Yale “MFIA Clinic Report Provides Roadmap for Attorneys to Challenge Election Disinformation”

cheap speech, chicanery

Important report released by Yale Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic:

Students from Yale Law School’s Media Freedom and Information Access (MFIA) Clinic have released a new white paper titled “Using the Ku Klux Klan Act to Combat Election Disinformation: A Guide for Practitioners.”

The guide offers a roadmap for attorneys seeking civil remedies against certain forms of digital election disinformation, such as lies about how to vote, impersonation of candidates or officials, and misinformation intended to intimidate voters.

Read the white paper: Using the Ku Klux Klan Act to Combat Election Disinformation: A Guide for Practitioners 

The report focuses on two underutilized provisions of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871: the “Support-or-Advocacy” clauses of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and the companion “Neglect-to-Prevent” provision of 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Though originally passed to combat Reconstruction-era voter intimidation by the Ku Klux Klan, these statutes remain powerful tools for modern election protection, according to the clinic. The white paper argues that § 1985(3) can provide a private cause of action when election-related disinformation arises from a conspiracy and amounts to a common-law tort (such as intentional interference with the right to vote, misappropriation of likeness, or false-light invasion of privacy) carried out “on account of” someone’s support for a federal candidate.

Additionally, § 1986 may create liability for third parties like robocall vendors, group leaders, or public officials who knowingly fail to prevent such conspiracies when they have the power to do so.

While the First Amendment rightly shields much false speech about elections, the report outlines scenarios where challenges to election disinformation may prevail despite the First Amendment, such as when the disinformation at issue constitutes a lie about election mechanics or an impersonation of a candidate, or when it is particularly likely to undermine election integrity. Drawing on legal precedent, historical context, and real-world examples — including social media ads that promote “texting to vote” and robocalls that impersonate candidates — the report offers a path forward for legal practitioners aiming to challenge harmful election lies without infringing on protected speech….

(Disclosure: I gave feedback on an earlier version of this report as well as worked with the clinic and Protect Democracy on the amicus brief filed in the Mackey case.)

Share this:

“Texas House Democrats flee the state in bid to block GOP’s proposed congressional map”

redistricting

Texas Tribune:

Texas Democratic lawmakers fled the state Sunday in a bid to block passage of a new congressional map designed to give the GOP five additional seats in the U.S. House next year, raising the stakes in what’s poised to be a national fight over redistricting ahead of next year’s midterm election.

The maneuver, undertaken by most of the Texas House’s 62 Democrats, deprives the Republican-controlled chamber of a quorum — the number of lawmakers needed to function under House rules — ahead of a scheduled Monday vote on the draft map. The 150-member House can only conduct business if at least 100 members are present, meaning the absence of 51 or more Democrats can bring the Legislature’s ongoing special session to a halt.

“This is not a decision we make lightly, but it is one we make with absolute moral clarity,” state Rep. Gene Wu, chair of the House Democratic Caucus, said in a statement, in which he accused Gov. Greg Abbott of “using an intentionally racist map to steal the voices of millions of Black and Latino Texans, all to execute a corrupt political deal.”

Most House Democrats left Texas Sunday afternoon en route to the Chicago area, where they’re expected to hold a press conference with Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. Some also headed to New York to meet with Gov. Kathy Hochul, who has condemned Texas’ mid-decade redistricting effort and entertained the idea of retaliating with new maps in her state. A third contingent of lawmakers also departed for Boston to attend the National Conference of State Legislatures’ annual legislative summit….

Share this:

“The Mothership Vortex: An Investigation Into the Firm at the Heart of the Democratic Spam Machine; How a single consulting firm extracted $282 million from a network of spam PACs while delivering just $11 million to actual campaigns.”

campaign finance, campaigns, chicanery

Must-read from Adam Bonica:

The digital deluge is a familiar annoyance for anyone on a Democratic fundraising list. It’s a relentless cacophony of bizarre texts and emails, each one more urgent than the last, promising that your immediate $15 donation is the only thing standing between democracy and the abyss.

The main rationale offered for this fundraising frenzy is that it’s a necessary evil—that the tactics, while unpleasant, are brutally effective at raising the money needed to win. But an analysis of the official FEC filings tells a very different story. The fundraising model is not a brutally effective tool for the party; it is a financial vortex that consumes the vast majority of every dollar it raises.

We all have that one obscure skill we’ve inadvertently maxed out. Mine happens to be navigating the labyrinth of campaign finance data. So, after documenting the spam tactics in a previous article, I told myself I’d just take a quick look to see who was behind them and where the money was going.

That “quick look” immediately pulled me in. The illusion of a sprawling grassroots movement, with its dozens of different PAC names, quickly gave way to a much simpler and more alarming reality. It only required pulling on a single thread—tracing who a few of the most aggressive PACs were paying—to watch their entire manufactured world unravel. What emerged was not a diverse network of activists, but a concentrated ecosystem built to serve the firm at its center: Mothership Strategies.…

The core defense of these aggressive fundraising tactics rests on a single claim: they are brutally effective. The FEC data proves this is a fallacy. An examination of the money flowing through the Mothership network reveals a system designed not for political impact, but for enriching the consultants who operate it.

To understand the scale of this operation, consider the total amount raised. Since 2018, this core network of Mothership-linked PACs has raised approximately $678 million from individual donors. (This number excludes money raised by the firm’s other clients, like candidate campaigns, focusing specifically on the interconnected PACs at the heart of this system.) Of that total fundraising haul, $159 million was paid directly to Mothership Strategies for consulting fees, accounting for the majority of the $282 million Mothership has been paid by all its clients combined.

But the firm’s direct cut is only part of the story. The “churn and burn” fundraising model is immensely expensive to operate. Sending millions of texts and emails requires massive spending on digital infrastructure. For instance, FEC filings show this network paid $22.5 million to a single vendor, Message Digital LLC, a firm that specializes in text message delivery.

The remaining hundreds of millions disappeared into a maze of self-reported categories: $150 million to consulting/fundraising, $70 million to salaries and payroll. There are some disbursements to what seem to be legitimate advocacy and organizing–for instance Progressive Turnout Project reports paying Shawmut Services $19 million for canvassing. However, most of the unclassifiable expenditures appear to be administrative costs or media buys that feed back into the fundraising machine itself.

After subtracting these massive operational costs—the payments to Mothership, the fees for texting services, the cost of digital ads and list rentals—the final sum delivered to candidates and committees is vanishingly small. My analysis of the network’s FEC disbursements reveals that, at most, $11 million of the $678 million raised from individuals has made its way to candidates, campaigns, or the national party committees.

But here’s the number that should end all debate:

This represents a fundraising efficiency rate of just 1.6 percent.

Here’s what that number means: for every dollar a grandmother in Iowa donates believing she’s saving democracy, 98 cents goes to consultants and operational costs. Just pennies reach actual campaigns….

Share this:

“Trump and his allies mount a pressure campaign against US elections ahead of the midterms”

election administration, election subversion risk

Fredreka Schouten for CNN:

A few weeks ago, Republican election officials in Colorado began receiving unsolicited calls and texts from a GOP consultant who said he was working with the Trump administration on “election integrity.”

In a text to one of the officials, the consultant, Jeff Small, indicated he was acting on a request from Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff. In a phone call with another clerk, Small said he was coordinating with the White House and the Justice Department to “implement” an elections executive order signed by President Donald Trump, recalled Justin Grantham, the top election official in Fremont County.

Grantham and Carly Koppes, who oversees elections in Weld County in northern Colorado, told CNN that Small made a specific request: Would they give a third party access to their election equipment?

Both declined.

“Not only is that a hard no, I mean, you’re not even going to breathe on my equipment,” Koppes said.

The outreach to the Colorado clerks is just one of a flurry of recent federal actions launched by the Trump administration and groups aligned with the president.

While the White House distanced itself from Small, Trump and his allies are collecting vast amounts of voter data and working to change the ground rules for next year’s midterms, often by invoking federal government authority.Next year’s midterms hold enormous stakes for Trump and his opposition. Democrats need to net just three seats in the US House in 2026 to flip control of the chamber from Republicans. A Democratic-led House could block Trump’s legislative agenda and launch investigations of the president in the second half of his second term.

Samantha Tarazi, CEO of the nonprofit Voting Rights Lab, which has closely tracked state developments, said she believes Trump is gearing up “to use the power of his office to interfere in the 2026 election.”

“What started as an unconstitutional executive order — marching orders for state action regardless of its fate in court — has grown into a full federal mobilization to seize power over our elections,” she said.

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said Trump is “fighting for election integrity” and will keep doing so “despite Democrat objections that reveal their disdain for commonsense safeguards like verifying citizenship.”

“Free and fair elections are the bedrock of our Constitutional Republic, and we’re confident in securing an ultimate victory in the courtroom,” he said in an email….

AP:

The requests have come in letters, emails and phone calls. The specifics vary, but the target is consistent: The U.S. Department of Justice is ramping up an effort to get voter data and other election information from the states.

Over the past three months, the department’s voting section has requested copies of voter registration lists from state election administrators in at least 15 states, according to an Associated Press tally. Of those, nine are Democrats, five are Republicans and one is a bipartisan commission.

In Colorado, the department demanded “all records” relating to the 2024 election and any records the state retained from the 2020 election….

Share this:

“The Trump Administration’s Campaign to Undermine the Next Election”

authoritarian threats in US, election administration

Brennan Center expert brief:

In 2020, 2022, and 2024, our nation held federal elections. Despite the pandemic, threats of violence, denial of results, and extraordinary pressure, these were secure and accurate. Election officials worked together across party lines. The system held.

This year, however, a new threat to free and fair elections has emerged: the federal government itself.

The Trump administration has launched a concerted drive to undermine American elections. These moves are unprecedented and in some cases illegal. They began with the pardon of the January 6 defendants who sought to overturn the 2020 results. They include affirmative attacks on democratic institutions, the repeal and withdrawal of voter protections, and symbolic or demonstrative moves. A clear pattern suggests a growing effort. As the 2026 midterms approach, that effort will likely gather momentum.

This resource offers the first chronicle of the Trump administration’s actions this year to undermine election integrity. They include:

  • attempting to rewrite election rules to burden voters and usurp control of election systems;
  • targeting or threatening to target election officials and others who keep elections free and fair;
  • supporting people who undermine election administration; and
  • retreating from the federal government’s role of protecting voters and the election process.

Why do we conclude this represents a concerted strategy? Among other things, President Trump tried to do this before. He was the first president to try to overturn the results of a presidential election and used federal power to do so. Institutions and key officials blocked him. These internal checks, however, are now gone, and many public officials will likely carry out the president’s will.

This campaign to undermine elections runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution. Only Congress and the states can set election rules. The executive branch, especially the Department of Justice (DOJ), is charged with enforcing federal laws. But neither the president nor the DOJ has the authority to set rules governing elections or to supervise the state and local officials who run them.

To be sure, previous elections were marred by rules and practices that hindered full participation. Restrictive voting laws (some of which had already been ruled unconstitutional), skewed maps, and bomb threats at polling places impeded the freedom to vote. Federal officials had an important role in countering disinformation and combatting racial discrimination. This federal protection for fair elections may no longer exist.

This unprecedented federal push will place new pressure on American elections and will require vigilance and actions from those determined to defend the integrity of the vote….

Share this: