[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 177 (Wednesday, November 6, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Page S6412]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            FIRST AMENDMENT

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

                          ____________________