[EL] Twitter deplatforming a candidate = an in-kind corporate contribution to rivals?

[Volokh, Eugene]

                Dear colleagues:  Someone suggested this theory to me, and I wanted to look into it.  A quick search suggests that the California FPPC, for instance, says that "providing a forum to a candidate without charge is considered an in-kind contribution. However, we have also advised that where a forum is made available to all candidates for the same office, no contribution results."  Likewise, as I understand it, corporations may help sponsor candidate debates, but only if they are structured in an evenhanded way.  Would the same logic apply to Twitter allowing one candidate to remain on the platform, but banning another (even applying facially nonpartisan but viewpoint-based criteria)?

                I assume that Twitter, Facebook, and the like would not be covered by the media exemption, at least as to their hosting services, since they aren't "any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication."

                I realize that there's a separate question whether Citizens United would protect such decisions by Twitter (which may turn of various factors, including whether for constitutional purposes hosting a candidate's Twitter account is treated as an independent expenditure or a coordinated one).

                Eugene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210205/972489a2/attachment.html>