Colorado. I am on a bus right now coming back from Colorado,
which is different now as a result of Grant's work.
ACLF held that disclaimer lws are unconstitutional while disclosure laws can be fine. So the petition ciurculators were
required to register with the state, a disclosure, but could not be forced to wear name badges, a disclaimer.
As Judge Posner pointed out in Majors v Abell, disclaimers don't really disclaim anything. But the terminology is still useful.
(1) by striking ‘‘shall clearly state’’ each place 2 it appears in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) and in- 3 serting ‘‘shall state in a clear and conspicuous man- 4 ner’’; and
With each new version, the state's editing of campaign statements becomes more intrusive, micromanaging political speech. Not a lie, but a danger.
‘‘For purposes of this subsection, a com- 7 munication does not make a statement in a clear 8 and conspicuous manner if it is difficult to read or 9 hear or if the placement is easily overlooked.’’.
This is vague and indeterminate. It empowers groups like CREWd
or the campaign legal centaur to file frivolous complaints against their enemies. Much the way they file false complaints alleging express advocacy where there is none.
24 ‘‘(A) state the name of the person who 25 paid for the communication; and
Not a lie, because it is a command rather than a claim of fact, but unconstitutional under Talley v California and McIntyre v Ohio, among many others.
‘‘(B) provide a means for the recipient of 2 the communication to obtain the remainder of 3 the information required under this section with 4 minimal effort and without receiving or viewing 5 any additional material other than such re- 6 quired information.
What is minimal effort? It probably means a link, but who knows.
This is extreme micromanagement of political speech.
‘‘(A) TEXT OR GRAPHIC COMMUNICA- 15 TIONS.—In the case of a text or graphic com- 16 munication, the statement— 17 ‘‘(i) appears in letters at least as large 18 as the majority of the text in the commu- 19 nication; and
So they no longer want
"Robbin Stewart for Township Board Vote Tuesday paid for by A Small Circle of Friends, Authorized by candidate",
now they want something like
Robbin Stewart for Township Board Vote Tuesday paid for by A Small Circle of Friends, Authorized by candidate"
That doesn't make for a good billboard or online ad. See by the way Stewart v Taylor (1997), which found the first version unonstitutional.
This is fun, but the post is getting too long. If I continue I will do so in next post.
A bill called "The Honest Election Ads Act" is probably about censorship. I expect to be reading it and making a few comments, so this post will be updated
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Honest Ads Act’’.
To enhance transparency and accountability for online political advertisements by requiring those who purchase and publish such ads to disclose information about the advertisements to the public, and for other purposes.
i'm on a bus and the wifi is iffy so this
6 The purpose of this Act is to enhance the integrity
of American democracy and national security by improving
8 disclosure requirements for online political advertisements
in order to uphold the United States Supreme Court’s
2 well-established standard that the electorate bears the
3 right to be fully informed.
The Supreme Court has not recognized succh a right, rather the opposite; citizens enjoy a right to remain silent or to choose to reveal some but not all information.
So we'll call that Lie #1, and start to build a "Lie List" of false claims made in the proposed text.
section 3 is findings, going into detail on the russians and facebook.
this is typical of incident-based legislation, which often ends up being overbroad or ineffective.
In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform 2 Act became law
Sort of. I have pet peeve over the use of the term "law" to describe a void unconstitutional statute. Some 5 cases have overturned parts of BCRA, and there will be more to come.
For instance,
19 the largest platform has over 210,000,000 American
20 users—over 160,000,000 of them on a daily basis.
yikes.
Those same 2 companies accounted for 99 20 percent of revenue growth from digital advertising in 21 2016, including 77 percent of gross spending. more yikes.
(11) The Federal Election Commission, the
10 independent Federal agency charged with protecting
11 the integrity of the Federal campaign finance proc-
12 ess by providing transparency and administering
13 campaign finance laws, has failed to take action to
14 address online political advertisements.
That's Lie 2.
(13) Current regulations on political advertise-
18 ments do not provide sufficient transparency to up-
19 hold the public’s right to be fully informed about po-
20 litical advertisements made online.
Repeats lie #1.
Lie #4: (2) free and fair elections require both trans-
6 parency and accountability which give the public a
7 right to know the true sources of funding for polit-
8 ical advertisements in order to make informed polit-
9 ical choices and hold elected officials accountable;
10 and
The Supreme Court disagrees, saying fair elections require free speech. "hold accountable" means threaten and silence.
Page 10, line 9, finally says what the bill is actually about, disclaimers, not disclosure.
The description of the bill does say and for other purposes, so it technically correct but deliberately misleading. So not a lie exactly.
19 SEC. 7. APPLICATION OF DISCLAIMER STATEMENTS TO ON-
20 LINE COMMUNICATIONS.
21 (a) CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS MANNER REQUIRE-
22 MENT.—Subsection (a) of section 318 of the Federal Elec-
23 tion Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30120(a)) is 24 amended....
This is the unconstitutional part. What it is doing is taking an already unconstitutional section and adding internet.
This is a long blog post already, but I need a digression here about litigation tactics.
Two cases, McConnell v FEC and CU, have upheld extending unconstitutional disclaimer policies to new kinds of media.
In both cases, the argument was about seeking an express advocacy exemption, rather than a direct challenge under controlling precdents.
This has inserted some indeterminacy into what were once brighter lines. While express advocacy cases have their place [and Jim Bopp has made and spent a fortune doing them,] this is a known losing argument and should be avoided, in favor pointing to controlling cases such as ACLF.
ACLF was a case brought by Paul Grant of Grant v Meyer, part of the team that brought the referendum that legalized weed in Colorado. I am on a bus right now coming back from Colorado,
which is different now as a result of Grant's work.
ACLF held that disclaimer lws are unconstitutional while disclosure laws can be fine. So the petition ciurculators were
required to register with the state, a disclosure, but could not be forced to wear name badges, a disclaimer.
As Judge Posner pointed out in Majors v Abell, disclaimers don't really disclaim anything. But the terminology is still useful.
(1) by striking ‘‘shall clearly state’’ each place 2 it appears in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) and in- 3 serting ‘‘shall state in a clear and conspicuous man- 4 ner’’; and
With each new version, the state's editing of campaign statements becomes more intrusive, micromanaging political speech. Not a lie, but a danger.
‘‘For purposes of this subsection, a com- 7 munication does not make a statement in a clear 8 and conspicuous manner if it is difficult to read or 9 hear or if the placement is easily overlooked.’’.
This is vague and indeterminate. It empowers groups like CREWd
or the campaign legal centaur to file frivolous complaints against their enemies. Much the way they file false complaints alleging express advocacy where there is none.
24 ‘‘(A) state the name of the person who 25 paid for the communication; and
Not a lie, because it is a command rather than a claim of fact, but unconstitutional under Talley v California and McIntyre v Ohio, among many others.
‘‘(B) provide a means for the recipient of 2 the communication to obtain the remainder of 3 the information required under this section with 4 minimal effort and without receiving or viewing 5 any additional material other than such re- 6 quired information.
What is minimal effort? It probably means a link, but who knows.
This is extreme micromanagement of political speech.
‘‘(A) TEXT OR GRAPHIC COMMUNICA- 15 TIONS.—In the case of a text or graphic com- 16 munication, the statement— 17 ‘‘(i) appears in letters at least as large 18 as the majority of the text in the commu- 19 nication; and
So they no longer want
"Robbin Stewart for Township Board Vote Tuesday paid for by A Small Circle of Friends, Authorized by candidate",
now they want something like
Robbin Stewart for Township Board Vote Tuesday paid for by A Small Circle of Friends, Authorized by candidate"
That doesn't make for a good billboard or online ad. See by the way Stewart v Taylor (1997), which found the first version unonstitutional.
This is fun, but the post is getting too long. If I continue I will do so in next post.
Comments:
Post a Comment
