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

[Pildes, Rick]

Twitter regularly charges 0 to all 300M+ users of its platforms and there is effectively zero marginal cost to Twitter to add another user.  So how is it making an in-kind contribution to candidates who happen to use its platform?  I don’t know if ActBlue or WinRed are incorporated, but if they are, since they only let candidates of one party have access to their sites, are they massively violating federal election law.

Best,
Rick

Richard H. Pildes
Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
NYU School of Law
40 Washington Square So.
NYC, NY 10014
347-886-6789

From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 1:48 PM
To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Twitter deplatforming a candidate = an in-kind corporate contribution to rivals?

                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<mailto:thomas.collins at azcleanelections.gov>>
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 10:44 AM
To: Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu<mailto:VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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/20210205/32126cfb/attachment.html>