Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Page S6412]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FIRST AMENDMENT
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now, on another matter, I have come to
the floor frequently in recent months to warn about dangerous anti-
speech, anti-First Amendment headwinds blowing out of Washington, DC. I
have warned about proposals from our Democratic colleagues that seemed
tailor-made to chill the free exchange of ideas and make it more
difficult for Americans to engage in political speech.
Just a few days ago, on October 23, I explained how the threat of
heavy regulatory burden has already ``frightened media platforms into
rejecting political ads altogether. It's a textbook example of policy
designed to reduce the amount of free speech in this country.''
Then, 7 days later, here is what happened. Twitter announced that
their platform will ban all political ads. The online platform is
banning advertisements for candidates for office and political
campaigns.
What is more, they say they are also banning issue ads, which do not
even reference a specific campaign but merely seek to give one
perspective on a subject.
Twitter's leadership has tried to produce a rationale for banishing
paid political speech. The argument boils down to the same
misunderstandings that have been used to undermine free speech for
decades.
Here is what Twitter's CEO said: ``We believe political message reach
should be earned, not bought.'' This kind of surface-level argument may
sound good at first, but it quickly gives way to an arbitrary process
of picking winners and losers in the competition of ideas. Here is what
I mean: Twitter's new rules would seem to forbid either a small liberal
nonprofit or a small conservative nonprofit from putting money behind
an issue ad to amplify their perspective. But what about the press?
Will media corporations large and small remain free to buy paid
advertising to promote editorials and opinion writers? Will cable news
networks and national newspapers remain free to advertise their
political speech?
It would seem that Twitter will either have to ban opinion
journalists and the press from advertising their own work or else
create an enormous double standard that would just amplify the already
privileged speakers who already possess multimillion-dollar platforms.
It would just help clear the field for those elites by denying the same
tools to fledgling speakers who are not already famous.
Consider this: Back in July, the CEO of Twitter praised two
Democratic Presidential candidates in a Twitter post of his own. This
gentleman has 4.3 million followers. It seems fair to conclude that
these subscribers have not followed him solely due to the standalone
merits of his commentary but in part because they are interested to
hear from a powerful person who runs a hugely influential company. And,
of course, Twitter has worked hard and spent money for years to grow
its business and make itself famous--efforts that have raised the
profile of its CEO. There is nothing wrong with that, but it
illustrates the impossibility of any top-down standard to determine who
has earned an audience.
How many millions of dollars go into publicity campaigns for
Hollywood actors or musicians or media personalities? How many millions
of dollars in advertising and corporate strategy have made CNN, FOX,
MSNBC, and the New York Times into what they are today? When these
people and these institutions speak out on politics, are they using
megaphones they have earned or megaphones that have been bought?
Obviously, such distinctions are impossible to draw. This is exactly
why the act of free speech is not separate from the resources that make
speech possible. Let me say that again. This is exactly why the act of
free speech is not separate from the resources that make speech
possible.
Twitter's announced policy would not level the playing field. It
would only reinforce echo chambers. It would prevent a local candidate
on a shoestring budget from using a small amount of money to promote a
tweet so more of his neighbors can learn about his campaign. It would
seemingly reserve a special privilege for major media corporations,
while denying nonprofits the same opportunity. Such a policy would not
bolster our democracy. It would degrade democracy. It would amplify the
advantage of media companies, celebrities, and certain other
established elites, while denying an important tool to the Americans
who disagree with them.
My personal view is that the American people do not need elites to
predetermine which political speakers are legitimate and which are not.
I believe that holds true whether the elites live in Washington or
Silicon Valley or anywhere else.
Obviously Twitter can set whatever policy it wants. It is a private
sector company. But companies respond to incentives. It is easy to see
the influence of Washington and leading Democrats behind this
announcement--pretty easy. My Democratic colleagues have threatened to
impose huge regulatory liability on platforms that run political ads.
And now a prominent platform has preemptively decided that allowing
certain kinds of political speech is more trouble than it is worth. It
does not serve our democracy for Democratic leaders to chill or
suppress the free exchange of ideas through Federal policy. It does not
serve our democracy for private sector leaders to take away a crucial
tool that helps less prominent speakers make their case to the American
people.
____________________
