Hill, The

[Commentary] No administration in memory has more thoroughly undermined freedom of speech and of the press than that of President Barack Obama. From the White House itself, as well as the independent and executive branch agencies, have come a steady stream of policies, initiatives, and pronunciamentos that have threatened or compromised both of these constitutional rights. Indeed, the Administration’s example has inspired like-minded actions outside of the White House. For example, those Democratic members of Congress who actively encouraged IRS action against conservative nonprofit organizations before Lois Lerner turned to the task. And the 16 state attorneys general, Democrats all, who have recently embarked on a campaign designed to silence people who are skeptical of the evidence of anthropogenic global warming and/or its effects and remediation. But it’s the example of the Administration itself that is most notable. Who could forget the performance of then-UN ambassador Susan Rice who, five days after the Benghazi attack that took the life of the American ambassador, went on national TV and blamed the attacks on an anti-Islam video shown on YouTube?

In 2016, the United States is a country riven by deep political and cultural divides, which is perhaps why we are seeing things today that even a short time ago would have seemed preposterously illiberal and outside the country’s revered traditions. Things like the growth and nurturing of identity politics and a grievance culture, and the imposition, especially on campuses, of a virulent form of political correctness, are both a symbol and a cause of our national angst. It is in this state of affairs that the most precious thing we have in our national heritage is the Bill of Rights, and the First Amendment especially. If, as some people fear, things in the USA go from bad to worse, history will not treat kindly those people who have not honored that plain truth.

[Maines is president of The Media Institute.]

The escalating fight between Spotify and Apple is turning heads in Washington. Spotify, a Swedish service, blasted Apple for rejecting an updated version of its popular streaming app in the online store used by iPhone users. At issue, according to Apple, is Spotify’s decision to take out a feature that let its users buy premium subscriptions through Apple’s in-app purchase feature or take steps to sign up online. In the most recent version, users are simply told that premium service is available. When users buy through the in-application purchase tool, Apple gets a cut; when they buy online, Apple gets nothing. Apple says that Spotify is violating rules designed to prevent an end-run around the commissions system. Spotify says Apple is trying to stifle competition.

Lawmakers, including Sen Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, are paying attention to the debate. The Federal Trade Commission reportedly began looking into the issue in 2015, though not through a formal investigation, as streaming services ramped up their criticism of Apple. Sen Al Franken (D-MN) also asked for a federal probe into the issue. Spotify has been making its case on Capitol Hill. The company reached out to over a dozen offices over its most recent criticisms of Apple, according to a person familiar with the effort. Their pleas have not gone unnoticed.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarty (R-CA) is pushing a bill to protect one of President Barack Obama’s tech priorities after he leaves office. The GOP leader’s bill would put the force of law behind President Obama’s 2012 Presidential Innovation Fellows Program, which brings on a small number of tech-savvy employees from the private sector every year and places them around the government for short stints of service.

President Obama already signed an executive order in 2015 making the program permanent. At the time, President Obama said he hoped the program would help build “a government that’s as modern, as innovative, and as engaging as our incredible tech sector is.” While unlikely in the case of the fellows program, executive orders can always be undone by the next administration. That is not the case with legislation signed into law. The program was part of a 2008 campaign promise from President Obama and was created with the help of former White House Chief Technology Officer Todd Park.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) took to the floor to amplify his questions about whether Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler authorized a March leak about the commission’s activities. In March, a source told Politico that a deal had been reached between two Republican commissioners of the agency and Democratic Commissioner Mignon Clyburn on reforms to the Lifeline subsidy program. The report prompted supporters of Wheeler's proposed reforms to lobby Commissioner Clyburn to forsake the deal. Chairman Thune used a portion of a floor speech to hit Chairman Wheeler for not directly answering whether he had personally authorized that leak.

“Now since Mr. Wheeler could have just said no if he did not actually authorize the leak of non-public information, that leaves only two possible conclusions,” Chairman Thune said. “One, that Chairman Wheeler did authorize the leak but is not confident in his roundabout interpretation of the rules and fears admitting to violating them. Or, second, Chairman Wheeler simply does not respect the legitimate role of Congressional oversight and believes and he is unaccountable to the American people.”

[Commentary] In 2014, Rep Mike Doyle (D-PA) and three other Members of Congress sent a bipartisan letter to the Federal Communications Commission, urging the Commission to take a closer look at billing practices of telecommunications companies. In the letter, the Members stated that an inquiry sent to some of the nation’s largest communications providers led them to conclude that below the line fees can add substantially to a consumer’s monthly bill and should be made known to consumers before they sign up for service. FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn shares this view.

In April, the FCC released its consumer broadband label, a new tool that will give consumers more information about the fees and terms of service associated with their fixed and mobile broadband service. Such disclosure and transparency inspires confidence, increases the public’s trust, and demonstrates good faith. The American people not only want these things, they demand them. We are calling for the nation’s communications providers to lead the way and voluntarily improve transparency and disclosure of these “below the line” fees so that when consumers sign up for service, either online or in-store, they won’t have to wait for their first bill to learn what their total monthly costs will be. We hope the nation’s communications providers will heed our call to action and take this simple step to improve the customer experience. Not only would this be a huge win for consumers; it would be an opportunity for the nation’s phone, Internet, and Pay-TV providers to show they are committed to putting their customers first.

[Commentary] Since Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler took over, we have seen one assault after another on American's procedural due process rights. In addition to the well-documented improprieties with the White House during the Open Internet debate, Chairman Wheeler, among other transgressions, has attempted to force nonprofits to reveal their donors in strict violation of Supreme Court precedent, hired advocates who had filed in significant FCC dockets as an interested party to come into the commission to supervise those very dockets, and attempted to hold a FCC "town hall" in which he had invited an outside party to participate and comment on a yet-to-be-released item during the "sunshine" period. Chairman Wheeler is now at it again, this time in the context of the FCC's attempt to impose stringent price regulation for "business data services" (BDS). Let's look at this shameful timeline.

[Spiwak is the president of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies.]

[Commentary] As Freedom House has documented, Internet freedom is in decline, as censorship and online surveillance expands around the world. Authoritarian governments seek United Nations regulation or agreements among states to justify their Internet restrictions and wall off parts of their country's Internet from outside influence. To defend Internet freedom, the US government has wisely focused on keeping global Internet governance out of their control and instead leaving the internet's key technical functions to engineers, business and civil society, whose mission is to preserve the internet as an open, globally interconnected platform. The US government would do well to continue this policy by completing the transition to a fully privatized internet Domain Name System.

[Lagon is president of Freedom House and served as U.S. ambassador to Combat Human Trafficking under former President George W. Bush. Donahoe is an officer of the Freedom House Board and former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Council under President Obama.]

The House passed two bills aimed at improving conditions for startup investing. The Fix Crowdfunding Act (HR 4855) raises the amount that a company can crowdfund, from $1 million to $5 million. A 2012 law opened up the rules for crowdfunded investments, but Republicans say the rules still need to be tweaked. The bill was approved by a vote of 394-4. “These bills today are targeted fixes to restore the original spirit of the JOBS Act: To harness innovation and bring together millions of Americans with potential new businesses through crowdfunding,” Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said. The new crowdfunding rules went into effect earlier in 2016, after being formally approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2015.

The second bill, Supporting America’s Innovators Act (HR 4854), would expand the legal limit on investors in venture funds doing early-stage funding that can help a company get off the ground — called angel investing — to 250 from 100. The legislation passed 388-9. Both bills are part of a House GOP initiative focused on passing bills related to the tech industry and innovation in the months before November’s elections. Democrats have backed a similar initiative.

Federal officials may not use private e-mail accounts to get around public records laws, a federal judge ruled June 5. The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit overturned a lower court decision in which judges dismissed claims from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a conservative think tank that attempted to obtain correspondence from a top White House official through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) said it did not need to search for or turn over records held by the head of the OSTP on a private e-mail account as part of the open records request. Throughout the case, the government argued that “[d]ocuments on a nongovernmental e-mail server are outside the possession or control of federal agencies, and thus beyond the scope of FOIA.” Judge David Sentelle, the chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, disagreed with that reasoning and ordered the lower court to reconsider the case. “If a department head can deprive the citizens of their right to know what his department is up to by the simple expedient of maintaining his departmental e-mails on an account in another domain, that purpose is hardly served,” Judge Sentelle wrote. “It would make as much sense to say that the department head could deprive requestors of hard-copy documents by leaving them in a file at his daughter’s house and then claiming that they are under her control,” he said.

Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson stumped for a proposed reorganization of the division of his agency responsible for protecting critical infrastructure from digital threats. “We've asked for a reorganization from Congress,” Johnson told the Senate Judiciary Committee during a June 30 on oversight of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). “I know the House Homeland Committee is considering it and possibly drafting language. And if this is something the Senate would consider, I think it would go a long way to addressing both cyber and the protection of critical infrastructure.”

Specifically, Sec Johnson wants to replace the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) within the DHS with a new operational agency tasked with protecting the computer networks that run the nation’s power grid, water utilities and more. The agency, along with many lawmakers, see the move as way to smooth bureaucratic barriers within the DHS. But the proposed reorganization, in the works for over a year, has been a point of tension between the agency and Congress.