[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                   AMERICAN CONFIDENCE IN ELECTIONS:
                      PROTECTING POLITICAL SPEECH

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                             ADMINISTRATION

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                              MAY 11, 2023
                               __________

                              PART 1 OF 2
                               __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
      
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]      

                             www.govinfo.gov
                           www.cha.house.gov
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
56-213                    WASHINGTON : 2024                              
                           


                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                    BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia            JOSEPH MORELLE, New York,
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia              Ranking Member
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina          TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma             NORMA TORRES, California
MIKE CAREY, Ohio                     DEREK KILMER, Washington
ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, New York
LAUREL LEE, Florida

                     Tim Monahan,  Staff Director 
                 Jamie Fleet,  Minority Staff Director 

                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                                 PART 1
                           Opening Statements

Chairman Bryan Steil, Representative from the State of Wisconsin.     1
    Prepared statement of Chairman Bryan Steil...................     3
Ranking Member Joseph Morelle, Representative from the State of 
  New York.......................................................     3
    Prepared statement of Ranking Member Joseph Morelle..........     5

                               Witnesses

Harmeet K. Dhillon, managing partner, Dhillon Law Group Inc......    32
    Prepared statement of Ms. Harmeet K. Dhillon.................    35
Audrey Perry Martin, partner, The Gober Group....................    48
    Prepared statement of Audrey Perry Martin....................    50
Justin Riemer, principal, Riemer Law, LLC........................    55
    Prepared statement of Justin Riemer..........................    57
Bradley A. Smith, chairman and founder, Institute for Free Speech    61
    Prepared statement of Bradley A. Smith.......................    63
Stephen Spaulding, Vice President for Policy and External 
  Affairs, Common Cause..........................................    71
    Prepared statement of Stephen Spaulding......................    73

                       Submissions for the Record

Santos Indictment................................................     8
New York Times article...........................................    28
NAACP v. Alabama article.........................................    88
Social Media Review..............................................   179

                                 PART 2

Social Media Review [continued].................................. 1,079
Letter of parliamentarian appointment............................ 2,119

                        Questions for the Record

Bradley A. Smith answers to submitted questions.................. 2,121
Stephen Spaulding answers to submitted questions................. 2,133

 
                   AMERICAN CONFIDENCE IN ELECTIONS:
                      PROTECTING POLITICAL SPEECH

                              ----------                              


                              May 11, 2023

                 Committee on House Administration,
                                  House of Representatives,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in 
room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bryan Steil 
[chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Steil, Loudermilk, Griffith, 
Murphy, Carey, D'Esposito, Lee, Morelle, Sewell, and Torres.
    Also present: Representatives Johnson of Louisiana and 
Sarbanes.
    Staff present: Tim Monahan, Staff Director; Caleb Hays, 
Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel, Parliamentarian; 
Hillary Lassiter, Clerk; Jordan Wilson, Director of Member 
Services; Alex Deise, Assistant Parliamentarian and Counsel; 
Khalil Abboud, Minority Deputy Staff Director, Chief Counsel; 
Eddie Flaherty, Minority Chief Clerk; Jamie Fleet, Minority 
Staff Director; Sarah Nasta, Minority Elections Counsel; Owen 
Reilly, Minority Shared Staff; and Sean Wright, Minority Senior 
Elections Counsel.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRYAN STEIL, CHAIRMAN OF THE 
 COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
                           WISCONSIN

    Chairman Steil. The Committee on House Administration will 
come to order. I note that a quorum is present. Without 
objection, the chair may declare a recess at any time.
    Also without objection, the meeting record will remain open 
for 5 legislative days so Members may submit any materials they 
wish to be included therein.
    Today we will be having Congressman Mike Johnson joining 
us, and he has waived on to the Committee to participate in 
today's hearing.
    I thank Ranking Member Morelle, Members of the Committee, 
and our witnesses for joining today's Americans' confidence in 
elections hearing on the importance of political speech.
    Political speech is protected speech. Our Founding Fathers 
enshrined the First Amendment in the Constitution.
    Unfortunately, in our highly politicized political culture 
and climate, the First Amendment has been under attack through 
the use of misinformation czars and cancel culture.
    As a result, many Americans have grown concerned that their 
voices will be suppressed or that their beliefs will be 
weaponized against them.
    That is exactly what we saw 10 years ago, nearly to the 
day, with the now infamous scandal at the IRS involving then 
Acting Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner. On May 10, 
2013, the IRS had to apologize to conservative organizations 
for inappropriately targeting their applications for tax-exempt 
status. The Federal Government admitted to targeting a group of 
people because of their political beliefs. This is un-American 
and anti-democratic.
    Over a decade later, we are still having conversations 
about the weaponization of the IRS and DHS, the need to protect 
donor privacy, and other free speech and freedom of association 
issues.
    I am committed to upholding Americans' First Amendment 
right to support candidates, causes, organizations of their 
choice without fear or retribution. That is why I am focused on 
introducing the American Confidence in Elections Act, or the 
ACE Act.
    The ACE Act is our Federalist approach to election 
integrity and voter confidence, which in turn boosts voter 
participation.
    One thing we can do to build voter confidence is prevent 
another Lois Lerner scandal from occurring. The ACE Act will 
finally prohibit the IRS and any other Federal agencies from 
asking for an organization's donor lists, creating ad hoc 
standards, and applying them to ideologically opposed groups. 
This will help to protect individuals from retribution, 
harassment, or intimidation based on their beliefs.
    In addition to protecting donor privacy, the ACE Act will 
also bring greater transparency and accountability into the 
Federal campaign finance system. Last Congress every single 
House Democrat voted to allow Federal funds to be used toward 
their political campaigns. The ACE Act will specifically 
prevent this from happening.
    It also encourages federalism by strengthening State 
political parties. Instead of being centers for voter 
organization and messaging, State parties are currently some of 
the most highly restricted organizations in our system.
    Voters already think our political parties can work 
directly with their candidates with few restrictions, 
Republican Parties with Republican candidates, the Democratic 
Party with Democratic candidates.
    In reality, the outdated campaign finance system means that 
there is all sorts of hoops to jump through for this simple 
political process to work as expected. In many ways it does not 
make sense.
    Making the law work as voters expect will increase 
transparency in the campaign finance system, which will boost 
voters' confidence in our elections.
    As we begin today's hearing, I look forward to discussing 
some of these provisions and identifying what additional 
campaign financial reforms and donor privacy protections are 
necessary in restoring voter confidence.
    I will also note that John Sarbanes will also be waived on 
to this Committee in recognition of a request by the minority.
    I thank you for participating.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Steil follows:]

   PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 
                   ADMINISTRATION BRYAN STEIL

    Political speech is protected speech. Our Founding Fathers 
enshrined the First Amendment in the Constitution.
    Unfortunately, in our highly politicized political culture 
and climate, the First Amendment has been under attack through 
the use of misinformation czars and cancel culture.
    As a result, many Americans have grown concerned that their 
voices will be suppressed or that their beliefs will be 
weaponized against them.
    That is exactly what we saw 10 years ago, nearly to the 
day, with the now infamous scandal at the IRS involving then 
Acting Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner. On May 10, 
2013, the IRS had to apologize to conservative organizations 
for inappropriately targeting their applications for tax-exempt 
status. The Federal Government admitted to targeting a group of 
people because of their political beliefs. This is un-American 
and anti-democratic.
    Over a decade later, we are still having conversations 
about the weaponization of the IRS and DHS, the need to protect 
donor privacy, and other free speech and freedom of association 
issues.
    I am committed to upholding Americans' First Amendment 
right to support candidates, causes, organizations of their 
choice without fear or retribution. That is why I am focused on 
introducing the American Confidence in Elections Act, or the 
ACE Act.
    The ACE Act is our Federalist approach to election 
integrity and voter confidence, which in turn boosts voter 
participation.
    One thing we can do to build voter confidence is prevent 
another Lois Lerner scandal from occurring. The ACE Act will 
finally prohibit the IRS and any other Federal agencies from 
asking for an organization's donor lists, creating ad hoc 
standards, and applying them to ideologically opposed groups. 
This will help to protect individuals from retribution, 
harassment, or intimidation based on their beliefs.
    In addition to protecting donor privacy, the ACE Act will 
also bring greater transparency and accountability into the 
Federal campaign finance system. Last Congress every single 
House Democrat voted to allow Federal funds to be used toward 
their political campaigns. The ACE Act will specifically 
prevent this from happening.
    It also encourages federalism by strengthening State 
political parties. Instead of being centers for voter 
organization and messaging, State parties are currently some of 
the most highly restricted organizations in our system.
    Voters already think our political parties can work 
directly with their candidates with few restrictions, 
Republican Parties with Republican candidates, the Democratic 
Party with Democratic candidates.
    In reality, the outdated campaign finance system means that 
there is all sorts of hoops to jump through for this simple 
political process to work as expected. In many ways it does not 
make sense.
    Making the law work as voters expect will increase 
transparency in the campaign finance system, which will boost 
voters' confidence in our elections.
    As we begin today's hearing, I look forward to discussing 
some of these provisions and identifying what additional 
campaign financial reforms and donor privacy protections are 
necessary in restoring voter confidence.

    I now recognize Ranking Member Morelle for 5 minutes for 
the purpose of making his opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MORELLE, RANKING MEMBER OF THE 
 COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
                            NEW YORK

    Mr. Morelle. Good morning. Thank you all for being with us.
    Thank you, Chairman Steil, for welcoming us all today.
    Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said over a 
century ago, ``Sunlight is said to be the best of 
disinfectants.''
    This observation supporting transparency and good 
governance remains true today. Transparency about who is 
seeking to influence Federal elections is critical to 
democratic self-governance.
    Yet, a common refrain from our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle is that campaign finance laws--and disclosure laws 
in particular--have an unlawful chilling effect on political 
speech.
    I would find this a baffling argument if it were not for my 
suspicion that it is rooted in cynicism.
    A central aim of the Constitution is to ensure meaningful 
self-government by the citizens. The First Amendment protects 
the right to engage in the public sphere. Disclosure laws do 
not silence speech, they simply ask you to stand by it.
    You do not have to have a law degree to understand this 
fundamental principle. In its campaign finance decisions, the 
Supreme Court, comprised of folks who do have law degrees, has 
repeatedly acknowledged the connection between political 
transparency and democratic self-governance.
    In 1976, Buckley v. Valeo recognized that disclosure, 
quote, ``provides the electorate with information `as to where 
political campaign money comes from and how it is spent by the 
candidate' in order to aid the voters in evaluating those who 
seek Federal office.'' Aiding ``the voters in evaluating those 
who seek Federal office.'' End quote.
    Similarly, in 2010, Citizens United v. the FEC described 
how disclosure promotes self-governance by supplying 
information that, quote, ``enables the electorate to make 
informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers 
and messages.''
    Indeed, while Citizens United supercharged dark money in 
American elections, the decision held by an 8 to 1 vote that 
campaign disclosure rules are not only constitutional, they are 
preferred to many other forms of regulation.
    Justice Clarence Thomas, however, parted ways with even his 
fellow conservative Justices when it came to the law's 
disclosure requirements, casting the lone dissenting vote.
    Given recent reporting, Justice Thomas' allergic reaction 
to transparency and disclosure is no surprise. He has failed 
for years to disclose lavish gifts from Harlan Crow, a wealthy 
conservative donor. Those gifts include luxury vacations, 
tuition for a grand nephew at a private boarding school, and 
even the purchase of the Justice's mother's house, where she 
remains able to live free of charge.
    Justice Thomas' personal decisions to receive such lavish 
gifts without reporting them publicly are a quintessential 
example of why we need disclosure.
    Another example is the just unsealed 13-count indictment 
against Representative George Santos. According to the 
indictment, Representative Santos engaged in a fraudulent 
scheme to solicit large donations to a fictitious 501(c)(4) 
organization and a super-PAC. This scheme's fraudulent premise 
is the product of our post-Citizens United era where wealthy 
special interest donors try to call the shots.
    I would repeat my call for his resignation.
    A remedy to this onslaught of dark money is disclosure. The 
Supreme Court has consistently recognized that disclosure laws 
enhance rather than constrain the free speech necessary to 
sustain our democracy.
    The Court has opined that disclosure laws directly serve 
the democratic values animating the First Amendment, quote, 
``securing the widest possible dissemination of information 
from diverse and antagonistic sources and facilitating 
uninhibited, robust, and wide open public debate.''
    In another 8 to 1 decision, again with Justice Thomas 
dissenting--we see a pattern here--the Supreme Court upheld the 
disclosure of referendum petitions. Rejecting requests for 
anonymous political speech, Justice Antonin Scalia, that noted 
progressive bulwark, observed that he does not look forward to 
society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns 
anonymously, hidden from public scrutiny, and protected from 
the accountability of criticism. He famously said that such a 
future does not resemble the home of the brave.
    I agree with Justice Scalia.
    House Democrats will continue advancing pro-voter, pro-
transparency measures in bills like the Freedom to Vote Act, 
DISCLOSE Act, and Honest Ads Act among them.
    Strong disclosure requirements can help educate voters 
about candidates, policies, and sources of political speech, 
promoting informed decision making in the electoral process--
everything we should want in American elections.
    Likewise, disclosure provides the public with information 
to monitor elected leaders and hold them accountable.
    For that reason, there is also work to be done to advance 
stock trading reforms and the need to pass reforms that 
strengthen disclosure around conflicts of interest in our own 
house and in the courts--transparency measures that inspire 
confidence in voters and confidence in the American public.
    I would also note, American taxpayers under our bill will 
not pay a single penny to fund the campaigns of candidates 
participating in the small donor system. There are surcharges 
on fines. They are not paid for by the American taxpayer, 
despite repeated suggestions that that is not the case.
    Let me, before I close, I seek unanimous consent that the 
unsealed 13-count indictment against Representative Santos be 
entered into the record.
    I also ask unanimous consent that a New York Times piece 
published yesterday by David Firestone titled ``George Santos's 
Spectacularly Dumb Alleged Scheme,'' which highlights the 
consequences of the post-Citizens United era, notably 
deregulation and underenforcement of our campaign finance laws, 
be added to the record.
    With that, I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Morelle follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 
                 ADMINISTRATION JOSEPH MORELLE

    Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said over a 
century ago, ``Sunlight is said to be the best of 
disinfectants.''
    This observation supporting transparency and good 
governance remains true today. Transparency about who is 
seeking to influence Federal elections is critical to 
democratic self-governance.
    Yet, a common refrain from our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle is that campaign finance laws--and disclosure laws 
in particular--have an unlawful chilling effect on political 
speech.
    I would find this a baffling argument if it were not for my 
suspicion that it is rooted in cynicism.
    A central aim of the Constitution is to ensure meaningful 
self-government by the citizens. The First Amendment protects 
the right to engage in the public sphere. Disclosure laws do 
not silence speech, they simply ask you to stand by it.
    You do not have to have a law degree to understand this 
fundamental principle. In its campaign finance decisions, the 
Supreme Court, comprised of folks who do have law degrees, has 
repeatedly acknowledged the connection between political 
transparency and democratic self-governance.
    In 1976, Buckley v. Valeo recognized that disclosure, 
quote, ``provides the electorate with information `as to where 
political campaign money comes from and how it is spent by the 
candidate' in order to aid the voters in evaluating those who 
seek Federal office.'' Aiding ``the voters in evaluating those 
who seek Federal office.'' End quote.
    Similarly, in 2010, Citizens United v. the FEC described 
how disclosure promotes self-governance by supplying 
information that, quote, ``enables the electorate to make 
informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers 
and messages.''
    Indeed, while Citizens United supercharged dark money in 
American elections, the decision held by an 8 to 1 vote that 
campaign disclosure rules are not only constitutional, they are 
preferred to many other forms of regulation.
    Justice Clarence Thomas, however, parted ways with even his 
fellow conservative Justices when it came to the law's 
disclosure requirements, casting the lone dissenting vote.
    Given recent reporting, Justice Thomas' allergic reaction 
to transparency and disclosure is no surprise. He has failed 
for years to disclose lavish gifts from Harlan Crow, a wealthy 
conservative donor. Those gifts include luxury vacations, 
tuition for a grand nephew at a private boarding school, and 
even the purchase of the Justice's mother's house, where she 
remains able to live free of charge.
    Justice Thomas' personal decisions to receive such lavish 
gifts without reporting them publicly are a quintessential 
example of why we need disclosure.
    Another example is the just unsealed 13-count indictment 
against Representative George Santos. According to the 
indictment, Representative Santos engaged in a fraudulent 
scheme to solicit large donations to a fictitious 501(c)(4) 
organization and a super-PAC. This scheme's fraudulent premise 
is the product of our post-Citizens United era where wealthy 
special interest donors try to call the shots.
    I would repeat my call for his resignation.
    A remedy to this onslaught of dark money is disclosure. The 
Supreme Court has consistently recognized that disclosure laws 
enhance rather than constrain the free speech necessary to 
sustain our democracy.
    The Court has opined that disclosure laws directly serve 
the democratic values animating the First Amendment, quote, 
``securing the widest possible dissemination of information 
from diverse and antagonistic sources and facilitating 
uninhibited, robust, and wide open public debate.''
    In another 8 to 1 decision, again with Justice Thomas 
dissenting--we see a pattern here--the Supreme Court upheld the 
disclosure of referendum petitions. Rejecting requests for 
anonymous political speech, Justice Antonin Scalia, that noted 
progressive bulwark, observed that he does not look forward to 
society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns 
anonymously, hidden from public scrutiny, and protected from 
the accountability of criticism. He famously said that such a 
future does not resemble the home of the brave.
    I agree with Justice Scalia.
    House Democrats will continue advancing pro-voter, pro-
transparency measures in bills like the Freedom to Vote Act, 
DISCLOSE Act, and Honest Ads Act among them.
    Strong disclosure requirements can help educate voters 
about candidates, policies, and sources of political speech, 
promoting informed decision making in the electoral process--
everything we should want in American elections.
    Likewise, disclosure provides the public with information 
to monitor elected leaders and hold them accountable.
    For that reason, there is also work to be done to advance 
stock trading reforms and the need to pass reforms that 
strengthen disclosure around conflicts of interest in our own 
house and in the courts--transparency measures that inspire 
confidence in voters and confidence in the American public.
    I would also note, American taxpayers under our bill will 
not pay a single penny to fund the campaigns of candidates 
participating in the small donor system. There are surcharges 
on fines. They are not paid for by the American taxpayer, 
despite repeated suggestions that that is not the case.
    Let me, before I close, I seek unanimous consent that the 
unsealed 13-count indictment against Representative Santos be 
entered into the record.
    I also ask unanimous consent that a New York Times piece 
published yesterday by David Firestone titled ``George Santos's 
Spectacularly Dumb Alleged Scheme,'' which highlights the 
consequences of the post-Citizens United era, notably 
deregulation and underenforcement of our campaign finance laws, 
be added to the record.

    Chairman Steil. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The Santos indictment and New York Times article referred 
to follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    All other Members' opening statements will be made part of 
the hearing record if they are submitted to the Committee clerk 
by 5 p.m. today.
    Pursuant to paragraph b of Committee Rule 6, the witnesses 
will please stand and raise your right hand.
    [Witnesses sworn.]
    Chairman Steil. Let the record show that the witnesses 
answered in the affirmative and may be seated.
    I will now introduce our witnesses.
    Our first witness is Ms. Harmeet Dhillon, a nationally 
recognized lawyer with a passion for justice, a zeal for 
attacking legal challenges, and an intense sense of 
satisfaction in helping her clients realize creative and 
practical solutions to seemingly intractable problems.
    From an early interest in constitutional litigation to a 
stint at the Department of Justice, a decade of practice at 
prestigious international law firms, and founding her own firm 
in 2006, Ms. Dhillon has developed a niche practice in 
representing clients across California in election and campaign 
finance law matters.
    In addition, Ms. Dhillon is the founder and chief executive 
officer of the Center for American Liberty, a nonprofit 
organization dedicated to defending the civil liberties of 
Americans.
    Our next witness is Ms. Audrey Perry Martin, a national and 
California political law expert with over 15 years of 
experience who currently serves as partner of The Gober Group's 
Sacramento office.
    Ms. Martin has extensive Presidential election campaign 
experience, serving as FEC counsel for the McCain-Palin 
campaign, deputy general counsel for the Romney for President, 
and a consultant on the 2012 campaign.
    Between 2005 and 2006, Ms. Martin also served as legal 
counsel to the Committee on House Administration, where she 
focused on issues such as HAVA implementation, election 
integrity, congressional ethics, and campaign finance.
    Our next witness, Mr. Justin Riemer, is principal at Riemer 
Law and has been advising clients and high-ranking public 
officials on election administration, voting rights, and 
campaign finance matters for nearly 50 years.
    Previously Mr. Riemer served as chief counsel of the 
Republican National Committee and as counsel to the U.S. Senate 
Committee on Rules and Administration.
    Mr. Riemer also served as deputy secretary of the Virginia 
State Board of Elections, where he has coordinated 
implementation of the 2011 redistricting process, the 
administration of the 2012 Presidential election, and the 2013 
gubernatorial elections, which included a statewide recount for 
attorney general.
    Our next witness, Mr. Bradley Smith, is the chairman and 
founder of the Institute for Free Speech and previously served 
as Chairman for the Federal Election Commission. As an FEC 
Commissioner, Mr. Smith was praised for his integrity and 
refusal to put partisan interests ahead of his duties, as well 
as his steadfast support for free speech.
    Mr. Smith currently serves as the Josiah H. Blackmore/
Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at the Capital 
University Law School in Columbus, Ohio. I will also note that 
is a heck of a long name.
    Finally, Mr. Stephen Spaulding is the vice president for 
political and external affairs at Common Cause. Mr. Spaulding 
has served in senior staff positions on Capitol Hill in both 
the House and Senate, most recently as the policy director for 
the U.S. Senate Rules Committee, where he advised his chair, 
Senator Amy Klobuchar.
    In addition, Mr. Spaulding was previously the senior 
elections counsel to the Committee on House Administration 
under the leadership of Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren.
    We appreciate all our witnesses being here today and look 
forward to your testimony. As a reminder, we have read your 
written statement and it will appear in full in the record. 
Under Committee Rule 9, you are to limit your oral presentation 
to a brief summary of your written statement, unless I, in 
consultation with Mr. Morelle, extend that time.
    Please remember to switch on your microphone in front of 
you so that the Members can hear you. When you begin to speak, 
the light on the timer will turn green. After 4 minutes it will 
turn yellow. When the red light comes on, we will ask you to 
wrap it up.
    I now am honored to now recognize Ms. Harmeet Dhillon for 5 
minutes for the purpose of making an opening statement.

STATEMENTS OF MS. HARMEET K. DHILLON, MANAGING PARTNER, DHILLON 
  LAW GROUP INC.; MS. AUDREY PERRY MARTIN, PARTNER, THE GOBER 
   GROUP; MR. JUSTIN RIEMER, PRINCIPAL, RIEMER LAW, LLC; MR. 
  BRADLEY A. SMITH, CHAIRMAN AND FOUNDER, INSTITUTE FOR FREE 
 SPEECH; AND MR. STEPHEN SPAULDING, VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY 
               AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, COMMON CAUSE

                STATEMENT OF HARMEET K. DHILLON

    Ms. Dhillon. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Steil, 
Ranking Member Morelle, and Members of the Committee. I 
appreciate your invitation to testify today on a topic that I 
believe to be an existential threat to our democracy and 
corrosive to our core values as a Nation.
    I am referring to the pervasive, coordinated efforts 
between our Government and private actors to influence the 
outcomes of our elections.
    Whether in my role as chairman of the Center for American 
Liberty, chairman of the Republican National Lawyers 
Association, or representing 5 million California Republicans 
at the Republican National Committee, it is probably the No. 1 
thing that citizens want to learn more about and do something 
to stop.
    I would like to address two separate but related examples 
of the ever-expanding public-private alliances directly 
impacting public trust in American elections. First, the 
expanding Government efforts to censor core political speech 
online. Second, the increasing use of private funds to run 
public election operations.
    Reporting over the last year has revealed the extensive 
coordinated efforts between Government actors, big tech, 
nonprofits, and academics to identify and censor what they 
collectively deem to be, quote, ``misinformation.'' What we 
know about the scope of this Government-dictated and privately 
facilitated speech-killing machine is truly staggering, and we 
certainly do not know the full picture yet.
    An Intercept article by Ken Klippenstein and Lee Fang 
reported that the Department of Homeland Security made 
combating election misinformation a top priority. The article 
describes the formalized process that social media platforms, 
including Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, created in the 2020 
election, allowing Government officials to quickly flag content 
for removal and a vast network of nonprofit organizations 
working in concert with the Federal Government and social media 
companies to police online speech.
    There is also a Missouri-Louisiana lawsuit filed by then 
Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Attorney General Jeff Landry. 
The allegations rely on extensive documentation that describes 
at a granular level how private social media platforms, hand in 
hand with Government officials, worked together to define and 
then suppress so-called misinformation.
    The Twitter Files reporting by Matt Taibbi, Michael 
Shellenberger, and others--certainly not conservative 
journalists--revealed extensive coordination with the FBI and 
other Federal agencies. They aided the intelligence community 
in its work overseas and they reveal extensive shadow banning 
to limit certain opinions that are disfavored by the 
Government. Twitter relied on Government actors and nonprofit 
partners to identify the speech it then chose to censor.
    I have experienced this in my law practice. Our client, 
Rogan O'Handley, at the Center for American Liberty was a 
victim of Government censorship in 2020 election. The posts 
that he was censored for were core political speech about an 
election that are protected by the First Amendment of the 
United States Constitution.
    The censorship campaign was led by a State agency with a 
mission to identify and censor Government-labeled 
misinformation and then not only suppress the speech, but 
silence the speaker himself from speaking on social media.
    The State coordinated with a partisan consulting firm, 
SKDKnickerbocker, which was also a consultant to the Biden 
campaign, to help with its efforts. The State coordinated with 
the National Association of Secretaries of State to develop a 
special process for notifying social media companies what 
speech it should censor and remove from the internet.
    Communications Decency Act Section 230 has also had a major 
impact on censoring speech online. 230's traditional editorial 
function test has been repeatedly misinterpreted by Federal 
courts to protect social media platform censorship online. The 
statute has been weaponized by big tech to fend off lawsuits by 
those who have fallen victim to coordinated censorship 
campaigns, like Mr. O'Handley.
    Congress should act to clarify Section 230 to ensure that 
it does not protect discriminatory censorship practiced by the 
big tech companies, whether in concert with Government agencies 
or not.
    A lack of private cause of action against big tech for 
discriminatory censorship is a gap in our free speech regime 
and it does threaten confidence in elections.
    In conclusion, I am going to talk about Zuckerbucks.
    States are grappling with the phenomenon of so-called 
Zuckerbucks. This is a shorthand reference to private entities 
and individuals injecting hundreds of millions of dollars into 
local election administration battleground precincts that often 
determine the outcomes of important races.
    It had a major impact in the 2020 election, with 2,500 
election offices across the country receiving grants in varying 
amounts from CTCL and CEIR, both funded by the Zuckerberg Chan 
Initiative. While a handful of State legislatures have taken 
action to ban Zuckerbucks, many Governors have vetoed these 
measures.
    Distrust in elections is not a partisan issue. Both 
Republicans and Democrats today have expressed a historic level 
of distrust in our elections. I hope that a renewed commitment 
by Congress to protecting freedom of speech in elections will 
help alleviate that trend and increase public confidence in 
America's elections.
    Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Dhillon follows:]

            PREPARED STATEMENT OF HARMEET K. DHILLON

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Steil. Thank you, Ms. Dhillon.
    I now recognize you, Ms. Audrey Perry Martin, 5 minutes.

                STATEMENT OF AUDREY PERRY MARTIN

    Ms. Martin. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Steil and 
Ranking Member Morelle, for having me today. I appreciate this 
opportunity to talk about the critical importance of protecting 
political speech in U.S. elections.
    I want to focus my comments today on the necessary and 
primarily nonpartisan modernization changes outlined in Section 
3 of the ACE Act and the importance of updating Federal 
campaign finance laws to put them in line with our modern era.
    Although campaign finance policy is the subject of intense 
debate and public interest, current Federal campaign finance 
laws are woefully outdated. Significant changes have occurred 
in campaign finance policy, in technology, and in the political 
landscape since the last time Congress passed a substantial 
amendment to the campaign finance law over 20 years ago with 
the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or BCRA.
    Since 2002, Congress has only made really minor changes to 
Federal statutes, although the Federal Election Commission has 
attempted to fill this gap with regulations.
    Many provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
1971, or FECA, need modernization to keep the law in line with 
current political realities.
    First, most campaign finance reports filed with the Federal 
Election Commission, or the FEC, are required to be done 
electronically for anyone who is raising or spending over 
$50,000. However, electioneering communication reports are not 
currently required to be filed electronically.
    This does not make a lot of sense in our modern era. 
Reports that are filed electronically are available much sooner 
to voters and it is a lot easier for staff to process them.
    Second, the lack of legislation focused specifically on 
online campaign activity has led to much uncertainty in the 
regulated community about how to report communications made 
over the internet and what type of disclaimers are required for 
internet political ads.
    This issue has not just affected campaigns and political 
committees. Private citizens expressing their opinion over the 
internet can unknowingly run afoul of Federal campaign finance 
laws by expressing their political views online.
    As a result, it has been left to the FEC to attempt to 
modernize these rules through the regulatory process. Although 
somewhat helpful, this regulation did not address several 
important issues.
    The ACE Act addresses most of these issues. The bill 
codifies the FEC's 2006 internet rulemaking by exempting unpaid 
internet communications from the definition of a contribution 
and expenditure, even when they are coordinated with a 
candidate.
    Furthermore, the ACE Act expands the media exemption to 
include electronic and internet-based news companies, clearing 
up confusion over which companies were eligible for the 
exemption.
    Under this Act, a news organization that is not owned or 
controlled by a party, a political committee, or a candidate 
should qualify for the media exemption.
    These technical amendments to the FECA are needed to 
modernize the law for the current era.
    Third, the proposed bill updates the law to align with 
inflation. Under FECA, certain contribution limits are indexed 
for inflation every 2 years based on the change in the cost of 
living.
    However, not all of them are, and FECA does not tie the 
qualifying threshold for political committee qualification. 
Rapid inflation in the past decades resulted in an extremely 
low qualification threshold for filing reports with the FEC.
    For example, under current law, an entity will become a 
political committee after spending only $1,000 to support a 
candidate. This is not indexed for inflation, so every year it 
gets worse.
    The proposed bill addresses these outdated limits by 
increasing them and tying the qualification thresholds to 
inflation, avoiding the need for Congress to address this again 
in 20 years. This would help avoid chilling grassroots 
political speech by setting too low of a trigger to qualify as 
a committee or to file FEC reports.
    Finally, Section 3 of the ACE Act includes several 
additional significant nonpartisan changes. It implements the 
FEC legislative recommendations to make permanent the extension 
of administrative finds for qualified disclosure requirement 
violation, which for years has just been extended temporarily.
    It raises the annual rate of pay for staff and adjusts it 
for inflation in the same manner as other positions in the 
Executive Schedule, allowing the FEC to attract and retain 
qualified employees.
    It also clears up the rules regarding what happens if a 
candidate dies and no one is at the helm of the campaign. It 
codifies recent Supreme Court decisions, simplifies joint 
fundraising, and sunsets the unused Presidential public funding 
program.
    Current Federal campaign finance laws need to be updated 
and require modernization to keep up with the changing 
political and technological landscape of our day. The 
modernizing sections of the ACE Act are a critical update to 
Federal election law to address these important issues.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Martin follows:]

           PREPARED STATEMENT OF AUDREY PERRY MARTIN 

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Steil. Thank you, Ms. Perry Martin.
    I now recognize Mr. Justin Riemer for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF JUSTIN RIEMER

    Mr. Riemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss overdue 
reforms to help strengthen our Nation's local and State 
political parties.
    As former chief counsel to the RNC, I saw firsthand how 
campaign finance restrictions are hollowing out our State 
parties. This is bad for our political system, but fortunately 
even modest reforms can provide meaningful relief, ensure 
better legal compliance, and decrease political polarization.
    BCRA weakened our local parties by choking off their 
ability to fundraise and engage in grassroots political 
programs and saddling them with Byzantine regulations.
    Do not take my word for it. Experts from across the 
ideological spectrum know both the positive role parties play 
in our system and how BCRA weakens them.
    A few suggestions on how Congress can help.
    First, State parties have suffered because their ability to 
fundraise has steadily eroded since the enactment of BCRA in 
2003. This is due to Congress' failure to index for inflation 
when setting State party contribution limits, even though it 
did do so for national parties and Federal candidates.
    State parties today are stuck with the same $10,000 
contribution limit they were in 2003. Not indexing for 
inflation means that a $10,000 contribution made in 2003 is 
worth just over $6,000 today. For comparison, in 2003 the 
national party committees had $25,000 limits and today they are 
over $41,000.
    BCRA left State parties behind at the same time the law 
imposed other fundraising and spending restrictions. Meanwhile, 
campaign costs have increased, even when accounting for 
inflation, due to numerous factors, including increased early 
and mail voting.
    Yes, the emergence of super-PACs has contributed to 
increased spending and helped reduce parties' influence, but 
their inability to remain competitive preceded Citizens United.
    Congress should raise State party limits and account for 
inflation or these disparities will only grow worse. There is 
little downside since State parties are also one of our most 
transparent political entities.
    There is another reform that would help. State parties are 
permitted to have separate State election accounts which in 
theory should help them remain competitive. BCRA's 
federalization of our elections has made these accounts largely 
irrelevant.
    BCRA requires State parties to fund most of their 
activities in Federal election years from their already 
inflation-depleted Federal accounts. This includes voter 
registration drives and basic Get Out the Vote activities that 
do not even reference a Federal candidate. Thus, a State party 
with few or no competitive Federal races but several State and 
local ones must use only Federal funds even if they are flush 
with State dollars.
    Compliance with these regulations is also difficult, State 
parties are the most regulated political entities in our system 
because they have to comply with both State and Federal 
campaign finance laws. Ironically, BCRA made things the most 
complicated for the least resourced political committees.
    It is hard to fathom how any of this prevents corruption. 
In practice, it only stifles parties' ability to engage in core 
First Amendment-protected speech and time-honored grassroots 
activities.
    It is common sense to reduce these regulatory burdens by 
not only raising contribution limits, but also giving State 
parties flexibility in financing these grassroots activities. 
2022's ACE Act would have done just that by exempting certain 
State party functions from Federal regulations so long as they 
were not coordinating with candidates.
    Finally, another overdue reform would be to increase the 
spending threshold for when local grassroots organizations must 
register and report to the FEC. For example, groups must do so 
if they spend more than $1,000 in supporting Federal candidates 
in a year. Like the State party limits, this threshold has 
remained static and unindexed for inflation, in this case since 
the early 1970's.
    Compliance is also unrealistic. I am sure there are dozens 
of local groups out there that have unwittingly triggered these 
limits and have not reported, nor can the FEC police 
enforcement.
    No wonder both Democrat and Republican FEC Commissioners 
have consistently called on Congress to raise those limits and 
index them.
    This would avoid entrapping local groups that raise and 
spend comparatively little but are still important participants 
in our political process.
    These are all seemingly technical issues in the overall 
campaign finance landscape, but I can assure you, as a 
practitioner in this area, they are important.
    State and local parties are essential to our political 
system. Not only do they allow Americans to come together and 
exercise their First Amendment rights, they are also 
instrumental in nominating and electing our future 
officeholders.
    Even the Brennan Center, an organization I rarely agree 
with, noted in its call to ease these burdens that parties are 
an essential element of our democracy and a moderating force 
responsive to public opinion.
    Easing regulatory burdens on them will not solve all of 
their problems, but it will give them a fighting chance.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Riemer follows:]

              PREPARED STATEMENT OF JUSTIN RIEMER 

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Mr. Riemer.
    Mr. Smith, I understand your flight just made it in on 
time, so we appreciate you hustling to be with us today. You 
are now recognized, Mr. Smith, for 5 minutes.

                 STATEMENT OF BRADLEY A. SMITH

    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chairman Steil and Ranking Member 
Morelle and Members of the Committee.
    Campaign finance is fundamentally different from most 
Government regulation in the sense that it concerns the heart 
of democratic self-governance: when and how we discuss issues 
of public policy and public affairs and candidates for office.
    For that reason, the Supreme Court has noted that the First 
Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application precisely 
to the conduct of campaigns for political office. I would add 
to that broader discussion again of public affairs and issues.
    The Government should not constrain the right of the 
American people to discuss candidates and politics lightly. The 
Supreme Court has recognized only one permissible grounds for 
restricting speech--political speech--and that is the 
prevention of quid pro quo corruption or its appearance, and 
constantly rejected attempts to restrict campaign speech based 
on other legislative aims.
    The ACE Act legislation should begin as it does by 
modifying and modernizing the disclosure regime and simplifying 
regulation. In the 2022 midterms, the average candidate for the 
U.S. Senate raised about $13.8 million, the average candidate 
for the U.S. House about $1.8 million. On top of this, you have 
about $7.4 billion spent by Federal political action committees 
and another $1.1 billion by independent expenditures.
    In order to prevent people from improperly influencing 
candidates, contributions are limited to $3,300 per election. 
Any group of people that bands together to talk with the major 
purpose of defeating one or more Federal candidates or electing 
one or more such candidates and spends more than $1,000 is 
required to register and file burdensome reports with the 
Federal Election Commission. Anyone spending money to 
independently try to elect or defeat a Federal candidate has to 
file at just $250.
    Now, to the average citizen even $250 seems like a pretty 
good chunk of change, let alone $5,000 that a group might 
contribute as a PAC. In the context of a $1.8 million House 
campaign, it is hard to envision that this has any corrupting 
effect on the Members of this Committee or their colleagues on 
the House.
    These numbers, we should note, have not been adjusted even 
for inflation since the 1970's, these numbers on disclosure, 
which includes donors of as little as $200.
    Now, free societies thrive on the public exchange of ideas. 
The First Amendment protects not only the brave, but it also 
protects the meek, the weak, and minorities of all kind.
    For example, today we see people often publicly hounded for 
their association with groups, sometimes years in the past, 
that have for one reason or another become controversial. I 
could just give one high-profile example or I could give many 
others, including examples of people who we would view as much 
more ordinary citizens.
    The high-profile example would be California's Proposition 
8, which passed in 2008 in California, a very liberal State, 
representing the votes of over 7 million people.
    Now, whether one agrees with the proposition or not, it was 
hardly outside of mainstream political discourse in 2008. Yet, 
nearly 6 years later, Mozilla CEO and founder Brendan Eich was 
pressured into resigning from his company due to the 
controversy surrounding a small contribution of $1,000 he had 
previously made supporting Proposition 8, again, close to a 
decade before.
    If anything, our political culture is becoming more 
unforgiving in the decade since Mr. Eich's resignation. Faced 
with this minefield, many people will simply refrain from 
supporting political or policy groups rather than risk the 
backlash that may come years later. These low reporting 
thresholds and excessive reporting requirements chill protected 
speech.
    Now, we should also note that disclosure of public debate 
has been sanctioned by the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court 
has never sanctioned disclosure of anything related to public 
affairs or political issue discussion.
    It has only sanctioned disclosure in the context of 
political committees; that is, organizations that exist for the 
primary purpose of electing or defeating candidates for office 
or for speech which is expressly advocating the election or 
defeat of those candidates or its functional equivalent.
    Talk about dark money seems to hide this. We should note 
that so-called dark money consists of well under 5 percent of 
total spending in Federal political races. Most of that dark 
money is, in fact, relatively well-known to people.
    For example, large dark money groups, groups that identify 
as dark money groups, include the Natural Resources Defense 
Council, the National Association of Realtors, the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce. I do not think that most Americans are scratching 
their heads desperately trying to figure out what the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce or the Natural Resources Defense Council 
stand for.
    In the end, I think the ACE Act makes good steps. One thing 
that I would emphasize here as I conclude is that it is 
important for the ACE Act to get out of the campaign finance 
regulation business, other agencies, such as the Internal 
Revenue Service, which led to the Tea Party scandal, the SEC or 
the FCC, and leave this to the agency designated by statute to 
interpret campaign finance law, the FEC.
    Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

             PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRADLEY A. SMITH

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Spaulding, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                 STATEMENT OF STEPHEN SPAULDING

    Mr. Spaulding. Good morning, Chairman Steil, Ranking Member 
Morelle, distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for 
the opportunity to be here this morning.
    Our north star must be a democracy that lives up to its 
promise, one where everyone participates and everyone is heard. 
It is why we have the freedom to vote.
    The late great American hero, Representative John Lewis, 
said it best: ``It is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have 
in a democratic society.''
    The freedom to vote is political speech. It is the power to 
have a voice in our democracy. Political speech has been under 
attack. Voter suppression, gerrymandering, and the undue 
influence of big money in politics form a trifecta that 
silences voters.
    Today we are focusing on money in politics. The Supreme 
Court's decisions in Citizens United and McCutcheon ripped a 
massive tear in the fabric of laws that Congress passed to stop 
corruption and bring transparency to our elections.
    Just a hundred people, enough to fit into this hearing 
room, contributed nearly three-quarters of the $1.2 billion 
people contributed to super-PACs in the last cycle. Put another 
way, a hundred people pumped 60 percent more money into our 
elections than millions of small donors combined.
    This money is coming from a tiny and highly unrepresented 
segment of the public. Americans have good reason to think that 
their voices are being drowned out. It is made worse because 
much of it is undisclosed.
    Since Citizens United, according to the nonpartisan Open 
Secrets, at least $3 of every $10 in outside spending reported 
to the FEC since Citizens United can be traced to dark money 
groups.
    Justice Kennedy wrote in Citizens United, in a provision to 
the opinion that had the support of eight out of nine Justices, 
that, quote, ``Disclosure enables the electorate to make 
informed decisions and give proper weight to speakers and 
messages and lets voters make informed choices in the political 
marketplace.''
    Transparency in campaign spending protects voters' right to 
know who is speaking to them and who is trying to influence 
their votes on election day so that they can give proper weight 
to different speakers and messages, as Justice Kennedy wrote. 
It stops corruption. It makes sure we can enforce our finance 
laws in the first place.
    Consider a scandal that has rocked Ohio. Imagine you are an 
executive at a power company on the verge of bankruptcy. If you 
can spend the company's money to elect some handpicked 
candidates to the statehouse, including the Speaker of the 
House, you have a good chance of securing an eye-popping return 
on your investment, like a billion-dollar bailout of two of 
your power plants. One of your lobbyists slips a $400,000 check 
across the table to further the scheme, made out to the dark 
money group controlled by the future Speaker.
    This is not just made up. In March, a former Speaker of the 
Ohio House of Representatives was convicted in a racketeering 
trial that involved $60 million in bribes in exchange for a 
$1.3 billion power plant bailout. Ohioans could not follow the 
money to get to the root of the scandal. It does not have to be 
this way and it is solvable and there is momentum in the 
States.
    Take Arizona. Just last fall, voters there approved the 
Voters' Right to Know Act by a vote of 72 percent to 27 percent 
in Arizona so that Arizonans can see who is behind big campaign 
spenders there.
    The House has passed the DISCLOSE Act several times to 
shine a light on secret money in elections. It is also passed 
the bipartisan Honest Ads Act to help voters know who is behind 
political advertisements they see online.
    Of course these were all passed as part of the Freedom to 
Vote Act, a bill that puts people first.
    They stand in sharp contrast to the ACE Act as introduced 
last Congress. Provisions in the ACE Act would open the door to 
more secret money in our elections and further empower the 
wealthy few to spend even more money purchasing access and 
influence.
    The other day I was looking at the most recent turnout 
statistics that came out from the Census Bureau. About half of 
eligible voters sat out the election last year. In 2020, a high 
water mark for turnout, roughly a third of eligible voters sat 
it out. Their political speech went unspoken at the ballot box.
    As we hold ourselves out as democracy's gold standard, we 
have to do more to ensure that everyone can participate and 
everyone can be heard, where our Government is representative 
and reflective and responsive to the people that it serves. 
That is what will strengthen confidence in elections and 
vindicate the most fundamental freedom that we have--the 
freedom of one person, one vote.
    Thank you, Chairman Steil.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Spaulding follows:]

            PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN SPAULDING

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Mr. Spaulding.
    I will now recognize Mr. Griffith for 5 minutes for the 
purpose of asking the witnesses questions.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I greatly appreciate 
that.
    I will ask this to all witnesses today. It is almost 10 
years to the day after the fateful announcement by Lois Lerner 
of the IRS that the agency was disfavoring groups when granting 
tax-exempt status. While Congress has passed language on a 
bipartisan basis each year since 2013 to prevent another Lois 
Lerner situation, it is time to make those protections 
permanent.
    Would you agree? I will start with you, Ms. Dhillon. Yes or 
no?
    Ms. Dhillon. Yes, sir, I do agree.
    Mr. Griffith. Ms. Martin?
    Ms. Martin. I do agree, yes.
    Mr. Griffith. Mr. Riemer?
    Mr. Riemer. I do, yes.
    Mr. Griffith. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Spaulding?
    Mr. Spaulding. 501(c)(4)'s should not be vehicles for dark 
money in our elections.
    Mr. Griffith. You agree.
    Mr. Spaulding. I agree that 501(c)(4)'s have been abused, 
particularly after Citizens United, to form dark money----
    Mr. Griffith. Do you agree or disagree? I am just trying to 
get a yes or no.
    Mr. Spaulding. I believe that 501(c)(4)'s have an important 
role to play to promote social welfare----
    Mr. Griffith. I am going to take that as a no. Unless you 
say yes, I am taking it as a no. OK? All right.
    Mr. Spaulding. What they shouldn't be is avenues to cloak 
dark money spending.
    Mr. Griffith. I will move on to the next question.
    Mr. Spaulding. They should be promoting social welfare.
    Mr. Griffith. Mr. Riemer, I am going to agree with you, 
because you said it in your opening statement. I had it written 
down as a question, so I am going to rearrange it a little bit.
    State parties are the most highly regulated organizations 
in the political sphere. We have so severely limited how they 
can operate that in some States they barely exist.
    I agree with you that we should remove restrictions on 
State parties that do not make sense and put States on a solid 
footing to be able to organize voters and support their 
candidates without the heavy weight of the Federal Government.
    I say that having been a 17-year member of the Virginia 
State Central Committee of the Republican Party. I saw a lot of 
this happening over time.
    That being said, I note in the ACE Act, so would like to 
get your thoughts on this, that it looks like even in the ACE 
Act the penalties are higher on a State and local party that 
violate the rules, but the penalties are higher than they are 
on a foreign national who violates the rules.
    Do you think that is right?
    Mr. Riemer. I am not familiar with that particular 
provision, Congressman.
    I mean, the fact of the matter is these State and local 
organizations have a hard enough time paying any FEC 
enforcement fees or anything like that. I mean, it is very 
difficult for them. They do not have much money to begin with.
    I think the punishment should be reflective of the 
infraction, and I think oftentimes it is not.
    Mr. Griffith. Yes. I think that is true. I think you 
touched on this in your opening as well.
    A lot of times, particularly with the local party 
officials, they are just doing the best job they can. That does 
not mean that there should not be some kind of a sanction if 
they violate the rules, but it ought to be rational and based 
on what their mental State was and whether or not it was 
something they were doing to play games, to try to do things 
they were not supposed to do, or whether it was the mere fact 
that they just did not understand and it was confusing.
    I think you have stated and you can elaborate more that we 
need to make these laws and rules related to local and State 
parties easy to understand so they do not inadvertently cross 
some tripwire.
    Mr. Riemer. Absolutely, Congressman.
    As I have mentioned, the State parties are the most 
regulated entity, and they have to deal with this sort of Venn 
diagram of Federal and State law and having to comply with 
both.
    At the RNC we really do not have to do that. We are 
basically a Federal committee and it is regulated by Federal 
law, but the States have to deal with both. Even where those 
two things come together there is all sorts of blurry lines and 
it is just--it is almost impossible for them.
    I can tell you that, in dealing with dozens of State and 
local parties over the years, that any FEC issues that I have 
seen, noncompliance or whatever, have been out of maybe a lack 
of sophistication, inability to hire expert compliance people, 
attorneys, to get them through this stuff. It is just--it is 
difficult.
    Mr. Griffith. That is why I suspect you would favor having 
a legal fund for the State parties and a building fund, one, so 
that they can be better educated and prepared for the rules and 
regulations that are reasonable.
    Two, if anybody's been to the Obenshain building in the 
last 10 years, which is, for those who do not know, it is the 
State party headquarters in Virginia, there are parts of it I 
am not sure are safe anymore. Would you agree with that?
    Mr. Riemer. I agree with you, Congressman. I have been in 
many State party headquarters across the country and--well, I 
do not need to say any more. They are in rough shape.
    Mr. Griffith. You would agree that having a building fund 
and a legal fund would both benefit the following of the law 
and benefit the State parties even to a minimal extent of 
keeping their property in a better fashion.
    Mr. Riemer. Absolutely. There is no reason why you should 
not allow the State parties to have these additional accounts. 
They are not being used for TV ads. They are not being using 
for anything that needs to be further regulated. Litigation has 
become a much bigger concern on both sides of the aisle, 
whether it is them being sued for something or needing to hire 
compliance attorneys.
    I think it is an absolutely great idea.
    Mr. Griffith. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Appreciate it.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    The Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank all of you for being here, for testifying, for your 
participation today and in the electoral process.
    In terms of full disclosure, I am a former county 
Democratic Party chairman. I served for 9 years. Much of I 
think what was said by the witnesses I think we could put 
together in a bipartisan approach to addressing some of the 
things that you raise, which I think are reasonable.
    I would, however, since the bottom line rationale for the 
hearing was to talk about free speech and disclosure and 
transparency, I do want to focus on that.
    Before I do that, I want to just ask Ms. Dhillon, did Joe 
Biden win the 2020 Presidential election?
    Ms. Dhillon. Joe Biden is the President of the United 
States, yes.
    Mr. Morelle. That is not the question I asked you. Did he 
win the Presidential election?
    Ms. Dhillon. He won a deeply flawed election. Yes, he is 
the President.
    Mr. Morelle. I am sorry. I did not hear that.
    Ms. Dhillon. He won a deeply flawed election. He is the 
President of the United States.
    Mr. Morelle. He won the election.
    Ms. Martin, did Joe Biden win the 2020 Presidential 
election?
    Ms. Martin. He did. He is the President.
    Mr. Morelle. Mr. Riemer--did I pronounce that right, sir?
    Mr. Riemer. Yes.
    Mr. Morelle. Did Joe Biden win the 2020 election?
    Mr. Riemer. Yes.
    Professor Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Yes.
    Mr. Morelle. Did Joe Biden win the 2020 election?
    Mr. Smith. Yes.
    Mr. Morelle. Mr. Spaulding, did Joe Biden win the 2020 
Presidential election?
    Mr. Spaulding. Yes, fair and square.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you.
    Mr. Spaulding, the Supreme Court observed in Buckley: 
Safeguarding the ability of the citizenry to make informed 
choices among candidates for office is crucial.
    Can you expand on the value that transparency and 
disclosure requirements have in aiding the electorate? Because 
this is ultimately about giving the tools to voters to make 
informed decisions. Can you just expand upon that?
    Mr. Spaulding. Absolutely. Thank you, Ranking Member 
Morelle.
    That is exactly what the Court said in Citizens United, as 
I mentioned, in a provision of the opinion that was endorsed 
eight to one, that when they were going to declare this First 
Amendment right of corporations to spend unlimited amounts of 
money in politics, Justice Kennedy essentially wrote: Do not 
worry about the corruption interest there because it will be 
disclosed. The electorate will be able to evaluate the strength 
of messages, will be able to evaluate who is speaking. Actually 
talked about shareholders being able to hold corporations 
accountable.
    I think he said something about how until today a 
disclosure regime essentially has not existed to shine a light 
on politics.
    It still has not existed. Thirteen years after the 
decision, our disclosure laws have not kept pace with how money 
is spent in elections. It has deprived voters of their First 
Amendment interest in knowing who is speaking to them, in 
knowing who is behind the messages that they are seeing online.
    The other thing I will point out too is there are secret 
spenders who know where the money--recipients of secret 
spending who know where that money is coming from. Look at that 
Ohio example with the former Ohio Speaker of the House who was 
indicted. He knew exactly where that $60 million was coming 
from. It was coming from a power company that was backing in 
part his election and in people to the statehouse that would 
support his role as Speaker and eventually as part of a 
billion-dollar bailout for the power company.
    Mr. Morelle. Well, let me expand on that. The bill that has 
been referenced, the ACE Act, would loosen disclosure 
requirements. In your opinion, the example you cited, would the 
enactment of the ACE Act make it more or less likely that the 
example you have cited could be replicated?
    Mr. Spaulding. Well, given that the ACE Act is dealing with 
Federal elections, it would absolutely curb the chance of that 
happening at the Federal level.
    There are provisions of this bill, I mean, Section 325, 
repeal requirement of persons making independent expenditures 
to report the identification of certain donors. Section 341, 
prohibit regulations on political contributions. Directs the 
Securities and Exchange Commission to not finalize, issue, 
implement any rule, regulation, or other order regarding the 
disclosure of political contributions.
    That directly contravenes what Justice Kennedy wrote in 
Citizens United, which was about shareholders being able to 
hold their corporations accountable through disclosure. This 
bill would be a big step backward in that respect.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you for that.
    I did note, and I will, because my seconds are quickly 
ticking away, but, Mr. Smith, you had indicated that it is not 
only trying to protect the home of the brave, but you said the 
home of the meek and others.
    It seems to me that many of the people putting hundreds of 
millions of dollars or billions of dollars into dark money and 
trying to influence elections without disclosure hardly would 
be termed the meek.
    I would just finish by saying, certainly some of the low-
level amounts that you have talked about I think could be 
raised. I think there is a way to reach this in a bipartisan 
consensus.
    The real, real, real threat to American democracy remains 
large, large amounts of money being put into American elections 
without any disclosure and the presence of dark money, and I 
personally want to make sure that that does not happen.
    With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk, is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all for being here today.
    First question. Ms. Dhillon, are Americans who donate to 
nonprofit organizations receiving the protection they deserve 
under the law today?
    Ms. Dhillon. Well, I think a lot of donors are deterred 
from making donations when they look at the Lois Lerner 
example.
    Indeed, even though protections for donor privacy date back 
to the NAACP era and concerns by African Americans of hounding 
by their Government, today it is donors across the board, but 
mostly conservatives, who are concerned that if they express 
their political speech through contributions to nonprofits that 
are disfavored by the Government in power or State actors, what 
have you, they will be punished for their speech through 
audits, investigations, harassment, et cetera. The last couple 
of decades in our country have provided many examples of that.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Well, I appreciate that.
    It is interesting you brought up Lois Lerner. I think we 
are in about a decade now, 10 years since that was made public.
    With that in mind, besides Government intimidation, is not 
there a real possibility that donor lists that feature the 
names, addresses, and sometimes contribution amounts might be 
leaked to the public?
    Ms. Dhillon. Not only is there a possibility, we have seen 
this happen. With the acceleration of mob-type behavior through 
social media, it can put donors at real risk when their privacy 
is not respected. This should not be the case when donors are 
contributing to legitimate nonprofit ends.
    I think it is critical, and I say this as the CEO of a 
nonprofit, to encourage and protect core First Amendment speech 
through contributions to nonprofits, that donor privacy be 
respected.
    Mr. Loudermilk. Especially in this woke culture that we 
find ourselves--or cancel culture, I should say--where 
retribution has been and is taken on to people because of their 
political beliefs, their religious beliefs, their thoughts.
    That is totally outside of the scope of American ideas and 
principles, is that you do have a right, not only to free 
speech but right to thoughts and beliefs. Our Government and 
our laws are set up to punish bad behavior, not thought.
    In an instance like the leak that you have described that 
causes hundreds, if not thousands of Americans to be harassed 
for the crime of giving money to groups that they agree with, 
is there not personal risk in that as well? I mean, we have 
seen incidents where people have lost their jobs because of 
something that they posted on social media.
    Ms. Dhillon. Absolutely. I would say not only have people 
lost their jobs, they have lost job opportunities. They have 
been forced to retreat from their homes due to mob threats. 
This is a bipartisan problem, and so I think that everyone 
should have an interest in donor privacy for these reasons.
    Cancel culture run amok, accelerated by social media and by 
the heavy hand of Government acting in concert with social 
media, is a significant risk to First Amendment speech in the 
United States, both with respect to donations to nonprofits as 
well as, I would say, simply people expressing their views, 
expressing their right to consume or participate in a free 
press, to gather together. Every aspect of the First Amendment 
is under threat through these types of issues that we are 
discussing here today.
    Mr. Loudermilk. I have heard from constituents myself they 
are afraid to get involved in politics, and this has just come 
about in the last 3 to 4 years, and especially donate, because 
they are afraid that their name may be disclosed, even if they 
gave to an individual candidate, not as much as what the 
Government may do, but what others may do in putting pressure 
on their employers.
    In fact, I know a firsthand account, a gentleman right now 
who has already lost a job because his identity was, in my 
opinion, illegally disclosed by the January 6th Committee for 
doing nothing wrong, and he cannot get a job at this point.
    In this culture that we live in is to punish people who do 
not agree with you politically. That is really what it comes 
down to.
    In your opinion, is the end goal of all this to ensure that 
these groups never receive funding again because of donor fear 
that their personal information might be disclosed to the 
public? Is that the end goal?
    Ms. Dhillon. It is certainly a goal. Ironically, what we 
have seen in California, a liberal jurisdiction, is it actually 
has a very good law with respect to employment, which protects 
individuals from political retribution on the basis of their 
political viewpoints or associations. I think that that is a 
laudable statute that should actually be replicated in many 
other States.
    At the end of the day, the use of--the exposure of donor 
information poses a significant risk nationally to liberty and 
privacy.
    Mr. Loudermilk. That information is used for intimidation.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Sewell is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Sewell. First, I would like to thank our witnesses for 
their testimonies today.
    As the Ranking Member of the Elections Subcommittee and as 
the author of the John Robert Lewis Voting Rights Advancement 
Act, ensuring that Americans have the resources they need to 
make well-informed decisions at the polls is something that I 
am deeply, deeply concerned about.
    Voting is a cornerstone of our democracy, and for far too 
long States have placed barriers in front of the ballot box. 
According to a recent study by the Brennan Center, State 
lawmakers in at least 32 States pre-filed or introduced 150 
restrictive voting bills. These bills create stricter voter ID 
laws, cut voting times, restrict registration, and purge voter 
rolls. The bills also make it harder for people of color, poor 
people, young people, disabled people, elderly people, to have 
access to their right to vote.
    Campaign spending has swayed elections in the last 13 years 
by allowing secret donors to funnel over $1 billion into 
elections that are influencing the way voters vote and picking 
winners and losers.
    In 2014, Energy 2002, Arizona's biggest utility company, 
paid more than $10 million for attack ads that helped defeat 
consumer-oriented candidates for a seat on a State commission 
that oversees the State utilities. As a result, residents saw a 
grave price hike shortly after the new commission was 
established.
    Voters deserve transparency, I think all of us should be 
behind that, based on the facts and not on disinformation. 
Voters have a right to know who the secret funders are that may 
be influencing candidates' political interests.
    There is a common misconception, however, that by hiding 
dark money we are helping to shield donors from some sort of 
harm or their privacy being invaded. Those that support that 
often use the NAACP v. Alabama case as a point to prove this 
point.
    NAACP v. Alabama was a 1958 case. It was based on the fact 
that in 1956 the Alabama Secretary of State required the NAACP 
to disclose the names and addresses of all of its Members in 
the State. Again, this is 1958.
    The NAACP refused to release those membership lists because 
they feared that members would be in danger of losing their 
lives. The Supreme Court agreed with the NAACP because Black 
civil rights activists faced severe threats from raids of Ku 
Klux Klan members that included the church bombings, shooting 
up their houses, and shooting them as they drove, rode on buses 
and in taxis.
    NAACP v. Alabama, I believe, is not the blueprint for 
hiding information on who wealthy donors, special interest 
groups, and corporations are funneling money into campaigns 
behind the scenes.
    In fact, would like to move for unanimous consent, Mr. 
Chairman, to submit an article for the record. That article is 
``One of These Things Is Not Like the Other: The NAACP v. 
Alabama is Not a Manual for Powerful, Wealthy Spenders to Pour 
Unlimited Secret Money Into Our Political Process,'' end quote.
    Chairman Steil. Without objection.
    [The NAACP v. Alabama article referred to follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    Ms. Sewell. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Spaulding, you spent your time and your testimony 
talking about the Citizens United case. The Citizens United 
case, as it was decided, really has allowed, as you said, at 
least $3 out of every $10 in outside money since Citizens 
United can be traced to dark money.
    What impact does a deluge of undisclosed electoral funding 
have on the information available to voters? Why should this be 
safeguarded?
    Mr. Spaulding. Thank you, Ms. Sewell.
    One, again, it crowds out and obfuscates who is speaking to 
voters. They cannot separate fact from fiction, they cannot 
evaluate the message, because they do not know who is speaking 
to them. It is unclear where their money is coming from.
    I also think it really increases a lot of cynicism in 
politics. People throw up their hands and they say, ``My voice 
does not matter.''
    You know whose voice does matter? It is the corporation, 
the wealthy special interests, that are dumping unlimited 
amounts of money into our politics and hiding behind fake front 
groups and fake names.
    People throw up their hands, and they sit out the next 
election, and they say, ``My voice does not matter.'' That is 
un-American.
    Ms. Sewell. I would agree.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Dr. Murphy from North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Everybody here, thank you all for coming.
    I will tell you, it is honestly embarrassing for the United 
States of America to have to be dealing with this. We are 
supposed to be the paragon of excellence with voting, and we 
are supposed to go into other countries and make sure that they 
do it right, and we just cannot do it right in our own damn 
country. It is embarrassing.
    I am saying this for Republican and Democrat. This has no 
allegiance one side or the other. It is embarrassing.
    I appreciate what everybody is doing here as trying to keep 
free and fair elections. Every voice should be heard who wants 
to be heard. There is also a thing called personal 
responsibility, getting up off your own derriere and making 
sure that you could do something.
    Let me just play a quick round robin about--ask questions, 
and we will go through.
    Should dead people be on voter rolls?
    Ms. Dhillon. No.
    Ms. Martin. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Riemer. No.
    Mr. Spaulding. No.
    Dr. Murphy. All right. Good. No dead people. They are in 
heaven. They do not need to vote.
    Voter ID. Is voter ID--is it repressing the vote?
    Ms. Dhillon. It is not.
    Ms. Martin. No.
    Mr. Riemer. No. The data is clear that it is not.
    Mr. Smith. I agree with Mr. Riemer.
    Mr. Spaulding. It depends on the ID. No one opposes ID. 
What people oppose are the types of ID.
    Dr. Murphy. Is voter ID--is voter ID suppressing the vote? 
Yes or no? Let us just--let us stop there.
    Mr. Spaulding. It depends on the ID. It is much more 
complicated.
    Dr. Murphy. If I pull out an ID--yes or no? You did this 
again. Is it yes or no? Is voter ID suppressing the vote?
    Mr. Spaulding. It depends on the ID. No one opposes voter 
ID. What people oppose are specific types of ID----
    Dr. Murphy. All right. I am going to take that as you do 
not agree.
    Mr. Spaulding [continuing]. that politicians are requiring 
people----
    Dr. Murphy. All right. Listen.
    Mr. Spaulding [continuing]. that many communities of 
color----
    Dr. Murphy. Mr. Spaulding, I am running this thing right 
here.
    Let me ask--well, let me, since you are talkative, let me 
ask you a question.
    You said half of the people sat out the 2020 election, 
correct? Do you believe it is a person's personal 
responsibility to vote?
    Mr. Spaulding. Yes, I think it is everyone's freedom and 
responsibility to make their voice heard.
    Dr. Murphy. Right. Half the people voted, and so half the 
people said, ``I do not want to vote,'' and that is their 
personal responsibility. I agree with you that we should have 
everybody vote, a hundred percent.
    Mr. Spaulding. I appreciate that. I appreciate that. I do 
not think that we know that 50 percent said, ``I do not want to 
vote.''
    Dr. Murphy. Well----
    Mr. Spaulding. That is where I might disagree.
    Dr. Murphy. Yes, OK.
    Ballot harvesting, for example, do you agree with that?
    Mr. Spaulding. Can you define ballot harvesting?
    Dr. Murphy. Going and having a kid walk through a 
neighborhood and pull on houses. ``Here is your voter thing. I 
will help you fill it out, and I will hand it in.''
    Mr. Spaulding. What if my grandmother was in----
    Dr. Murphy. No, no. Yes or no? You just asked for my 
example.
    Mr. Spaulding. I am sorry. Could you please repeat the 
hypo?
    Dr. Murphy. All right. A teenage kid that is paid to go and 
knock on doors and say, ``Here is a ballot. I will help you 
fill it out if you do not understand it and take it in and turn 
it in.''
    Mr. Spaulding. If the ballot is lawfully voted, I would not 
have a problem if a teenager--perhaps they----
    Dr. Murphy. OK.
    Mr. Spaulding [continuing]. they are 18 and they work for 
the post office. I do not have a problem with someone----
    Dr. Murphy. All right.
    Mr. Spaulding [continuing]. taking a voted ballot from 
somebody who may be homebound and wants to make their----
    Dr. Murphy. What if they went to a nursing home?
    Mr. Spaulding. Sure, if you are in a nursing home, you have 
a right to make your voice heard.
    Dr. Murphy. OK. You do not think there is anything that 
could go wrong with that where that voter could be influenced?
    Mr. Spaulding. What voter? By voting from--by voting from 
home?
    Dr. Murphy. No. Some person coming around and saying, 
``Here, you vote this way,'' and they could not be influenced.
    Mr. Spaulding. Well, there are laws against voter 
intimidation. That is illegal.
    Dr. Murphy. No, I am just saying, do you think there is 
anything that could go wrong? It is ripe for fraud. It is ripe 
for fraud.
    Mr. Spaulding. That is just not--that just is not right. 
That is just not----
    Dr. Murphy. It is ripe for fraud. I mean, my gosh, if 
somebody--the American public oftentimes does not have any clue 
as to what is going on.
    Mr. Spaulding. I think we should----
    Dr. Murphy. All right. Let me ask--Mr. Smith, I was just 
informed of this. I am not an attorney. I am just a dumb 
surgeon. I am just trying to figure this stuff out.
    In the American Confidence in Elections Act there is a 
provision to require unanimous consent of the FEC Commission 
members in order to refuse to defend actions against the 
Commission. In other words, they are trying to be sued. It is 
my understanding that the Commission was often deadlocked 3-3 
when voting on the FEC could even defend itself in cases.
    Based on your experience with campaign law and litigation, 
can you speak to and share your thoughts as to why this 
provision would be needed? Why would we prevent the FEC from 
trying to defend itself if it was being sued?
    Mr. Smith. Sure. I would begin by noting that I do not 
think the FEC is often deadlocked. I think that is vastly 
overstated. That is sort of a whole 'nother issue. It does 
deadlock. You are right there. At times, there is a 3-3 vote.
    Dr. Murphy. It deadlocks as to whether they could defend 
themselves?
    Mr. Smith. There is a 3-3 vote not to investigate or to 
find--not to find a reason to believe that a person has 
violated the law.
    Dr. Murphy. OK.
    Mr. Smith. What has been happening on the Commission in 
recent years is, typically, after the Commission votes not to 
proceed to enforcement or not to fine a party, if the vote 
comes 3-3 and you need a four-vote bipartisan majority to carry 
on, so if the Commission goes 3-3, the Commissioners who voted 
not to proceed are the controlling group. That has been 
recognized by the Court. Their decision controls the 
Commission.
    What has happened in recent years is that Democrats on the 
Commission have, in some cases, refused to vote to close the 
file, which is what is necessary in order to notify the 
parties, ``Hey, we have exonerated you, or at least we are not 
going to pursue this any further.''
    The parties do not even know that the FEC is no longer 
pursuing a complaint against them.
    Then what happens is the private group--typically a 
partisan group such as CREW or something like that--that has 
brought the complaint can then go into court and sue the FEC 
for not acting on the complaint, even though the FEC actually 
has----
    Dr. Murphy. All right. We are going to have to wrap up. We 
are getting gonged by the chairman.
    Mr. Smith. We need--and what happens then is that the 
Democrats then refuse to allow the Commission to appear in 
court to explain what it has done, thus trying to trigger a 
default judgment.
    Dr. Murphy. All right. Thank you for your reply. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Mrs. Torres is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you.
    Mr. Spaulding, since the 2020 election, the country has 
seen a wave of restrictive voting laws, many of which, it has 
now been reported, were backed by billionaire-funded groups 
that were trying to suppress the votes of people whose opinions 
they disagree with. They are doing this behind closed doors and 
with clear political intentions.
    For example, Heritage Action, an arm of the Heritage 
Foundation, is reportedly spending tens of millions of dollars 
pushing for restrictive voting laws.
    The ability of every eligible voter to cast the ballot is a 
fundamental principle of democracy.
    January 6 was a really dark day in Americans' history. When 
folks in my community say how brave we were to go back and 
finish our job and certify the election that had been already 
certified by 50 States, I push back and I say the bravery did 
not come from the Members casting a vote to certify the 
election.
    The bravery comes and defending our democracy comes from 
every voter being able to cast their vote and having the 
courage to stand in line for 6 hours, to have the courage to 
pass by an armed member of their community who is standing 
there in an effort to stop them from voting.
    That is the bravery of and the decency of democracy that we 
need to uphold.
    What we do here is the easiest part of that. We do have a 
responsibility to ensure that the people who are funding 
campaigns disclose themselves so that the people that are 
paying attention, whether it is to a mailer that comes in the 
mailbox, a yard sign that has been posted, a TV commercial, 
whatever campaign paraphernalia is posted out there in the 
community, the voters have a right to know who paid for that. 
They have a right to know who paid for that because America has 
a dark past in preventing people who they do not agree with 
from voting.
    The ability of every eligible voter to cast the ballot, 
again, is fundamental.
    Have we experienced a wave of election-related conspiracy 
theories and misinformation, Mr. Spaulding?
    Mr. Spaulding. Absolutely. We have seen a wave of 
disinformation, misinformation that has deeply, deeply poisoned 
our democracy.
    As you brought up January 6, when a former President, 
relying on a big lie, summoned people to Washington, incited an 
insurrection, turned them to march up here and ransack the 
people's House in an attempt--we want to talk about cancel 
culture--in an attempt to cancel the votes of more than 100 
million Americans?
    That was inspired by a big lie and disinformation that, to 
this day, including last evening, up until the second that I am 
sitting here, continues to poison our democracy.
    Mrs. Torres. Yet we have yet to see justice on that case. I 
mean, we have seen many gullible people go to prison and are 
going to do some hard time for their responsibility and their 
actions on that day--assaulting our police officers, using the 
American flag, their attempt to kidnap Members of Congress, 
their attempt to hang Vice President Pence.
    Has that fed a backlash against an increased voter 
participation when they see those images?
    Mr. Spaulding. It has. I think people throw up their hands.
    I do think that it has also led to determination. There are 
hundreds of bills after 2020 that were introduced in 
statehouses across the country to make it harder to vote. At 
the same time, we are seeing people stand up and say, ``That is 
not how we want our democracy in this country. We are going to 
expand access to the ballot box. We are going to do whatever we 
can to lift up every voice in our democracy and make sure it is 
heard.''
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Ms. Lee of Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Smith, I would like to return to your testimony and 
some of the questions that Dr. Murphy was covering with you.
    When that testimony left off, you were discussing the 
subject of the FEC failing to close files, even after a 
determination not to pursue a complaint and after deciding not 
to find a violation.
    Could you go back to that and elaborate on why that is 
significant, why it matters?
    Mr. Smith. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the 
opportunity.
    As I was explaining, the FEC sometimes reaches a 3-3 vote 
not to investigate or not to find a party guilty of a 
violation. Again, it needs a bipartisan majority, and that is 
one of the protections that is built into the FEC. Other people 
have been trying to destroy that by creating a partisan 
majority, but that is another issue.
    The Commission votes 3-3 not to proceed, but then the 
Democratic Commissioners have refused to vote to close the 
file, meaning nobody is notified of their decision.
    Then, eventually, the group that brought the complaint has 
a statutory right to sue the FEC for inaction. The FEC has 
acted, but nobody knows it.
    They sue, and then the Democratic Commissioners have voted 
not to allow the FEC to defend itself in court. It cannot go up 
and defend the decision of the controlling Commissioners there.
    You get a default judgment against the Commission, which 
essentially then enacts the theory of the law and the belief 
and the facts that the complaining party has rather than having 
the Commission do it.
    Ms. Lee. Right there, I want to be sure we make this point 
very clear for everyone, including some who maybe have not 
spent as much time in the courtrooms as others.
    Would you explain, please, what is a default judgment? If 
the FEC is sued, fails to show up, fails to respond to a 
complaint, the court enters a default judgment. Would you 
explain, please, the significance of that and what it means?
    Mr. Smith. Yes. I mean, a default judgment essentially is 
the court saying, ``Nobody showed up to defend, so we take the 
allegations, basically, and the legal position of the plaintiff 
as correct.''
    What this does is it has the effect of farming out the 
interpretation of Federal election law to groups on the 
political left that file complaints with the FEC and get the 
three Democratic Commissioners to go along and refuse to allow 
the FEC to even explain its reasoning and that it has, in fact, 
acted. It is really a fraud on the court.
    Ms. Lee. In that circumstance, then, the FEC is not 
disputing, filing an answer to the complaint, or putting 
anything into the court record that would contradict the 
allegations in the plaintiff's lawsuit, correct?
    Mr. Smith. Exactly. It does not show up.
    Ms. Lee. Now, is not there also a potential consequence 
related to sanctions, attorney's fees, or other things for the 
failure to respond in the case of an action being filed?
    Mr. Smith. There can be.
    Ms. Lee. Moving on to a different subject. Going back to 
your prior testimony, you touched on the subject of IRS 
official Lois Lerner and the issues attendant with her.
    Will you talk a bit about the consent decree that the IRS 
entered with the Tea Party groups?
    Mr. Smith. Sure. Eventually, the IRS did enter a consent 
decree about 5 years after, 4 years after the scandal broke. In 
it, the IRS admitted that its treatment of conservative 
organizations during the tax-exempt determination process, 
including screening their applications based on their names and 
policy positions, subjecting those applications to heightened 
scrutiny and inordinate delays, and demanding of some 
plaintiffs information that the U.S. Treasury Inspector General 
for Tax Administration had determined was unnecessary to the 
determination of proper tax status, was nonetheless used to 
delay status here.
    Ms. Lee. As we sit here today all these years later, do you 
feel like we are still vulnerable to such action occurring 
again?
    Mr. Smith. We clearly are. As has been pointed out, the 
Congress has blocked the IRS from moving forward in this 
direction, but it has been on an ad hoc basis, on a sort of a 
year-by-year device.
    Really what we need to do is get the IRS out of enforcing 
campaign finance law. The reason it got into this was precisely 
because the bipartisan FEC was not engaging in enough 
partisanship.
    The IRS is under control of the President. The President at 
the time made a number of statements about how these groups 
were destroying America and they were a threat to democracy and 
all this kind of thing, and the IRS picked up the cue. It did 
not have a direct order, but they are not stupid. They picked 
up the cue, ``Who will free me of these troublesome priests?'' 
and they began harassing these conservative organizations. 
There is some evidence that it cost Republicans possibly as 
many as 5 to 8 million votes in the 2012 Presidential election.
    Ms. Lee. What action, if any, do you think Congress could 
take, or what legislation could be enacted, to prevent further 
abuses of this nature?
    Mr. Smith. It gets a little bit complex. Again, basically, 
it says that the FEC, the bipartisan FEC, which is supposed to 
interpret campaign finance law, will determine whether a group 
is engaging in political activity under the law, and the IRS 
merely administers the tax side of things.
    Ms. Lee. All right. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Mr. D'Esposito is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good morning, everyone.
    Ms. Dhillon, over a year ago, the Department of Homeland 
Security established a Disinformation Governance Board charged 
with, quote, ``review questions of privacy and civil liberty 
for online content,'' close quote. This board, fortunately, was 
short-lived and dissolved in August 2022.
    I have a few questions based on the Governance Board.
    The first is, should the Federal Government be in the 
business of censoring political speech?
    Ms. Dhillon. Absolutely not.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Second is--I am pretty sure I know the 
answer to it, but just to get it on the record--what about big 
tech? Should they be in the business of censoring any political 
speech?
    Ms. Dhillon. I believe that, of course, corporations have 
their own speech rights, but when you come to a consumer 
platform like this, I do believe that the law should be 
expanded to allow protections--a bill of rights, if you will--
for users of social media because, today, they seem to be the 
consumers with the least rights in any industry in America.
    Mr. D'Esposito. I guess the final question is probably the 
one as to why we are actually here today.
    What do you believe--what impact do you believe censorship 
has of political speech in both the online, the platforms, as 
well as other censorship? What is its overall effect on general 
elections?
    Ms. Dhillon. Well, we can take the 2020 election as an 
example. The use of Government funds and Government coercion 
hand-in-hand with regulated industries--that is the social 
media companies--had a tremendous impact on citizens' ability--
that their speech was not going to be punished by the 
Government.
    We saw hundreds, perhaps thousands just in California alone 
who had their posts or their speech about the 2020 election--
which is, of course, core protected political speech--removed.
    This has caused many of those citizens to believe that 
their voice no longer matters. It deters them from voting. It 
certainly deters them from speaking. It deters their friends 
from speaking as well. This is un-American.
    I think that the First Amendment is the First Amendment for 
a reason. It is the fundamental premise on which we Americans 
act. It is a beacon for the rest of the world as well. When in 
America our Government works hand in hand with corporations to 
suppress speech, I believe that violates the First Amendment.
    Courts have been reluctant to recognize that to date due to 
an outdated Communications Decency Act, Section 230. That is 
within the power of Congress to fix, and I urge you to do that.
    Beyond that, even citizens who do not speak on social media 
are afraid that they will be punished at work, that they will 
be hounded by a mob, that they will suffer physical 
consequences for speaking.
    Censorship is antithetical to freedom. The antidote to 
speech that you do not like is more speech, and this is a 
fundamental premise of the First Amendment.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you. Thank you for your work. Thank 
you for being here today. I think the most important part of 
your answer was the fact that it is un-American. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Sarbanes is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity 
to waive on the Committee.
    I wanted to talk a little bit about campaign financing----
    Chairman Steil. If the gentleman will yield just for a 
minute for tech support? I just want to make sure that those 
viewing online are able to hear you. Just give me--let us take 
1 second here for tech support.
    Mr. Sarbanes. How about now?
    Chairman Steil. Much better.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity 
to waive on the Committee.
    I wanted to take the opportunity to talk a little bit about 
another dimension of campaign finance. There was an allusion to 
it earlier. This is the idea of empowering small donors so 
their voices can be heard because, oftentimes, the average 
citizen out there feels like they cannot compete against deep-
pocketed donors, against the super-PACs, and so forth. They 
want to be on the field of their democracy. They want to feel 
like they have some power within their own democracy.
    One of the proposals that was included in the Freedom to 
Vote Act was to establish a small donor matching system. If a 
small donor gave $20, $50, there would be a corresponding 
match, like a multiple match. It would come in, lift that up, 
and allow them to feel like they are the ones that are 
supporting campaigns and, frankly, they are the ones to which 
the candidates and Members of Congress ought to be accountable.
    The evidence from this being implemented and tried across 
the country at the State level and the local level is, when you 
do that, people feel much more invested in their democracy. 
They feel like they are the ones that own the outcomes, not 
some shadowy, dark money figure that is hidden behind the 
curtain.
    It is a really important dimension.
    Having said that, I want to try and nip in the bud before 
it gets distorted this notion that the fund that would provide 
these matching dollars will be a taxpayer fund. In fact, if you 
look at the language of the Freedom to Vote Act--and I think 
there was a reference to the bill earlier that maybe missed 
this--it explicitly says, with respect to the fund that would 
provide these matching dollars, quote, ``No taxpayer fund may 
be deposited into the fund.''
    That same no taxpayer fund requirement actually applies to 
this entire State election assistance fund that would cover all 
kinds of innovations that could happen at the State level.
    We were very intentional about making sure that taxpayers 
would not be on the hook. Well, the question is, ``Well, then, 
where are you going to get the funds?'' We came up with an 
elegant proposal on that, and that is to put a very tiny 
surcharge on settlements with high-end tax cheats and corporate 
lawbreakers.
    Let me give you an example. In 2019, Facebook was ordered 
to pay approximately $5 billion to the Federal Government 
because they mishandled users' personal information. You take a 
tiny little surcharge on that. You put it into the fund.
    In 2017, Volkswagen--remember this?--paid a $4.3 billion 
fine to the Federal Government for cheating on diesel emission 
tests. You take a tiny piece of that, you put it into the fund.
    This is how you would actually resource this ability of 
average citizens to get their voice amplified. I just wanted to 
put that on the record because it seems that there is some 
misunderstanding about where the dollars come to support this 
matching effort. We were very explicit, we will continue to be, 
that not one dollar of taxpayer money will go toward that 
purpose.
    Mr. Spaulding, I do not have a lot of time. I got 30 
seconds. Speak to me quickly about why it is so important for 
the average person who wants their voice to be heard to know 
that big money is having to be accountable in terms of 
disclosure and transparency.
    Mr. Spaulding. People want to be heard. When they see that 
so much of the money that is funding our elections is coming 
from such a--as I mentioned in my statement--such a tiny, 
unrepresentative segment of the population.
    You know, I was looking at--we have talked a lot about the 
political parties and contribution limits. One person, one 
donor, could give to the political party committees in one 
election cycle up to $2 million, a $2 million check. Everyday 
Americans are saying, ``What about my voice? My voice has a 
role to play here, too.''
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much. We appreciate you 
coming to House Administration, the most important Committee in 
the House, as you well know since you joined us today. I 
appreciate your testimony. Yield back.
    Mr. Carey is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony today.
    I do want to--I am going to talk a little bit about--Mr. 
Riemer, I want to focus a little bit more on your role with the 
RSC, your experience there.
    I kind of want to, if we could maybe--I do not think we 
were doing the same type of position back in 1976--but what was 
the impetus behind changing the amount, the donations back in 
1976.
    Then, when McCain-Feingold was enacted, why was the limit 
set to what it was? Was there ever any discussion at that time 
to raise it with inflation?
    Mr. Riemer. That is a great question, Congressman. I am not 
an expert on the legislative history of McCain-Feingold.
    What I do know is that, for some reason, the limits were 
indexed for inflation for everybody but PACs and the State and 
local parties. I think for PACs now, that is largely a 
nonissue, because we have super-PACs, and I think PACs have 
waned in their influence.
    For State parties, I have not seen and I actually in 
researching for this hearing tried to find some rationale for 
why they would exclude State parties. Maybe Professor Smith 
knows. It very well could have been an oversight.
    I do think, overall, McCain-Feingold was trying to 
eliminate what was known as soft money, which was money flowing 
into the parties that was unregulated. Perhaps that was it. 
That does not make any sense because they were Federal limits, 
and all that money is disclosed, and all the money that is 
raised or spent is disclosed. I am honestly not sure.
    Mr. Carey. Well, let me ask you, Professor Smith. I mean, 
do you have any historical reference to that?
    Mr. Smith. Just a touch more.
    The State party provisions in McCain-Feingold were 
basically kind of last-minute sorts of thing.
    There was a concern that, ``Oh, my gosh, we are putting all 
these new limits on the national parties and that sort of 
thing. And, oh, now what will happen? Well, State parties can 
influence elections for Federal office, so maybe we will try to 
control them as well.''
    I just do not think there was much thought given to it. 
Like, on the indexing side, that was a last-minute compromise 
that worked primarily at that time just on donations to 
candidates' campaigns.
    It is just one of those things that was an afterthought, 
because the goal of McCain-Feingold was to basically reduce the 
amount of political speech. They were not thinking about trying 
to help State parties.
    Mr. Carey. To that, Mr. Riemer, I am going to just say it 
again.
    Why is it so important--I have my answer, but I am going to 
defer to you on this--why is it so important that we have, both 
on the Republican and the Democratic side, why is it so 
important that we have strong State parties?
    Mr. Riemer. Absolutely. There are philosophical reasons, 
and I think there is concrete reasons, I think. Let us go more 
practical.
    One, they recruit, nominate, and elect our candidates. That 
goes down from school board or county council, let us say, all 
the way up to President. State parties have an integral role in 
electing delegates that go to the national convention, who 
ultimately select the next leader of our country.
    In many ways they are sort of the farm team as well. I am 
sure lots of Members on this Committee came up through the 
local party system. It is incredibly important.
    I think another thing is we are talking about all these 
outside groups and super-PACs and everything else. 50 years 
from now that super-PAC is probably not going to exist. 50 
years from now that State party is going to exist. It is 
permanent, it is always there, and it is not going away.
    Mr. Carey. Thank you, Mr. Riemer. I would agree with my 
colleague from Virginia that, while the party may still be 
there, some of our buildings may not be.
    Let me address you, Mr. Smith, on this.
    What are some changes you think could strengthen the State 
and local parties? What are some changes to the laws that you 
think could strengthen both the State and the local parties?
    Mr. Smith. Well, I appreciate you asking me. It might 
actually be a better question for Mr. Riemer.
    I would say the biggest thing is that currently there is 
this provision called Levin funds, and local parties are 
prohibited from engaging in communications that might have the 
incidental effect of helping Federal candidates for office. It 
just creates a colossal regulatory burden for State parties to 
figure out what they can do and to raise and spend money for 
their own State and local races.
    If they spend money in their State and local races, but it 
might influence a Federal race--and it will because Federal 
candidates are on the ballot--they get subject to all these 
regulations.
    Mr. Carey. Mr. Chairman, I want to, again, thank the 
witnesses, all of the witnesses, for your testimony today. It 
was very insightful.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purpose of 
asking questions.
    Ms. Perry Martin, do you know, when we pay--when the 
Federal Government pays Social Security, does that come out of 
the U.S. Treasury?
    Ms. Martin. I do not believe so.
    Chairman Steil. If a check was cut to build a road or a 
bridge in the United States or fund our military or pay for the 
men and women who are wearing the United States military 
uniform, does that come from the United States Treasury?
    Ms. Martin. I actually do not know the answer to that.
    Chairman Steil. It does.
    Ms. Martin. OK.
    Chairman Steil. It comes from the United States Treasury.
    Under the Democrats' H.R. 1 from last Congress, where they 
would take Federal dollars and put it in politicians' 
reelection campaigns, would that come from the U.S. Treasury?
    Ms. Martin. It would, yes.
    Chairman Steil. It would come from the U.S. Treasury. It 
would all come from the same pile.
    When we see the Democrats' bill from last Congress that 
every Democrat Member voted for that puts Federal dollars into 
politicians' reelection campaigns, it comes from the U.S. 
Treasury, the same U.S. Treasury that pays Social Security. Is 
that accurate?
    Ms. Martin. Yes, it does.
    Chairman Steil. I think that is important to know.
    Let me shift gears to you, Harmeet Dhillon, if I can.
    When we traditionally think about free speech problems, we 
think about Government censorship. Today we see Government 
working hand in glove with private businesses to censor speech.
    Ms. Dhillon, based on your litigation experience, is it 
unprecedented for the American Government to reach into private 
organizations to censor Americans' speech?
    Ms. Dhillon. Well, I do not know what happened in prior 
days, but I can say that the advent of social media has made 
speech a multibillion, even trillion-dollar corporate endeavor, 
which is a good thing in a way. It has actually allowed many 
citizens whose voices never would have been heard by people in 
different States or around the world to speak. That is only 
true if they are allowed to speak and be heard, if they are not 
being censored by the heavy hand of the Government.
    Today the impact of Government cooperation with liberal 
organizations and liberal executives at big tech companies in 
San Francisco has had a negative impact on speech in America.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you.
    Let me shift gears slightly. In the 2020 election, we saw 
jurisdictions, including in my State of Wisconsin, municipal 
government jurisdictions, accept private funding for elections, 
commonly referred to as Zuckerbucks. Again in 2022, we saw a 
similar pattern of private funding for elections, and in 
particular in the city of Milwaukee. Milwaukee Votes 2022 
campaign, again, took private funding.
    Could you comment on how Zuckerbucks influenced the 2020 
election?
    Ms. Dhillon. Well, absolutely. You have seen, in addition 
to the States you mentioned, Pennsylvania, Georgia 
specifically, CEIR used its funding to embed individuals in 
county election operations----
    Chairman Steil. How did it impact the election?
    Ms. Dhillon. Well, those employees turned out the vote more 
in high-density urban areas; that is, Democrat jurisdictions. 
The impact was tens of thousands of votes in swing States that 
would otherwise not have been cast being cast on a partisan 
fashion.
    Chairman Steil. So, in your opinion, it had a partisan 
impact on the election. Is that accurate?
    Ms. Dhillon. Absolutely. In swing States.
    Chairman Steil. Should nongovernment--in your professional 
opinion, should nongovernment entities that provide funding for 
elections be able to receive tax deductible contributions?
    Ms. Dhillon. Absolutely not. Zuckerbucks should be banned, 
and certainly these activities, if they were allowed, not be 
tax deductible.
    Chairman Steil. Ms. Perry Martin, do you think they should 
also not be tax-deductible donations?
    Ms. Martin. I do believe that, yes. I think a lot of States 
have--there are 25 States that have already passed this. State 
legislatures have recognized this problem.
    Chairman Steil. Half the States have recognized this and 
successfully blocked it, half the States have not.
    Ms. Martin. Yes.
    Chairman Steil. Including my State of Wisconsin has room 
for improvement here.
    Can you comment, Ms. Martin, about how we could improve our 
campaign finance system for parties and candidates to make it 
more transparent for voters?
    Ms. Martin. That is a very good question.
    Right now, there are so many provisions in our campaign 
finance laws that are overly complicated and honestly do not 
make a lot of sense. Modernizing and simplifying certain 
provisions of the law would make campaign finance laws more 
transparent for voters.
    For example, the limit on party-coordinated expenditures. 
Voters know that parties exist to promote candidates and 
political philosophies they espouse. It does not make any sense 
to have this limited amount of money that they can spend.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much.
    I want to jump to you, if I can, Mr. Spaulding, with the 
final minute that I have here.
    Are you employed by Common Cause?
    Mr. Spaulding. Yes.
    Chairman Steil. Do you know the tax status of your 
employer, Common Cause?
    Mr. Spaulding. Well, we have a 501(c)(4) and a 501(c)(3).
    Chairman Steil. Are you employed by both the 501(c)(4) and 
the 501(c)(3)?
    Mr. Spaulding. Actually--I am actually--well, I am employed 
by the 501(c)(3), Common Cause Education Fund.
    Chairman Steil. You are employed by the 501(c)(3)----
    Mr. Spaulding. Correct.
    Chairman Steil [continuing]. not the 501(c)(4)?
    Mr. Spaulding. Correct.
    Chairman Steil. OK. Under the DISCLOSE Act passed out of 
the House last Congress--strongly supported, I believe, by 
President Biden--it would have required Common Cause to reveal 
its top donors, contrary to privacy protection under current 
law. Is that accurate?
    Mr. Spaulding. Did you say the DISCLOSE Act?
    Chairman Steil. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Spaulding. No, it is not accurate.
    Chairman Steil. The DISCLOSE Act would not require the 
disclosure?
    Mr. Spaulding. The DISCLOSE Act would require organizations 
that spend $10,000 on certain campaign-related disbursements, 
like IEs, electioneering communications, other--we are a 
nonpartisan organization. We do not support candidates.
    Chairman Steil. Common Cause is not engaged in that 
activity?
    Mr. Spaulding. Neither Common Cause nor Common Cause 
Education Fund endorse candidates. We do not do campaign-
related work. We are a nonpartisan advocacy organization.
    Chairman Steil. Very good. Thank you.
    Recognizing the time, I am going to yield back and 
recognize the gentleman who has joined our Committee, from the 
great State of Louisiana, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for inviting 
me to participate. I would be so blessed to be on your 
Committee, but I serve on House Judiciary, on Armed Services, 
and on the Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
Government.
    Before I got to Congress, I spent 20 years in the courts 
defending free speech, religious freedom, and the like. This is 
an issue that is near and dear to my heart. It is also near and 
dear to the hearts of our constituents.
    When I am back home in my district holding town halls, 
probably the first or second question I get in every open forum 
is, ``Can we trust our election system?''
    This is no game. We all know that it is one of the most 
pressing issues that we have because America's trust in our 
institutions is wavering. It is at all-time lows. If we do not 
have this, you cannot maintain a constitutional Republic.
    Here is the problem that our constituents can see with 
their own eyes. It has become common practice now for various 
groups and even Federal agencies to pursue retribution against 
Americans for simply exercising their First Amendment right to 
participate in the political process.
    In the Weaponization Committee, we have uncovered alarming 
information about, for example, the IRS targeting conservative 
groups. The name-and-shame tactics of the radical left. We know 
that none other than the FBI itself quite literally colluded 
with the social media platforms during the last two election 
cycles to censor and silence viewpoints they disagreed with. 
This is un-American activity and it is deeply concerning.
    There is also a lot of confusion about the law. Let me just 
ask Mr. Smith first.
    For about a half-century, the Supreme Court has been 
crystal clear that spending money in the context of political 
activities qualifies as protected speech under the First 
Amendment. Can you briefly describe just for the record today 
why that is?
    Mr. Smith. Sure. It is one of those things, if you ask the 
average person, ``Is money speech?'' of course they say no. The 
Supreme Court does not say that money is speech. As you put it, 
they say that spending money affects speech.
    Let us imagine we said, well, The New York Times cannot 
spend more than $3,300 a year to publish, which is the amount 
an individual can give to a campaign. It would be a very small 
newspaper very, very quickly. To communicate with a large 
audience you have to spend money.
    Or let us suppose that we said, well, you have freedom of 
religion, but you cannot spend any money to build a church or 
buy hymnals or pay a pastor. Clearly, that would impact the 
First Amendment freedom of religion, and it is the same thing 
with speech.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, because a candidate or an advocacy group 
obviously cannot get their message out without spending money. 
This is the way it works. That is reality.
    Isn't it true also that the Supreme Court has also said 
that the only constitutional basis for restricting money in 
politics is to prevent a quid pro corruption or the appearance 
of that? Isn't that right?
    Mr. Smith. That is correct. Sometimes people say that the 
appearance of corruption is sort of just anything people think 
is corrupt about the Government. They spend too much money, you 
know. It is not. By corruption, the court was very clear. It 
meant the appearance of, as you put it, quid pro quo 
corruption.
    Mr. Johnson. I mean, we have had Justices on the right and 
the left acknowledge this and agree with it and embrace it.
    Every election cycle, we hear about the pernicious effects 
of Citizens United. It is like a curse word now on the left. 
Did not that decision simply reaffirm basic First Amendment law 
that corporations have a First Amendment right to speak on 
political issues?
    Mr. Smith. I agree. It did.
    I also want to point out that on the disclosure side that 
dealt only with express advocacy of the election or defeat of 
candidates. That was the issue there. That was not some broad 
license to pass anything you want to call disclosure and say 
you can interfere with people's privacy.
    Mr. Johnson. Here is an interesting footnote. Isn't it true 
that during the Citizens United oral argument, the Obama 
administration actually argued before the Supreme Court that it 
had the authority to ban books, movies, and speech if it was 
made close to an election?
    Mr. Smith. Yes. Even one line.
    Mr. Johnson. Ms. Dhillon, I wish I had more time, but let 
me ask you real quickly.
    Could you briefly describe some of the litigation that you 
have been involved in that relates to the Government telling 
private businesses to censor viewpoints the Government sees as 
wrong or dangerous?
    Ms. Dhillon. Well, one example--thank you for your 
question--one example is the case of Rogan O'Handley, who was 
banned from social media for questioning the number of votes 
that President Biden received and even posting a photograph of 
barbed wire around the Capitol and highlighting the 
irregularities--multiple irregularities--in the 2020 election. 
He is just one of hundreds that we know of in California, and 
we have since learned that there were thousands nationally.
    I think the most chilling thing to me was learning that the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, which comes from a Government 
that regulates these companies. A company is not free to simply 
say ``yes'' or ``no'' or take a meeting with the FBI when the 
FBI asks you to do something.
    That chilling effect, I think, has really come--has been 
highlighted thanks to a change in control at Twitter. Without 
the change in control at Twitter we never would have learned 
the extent to which our Federal Government is threatening the 
freedom of American citizens to speak freely on our election.
    Mr. Johnson. Exactly right.
    Unfortunately, I am out of time. I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much. We appreciate you 
being here, Mr. Johnson. I know sometimes Judiciary does not 
have the robust intellectual debates that we get to have in the 
Committee on House Administration. You are welcome to join us 
anytime.
    Mr. Johnson. For the record, I did not say that.
    Chairman Steil. We appreciate you being here.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, for 2 
minutes for closing remarks.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you for all the witnesses for joining us this 
morning.
    The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that disclosure 
requirements are essential to safeguarding the ability of the 
citizenry to make informed choices. House Democrats will 
continue to combat the rampant use of dark money with 
legislation like the Freedom to Vote Act, DISCLOSE Act, and 
other measures to strengthen our campaign finance laws.
    I just, in my last moments, just want to ask for unanimous 
consent to enter into the record a report published by the 
former chair of this Committee, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, who 
reviewed public social media posts by Members of the House who 
were sworn in January 2021 and who voted to overturn the 2020 
election.
    These are posts on Twitter. I note that they were allowed 
to post on Twitter, even though they were posting what 
essentially were untruths. They are on Twitter. I just want to 
make that point.
    I also want to just note, Twitter is a private company. 
They are able to post whatever they choose to post. I am not 
aware that the Supreme Court has ever ruled that they are bound 
to observe and post everyone or to validate anyone else who has 
the freedom to speak out.
    I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the 
decision in ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen finding that the 
groups involved in Proposition 8 were not small, persecuted 
groups, but part of what they call in the decision a massive 
movement.
    With that, again, Mr. Chair, thank you for bringing 
everyone together. I think this is an important topic. We look 
forward to continuing to work together on this.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
    Without objection, both will be entered into the record.
    [The information referred to follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]