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

[Thomas Collins]

No, I don’t think so at all. Your reply is quite helpful to me, personally.
As I understand the issue (assuming I’m correctly stating it) is if the
forum, physical or not, has a rule of participation that is not
“content-neutral.”

I’m as curious as you are what others think!

I appreciate and am thankful for the engagement!

Tom

On Friday, February 5, 2021, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> wrote:

>                 I don’t know the answer to that with confidence, but I
> would think that something would depend on the particular terms of the
> forum.
>
>
>
>                 Content-neutral terms could certainly be enforced, I’d
> think.  But say a corporation provides a forum to all candidates but says
> that it won’t give the microphone to any candidate who expresses support
> for a corporate income tax, or who criticizes an ongoing war effort, or who
> expresses what the corporation views as transphobic sentiments.  I would
> think that such decisions based on a candidate’s ideology is precisely what
> the California rule would forbid.  Or am I missing something here?
>
>
>
>                 Eugene
>
>
>
> *From:* Thomas Collins <thomas.collins at azcleanelections.gov>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 5, 2021 10:44 AM
> *To:* Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>
> *Cc:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Twitter deplatforming a candidate = an in-kind
> corporate contribution to rivals?
>
>
>
> Professor,
>
>
>
> Does the FPPC believe that a hosts refusal to give the mic 🎤 to a
> candidate at a forum who consistently violates the terms of the forum be
> making a contribution to others in attendance?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
> Thomas M. Collins
>
> Executive Director
>
> Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission
>
> 602-397-6362
>
> On Friday, February 5, 2021, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>                 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/d45e337b/attachment.html>