Mediaboss Marketing

Former OMB Director Russ Vought discusses rising gas prices on 'FOX Business Tonight.'

FIRST ON FOX - House Republicans on the Oversight and Reform Committee are sending a letter to Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., urging her to cease an investigation into the U.S. oil and gas industry as it relates to climate change.

Maloney and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., on Sept. 16 launched an investigation into the fossil fuel industry and sent letters to executives at ExxonMobil, BP America, Chevron, Shell Oil, American Petroleum Institute, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and later subpoenaed documents related to the industry's role in spreading disinformation about the role fossil fuels play in climate change.

"Since its inception, Committee Democrats investigation has been fraught with pre-determined conclusions, reckless accusations, and an abuse of Congress oversight authority," Republicans wrote in their letter. "The most egregious of these abuses is your decision to unilaterally issue subpoenas for documents that strike at the heart of protections offered by the First Amendment."

Chairwoman Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) speaks at a hearing with the House Committee on Oversight and Reform in the Rayburn House Office Building on November 16, 2021 in Washington, DC. . (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

The Republican members including House Committee on Oversight and Reform Ranking Member James Comer, Environment Subcommittee Ranking Member Ralph Norman and other Oversight Republicans went on to highlight the increasing cost of gas for U.S. drivers and urged Committee Democrats to hold a hearing on rising energy prices.

INTERIOR CALLS FOR HIKING RATES ON OIL AND GAS COMPANIES TO DRILL ON FEDERAL LANDS

Republicans added that the oil and gas companies from which Democrats subpoenaed documents have already provided more than 200,000 pages of documents.

"The Committee on Oversight and Reform exists to provide the necessary oversight of federal government actions and policies to protect the American people and their taxpayer dollars," the authors of the letter wrote. "This Committee needs to act now and use its authority to address the most pressing issues facing the country. The American people look to our Committee to hold the government accountable for its actions."

Maloney said in statement to Fox News that she strongly supports "President Bidens bold efforts to reduce gas prices and his economic policies that have led to a record 5.6 million jobs createdcompared to more than 3 million jobs lost under President Trump."

"We also must address the climate crisis, and I will not rest until we get to the bottom of the role of the fossil fuel industry in causing the crisis and promoting disinformation to block meaningful climate action," she said.

Ranking member Rep. James Comer (R-KY) speaks at a hearing with the House Committee on Oversight and Reform in the Rayburn House Office Building on November 16, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Maloney, Khanna and other Democrats have compared the fossil fuel industry to the tobacco industry, saying it has covered up information showing how the industry has impacted a "global climate crisis" that has become "increasingly dire."

"As worsening natural disasters linked to global warming devastate communities in the United States and globally, one of Congresss top legislative priorities is combating the increasingly urgent crisis of a changing climate," the chairs said in a Sept. 16 statement. "To do this, Congress must address pollution caused by the fossil fuel industry and curb troubling business practices that lead to disinformation on these issues."

PENNSYLVANIA BRACES FOR HUGE ENERGY PRICE HIKES AS WINTER LOOMS

About two months after launching their investigation, President Biden on Nov. 17 called for the Federal Trade Commission to probe whether oil and gas companies are engaging in criminal conduct by profiting from artificially high prices at the pump, even as wholesale fuel costs decline.

BP, Shell, Chevron, and ExxonMobil reported nearly $2 trillion in profits over about 30 years, as Maloney and Khanna noted in a September press release.

FILE PHOTO: Gas prices grow along with inflation as this sign at a gas station shows in San Diego, California, U.S. November, 9, 2021. REUTERS/Mike Blake/File Photo

Biden under mounting political pressure with inflation at the highest rate in more than three decades urged FTC Chair Lina Khan in a letter to investigate potential wrongdoing by the industry, alleging "mounting evidence of anti-consumer behavior" by the companies.

BIDEN ASKED CHINA TO RELEASE OIL RESERVES TO EASE PRICES

"The bottom line is this: gasoline prices at the pump remain high, even though oil and gas companies' costs are declining," Biden said. "The Federal Trade Commission has authority to consider whether illegal conduct is costing families at the pump. I believe you should do so immediately."

Republicans have criticized a number of the president's decisions as they relate to energy and climate change, including his orders to cancel construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, increase royalty rates for oil and gas leases on federal land and waive sanctions on Russia's Nord Stream II pipeline.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

The Labor Department reported earlier this month that the consumer price index (CPI) climbed 6.2% year over year in October. The increase marked the largest annual gain since November 1990. Prices rose 0.9% month over month.

Energy prices jumped 4.8% last month, and were up 30% over the past year. The October increase was largely the result of a 6.1% rise in the cost of gasoline.

FOX Business' Megan Henney contributed to this report.

Originally posted here:
Oversight Republicans urge Democrats to cease oil and gas industry investigation, demand hearing on crisis - Fox Business

ByAndrew Hamm on Nov 19, 2021 at 4:10 pm

This week we highlight cert petitions that ask the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, whether Puerto Rican news agencies have a First Amendment right to audio of proceedings in a case of domestic violence that sparked protests and whether a New Jersey levy violates the commerce clause.

Asociacin de Periodistas de Puerto Rico v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico follows the murder of Andrea Cristina Ruiz Costas by her ex-boyfriend, which led to protests in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Shortly before her death, Ruiz Costas had sought a restraining order and criminal charges against the ex-boyfriend, but the court did not grant her any relief after three separate hearings. After news organizations sought the audio recordings of those proceedings, Puerto Rican courts denied any access on the ground that, because judges have discretion over access to courtrooms hearing domestic violence matters to protect confidentiality, the recordings of the proceedings should remain sealed. In its petition, the Asociacin de Periodistas de Puerto Rico argues that the courts erred in not considering the First Amendment before denying access to the proceedings and that their interpretation violates the First Amendment.

New Jersey imposes a levy on any partnership that derives income from New Jersey, at the flat rate of $150 per partner up to $250,000, regardless of whether the partner is in New Jersey. Ferrellgas Partners, LP is a master limited partnership, which has allowed Ferrellgas to raise capital by selling partnership units that are similar to stock and are traded on the New York Stock Exchange. In its petition, Ferrellgas maintains that from 2009 to 2011, about one percent of its sales were in New Jersey, yet, because it has tens of thousands of partners, New Jersey assessed levies of $250,000 each year, even eclipsing Ferrellgass New Jersey income. Ferrellgas argues that the levy violates the commerce clause because it exceeds the proportion of commerce that takes place in New Jersey. New Jersey courts upheld the levy, however, under an exception on the basis that the levy is a regulatory fee that is locally focused. The case is Ferrellgas Partners, LP v. Director, Division of Taxation of New Jersey.

These and otherpetitions of the weekare below:

Devine v. Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Limited21-622Issue: Whether the voluntary dismissal of a plaintiffs suit underFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)permanently strips the district court of jurisdiction to consider a motion to modify a previously issued protective order.

Lee v. Garlick21-637Issues: (1) Whether, in granting habeas corpus relief to a state court prisoner, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit created a circuit split and denied the state court judgment the deference mandated by28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1)when it relied on a test that was not clearly established by the Supreme Courts precedents to determine that an autopsy report was testimonial under the confrontation clause; (2) whether the 2nd Circuit violatedYarborough v. Alvaradoby applying an overly specific unreasonable application analysis; and (3) whether the 2nd Circuit violated the harmless error standard inBrecht v. Abrahamsonin ruling that the admission of the autopsy report was not harmless despite (a) uncertainty as to whether the report was admissible to form the basis of an in-court expert opinion, and (b) overwhelming evidence of guilt including surveillance video of James Garlick stabbing the victim to death.

Ferrellgas Partners, LP v. Director, Division of Taxation of New Jersey21-641Issue: Whether a levy that raises revenue for a states general fund, and that is not restricted to the in-state activities of the levy-payor, may be characterized as a locally focused regulatory fee, and thus be imposed without regard to whether it is internally consistent.

Duncan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company21-652Issue: Whether a person suffers Article III injury-in-fact when an insurer breaches its contractual obligation to pay for the persons medical care.

Butler v. Porter21-655Issue: Whether remedies underBivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcoticsare categorically unavailable to federal prisoners in any context other than for violations of a federal prisoners Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care.

Asociacin de Periodistas de Puerto Rico v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico21-659Issues: (1) Whether courts may summarily close judicial proceedings and deny access to the official recordings of those proceedings without determining whether the First Amendment public access right attaches to them; and (2) whether Article 5.005 of Puerto Ricos Judiciary Act of 2003, as construed by the Puerto Rico Supreme Court to require automatic closure of all domestic violence proceedings and the official recordings of those proceedings, violates the First Amendment public access right underGlobe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court.

Visit link:
The First Amendment and the commerce clause - SCOTUSblog

The last few years have seen a flurry of efforts from both right and left to regulate how social media platforms police their users. These laws and proposed laws have raised a key constitutional question: Is a platform's power to moderate user-created content protected by the First Amendment?

So far, courts have consistently held that platforms do have such protection. A critical case to be decided by the Eleventh Circuit in the new year will be the most important yet to address that question.

The law at issue is Florida's SB 7072, a sweeping measure ostensibly enacted to stop censorship by big tech. SB 7072 forces platforms to host all content from registered political candidates and "journalistic enterprises," even if that content would violate the platforms' terms of service. The law also imposes a consistency provision, which forces a platform to take down (or leave up) content if a judge rules that the platform has previously taken down (or left up) similar content. The law imposes penalties of up to $250,000 for each instance of noncompliance.

Florida Republicans argue that their "freedom of speech as conservatives is under attack by the 'big tech' oligarchs in Silicon Valley" and that SB 7072 "is about the 22 million Floridians and their First Amendment rights." By calling the bill a defense of free speech and by calling the platforms' content moderation "censorship," these supporters obscure the critical fact that editorial choices by private actors are categorically different from the abridgement of free speech by the state.

This distinction is crucial because the government is, and always will be, a monopoly; when it bans speech, citizens have no recourse. Private speech platforms, by contrast, have competition. Whether they are new social media companies or traditional newspapers, these platforms can only decide what speech they host and present. Those unsatisfied with their choices can choose to read or contribute elsewhere.

That difference is why the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a similar Florida law in 1974. By compelling newspapers to run editorials written by politicians they had criticized, the high court explained, the law infringed the papers' editorial right to choose what speech they print. Private citizens have the right to respond to criticism, but not the right to force others to host their speech.

So when Florida argued nearly 50 years later that SB 7072 is on the side of free speech, a federal district court correctly and unsurprisingly deemed those arguments "wholly at odds with accepted constitutional principles."

Florida nonetheless claims that social media platforms are not protected by these traditional First Amendment principles. The state argues that a social media site does not present a sufficiently "unified speech product" and that platforms have not engaged in enough content moderation in the past to merit a right to do so in the future. But as explained in a recently filed amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Cato Institute (which one of us co-wrote), the First Amendment's protections are not contingent on either of these criteria.

Private actors have a First Amendment right to choose what they say, what speech they host, and how they arrange it, regardless of the coherence of the speech they host or the extent to which they have edited that speech in the past.The First Amendment protects the editorial rights of all platforms, not just a privileged class of institutional media that have already engaged in heavy content moderation.

When he signed 7072, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis likened social media platforms' content moderation to the "tyrannical behavior" of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. If DeSantis is really concerned about free speech and authoritarianism, he should think twice before giving the government more control over private communications platforms.

See the rest here:
The First Amendment Protects Everyone, Even Facebook and Twitter - Reason

A first-in-the-nation Oregon law restricting love letters between buyers and sellers, set to begin in January, is being challenged in court by the conservative-leaning Pacific Legal Foundation.

A libertarian legal group is backing an Oregon real estate firms effort to strike down a first-in-the-nation ban on so-called love letters from homebuyers to sellers.

The group, Pacific Legal Foundation, filed a lawsuit Friday that claims Oregons new law which requires real estate agents to reject these letters represents a violation of the agents and clients First Amendment rights. The suit was filed on behalf of Total Real Estate Group in Bend, Oregon.

Guesswork is not adequate grounds for suppressing truthful speech, the group said in its filing. Nor can the Legislature broadly prohibit expression because a small portion of it might theoretically prompt some people to violate the law.

Advocates of the law say that the letters often contain personal information that can be used to discriminate against homebuyers based on their race, sex, religion or family situation.

This type of discrimination is already banned under the Fair Housing Act, but the laws advocates argue that love letters provide the seller with more than enough information to discriminate unconsciously or otherwise.

We are limiting transmission of communications that are not relevant and could potentially be breaking fair housing laws, Democratic state Rep. Mark Meek, who sponsored the legislation in Oregon, recently told USA Today.

But in its lawsuit, the group alleges that theres no evidence the letters have led to actual discrimination. It points to a statement from the National Association of Realtors that the trade group was unaware of any legal action that resulted from a love letter.

This censorship is based on mere speculation that sellers might sometimes rely on information in these letters to discriminate based on a protected class, the lawsuit reads.

Love letters can also give first-time buyers a leg up over investors, the lawsuit reads.

In its statement from earlier this year, NAR also advised its members to only consider non-discriminatory criteria when helping a client sell a home. Failing to do so could leave agents in a compromised position, NAR spokesman Wesley Shaw said in July.

Oregon became the first state in the nation to ban love letters earlier this year. No other state has yet taken the same step, according to the USA Today report.

The ban requires a sellers agent to reject any communication other than customary documents from a potential homebuyer, including letters, photographs and video. Its language does not ban a buyer from submitting the same type of material directly to the seller themselves.

[Total Real Estate Group] is concerned that the love letter ban, if anything, increases the likelihood of discrimination because it allows buyers to send love letters to sellers without the intermediary of a broker to protect against that risk, the lawsuit reads. Likewise, the love letter ban may make it more likely that problematic communications simply occur over the phone rather than in writing, making it more difficult to police against possible discriminatory conduct on the part of sellers.

In previous conversations with Inman, agents in Oregon had a range of experiences with love letters. Some said they saw how the information in the letters could be used by sellers to play on biases. Others said the strength of the offer was usually what won the day, not the emotional appeals from the buyer.

Barring a successful legal challenge, the law is set to go into effect in January throughout the state of Oregon.

Email Daniel Houston

Read this article:
Love letter ban to see day in court thanks to First Amendment group - Inman

An FBI raid on Project Veritas leader James OKeefes home in early November 2021 has sparked an unusual demonstration of support from the very establishment media that OKeefe has spent his career targeting and trashing.

The raid was conducted on the suspicion that OKeefe and former Project Veritas staffers were implicated in the theft of President Joe Bidens daughter Ashleys diary before the 2020 election. The Department of Justice said the cellphones sought in the raid would reveal evidence of aiding and abetting the transport of stolen property worth $5,000 or more across state lines, and of failure to report the theft to law enforcement in violation of federal law.

Project Veritas says that the phones contain attorney-client privileged information and newsgathering materials protected by the First Amendment.

OKeefe is the self-described progressive radical and founder and CEO of Project Veritas. His organization has a long history of conducting undercover sting operations, frequently targeting progressive nonprofits, politicians and the news media with the stated aim of disclosing bias, hypocrisy and illegal activity.

Many journalists repudiate Project Veritas and its methods, contending that the organization is ideologically driven and routinely violates established norms of media ethics.

As a professor of media ethics and law, Ive been grappling with how to think about Project Veritas and its escapades for years. Like many media lawyers, I wish it would just go away.

Nevertheless, media organizations and their supporters, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Committee to Protect Journalists and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, of which I served as executive director from 1985 to 1999, rallied to protest the searches and seizures as a possible violation of the First Amendment right of a news organization to gather information. They demanded answers about why Project Veritas was targeted in the investigation. And they made clear that they were concerned about more than just Project Veritas, whose methods they have often decried.

Project Veritas bills itself a nonprofit journalism enterprise, and its website touts its many efforts to achieve a more ethical and transparent society.

But its work doesnt look much like traditional journalism. One of its more notorious undertakings involved making secret recordings at various offices of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now in 2009, purporting to show ACORN staffers advising OKeefe and his associate how to evade taxes and engage in human trafficking.

Although a subsequent investigation by the California Attorney General concluded that the videos had been severely edited, their release prompted Congress to freeze federal funding to ACORN. ACORN was eventually exonerated by the Government Accountability Office, but Project Veritas continues to brag about its takedown of the organization as one of its successes.

Project Veritas also revels in exposs of what it calls political bias in the mainstream media, including CNN, ABC, National Public Radio and The Washington Post. Recently, it sued The New York Times in state court in Westchester County, New York, claiming that the newspaper defamed it by calling its videos alleging voter fraud in Minneapolis misinformation. It has now used that case as the means to obtain a court order to compel the Times to curtail its reporting about the investigation, which Project Veritas claims came from government leaks an extraordinary request for prior restraint unprecedented since the Supreme Courts Pentagon Papers case in 1971, and hardly consistent with support of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment provides some protection for newsgathering, although it does not permit the news media to violate laws that apply to everyone. Because the government does not issue licenses to journalists, anyone who gathers and disseminates information to the public can claim to be the press. Thats why the FBI raid concerns members of the news media. They fear they could be next.

For their part, the attorneys representing Project Veritas say that two anonymous individuals, who claimed they had legally acquired the diary after Ashley Biden abandoned it at a house in Florida, offered to sell it to Project Veritas for possible publication. After the lawyers for both parties negotiated an arms length agreement, Project Veritas took delivery of the diary.

Project Veritas claims that it couldnt authenticate the diary to its satisfaction and after trying unsuccessfully to return it to Bidens lawyer, sent it back to local law enforcement officials.

If this version of events is true, U.S. Supreme Court precedent established in a 2001 press-related case, Bartnicki v. Vopper, should apply. There, the high court ruled that a media organization can disclose important information illegally obtained by a third party, as long as the organization itself was not involved.

A strangers illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote.

If Project Veritas was not involved in the theft of the diary, it could also be covered by the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, which bars both federal and state law enforcement from seizing journalists work product and documentary materials except in very limited circumstances.

In fact, the Justice Department has been prohibited from even subpoenaing journalists by Attorney General guidelines that date back to 1974 although investigations into leaks of classified information led to notable exceptions to this rule during the Obama and Trump administrations.

Earlier this year, Biden said it was simply, simply wrong to compel journalists to reveal their sources, and Attorney General Merrick Garland promised in July to beef up the guidelines and make them law to ensure that future administrations would also be bound by them, though he has yet to do so.

Project Veritas says it is covered by the Privacy Protection Act, which protects those engaged in public communication, as well as the guidelines.

But in defending the FBI raid on OKeefes home, the government contends that it has followed all applicable regulations and policies regarding what it calls potential members of the news media suggesting that they think Project Veritas isnt one.

Until the underlying affidavits supporting the warrants are unsealed, we wont know whether the U.S. Attorney thinks that Project Veritas committed a crime, or that it isnt a news organization. Either possibility has serious ramifications for all media.

If Project Veritas is found guilty of a crime, any journalist who transports leaked or stolen information across state lines could be charged with violation of the law. Its unclear what that means today when so many documents are transmitted electronically.

Or, if the government narrowly defines the press based on its political outlook or ethics, then no news organization is safe from attacks by future administrations.

Either way, the mainstream media are holding their collective noses and supporting Project Veritas in its fight. Its a matter of principle, but also of self-preservation.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continued here:
Project Veritas and the mainstream media: Strange allies in fight for press freedom | Commentary - Minnesota Reformer