So im with the American Consumer institute. Its a pleasure to be here today and thank you all for coming. Of importance is on thursday the federal Communications Commission holds one of its December Open meeting and deals with one of several very important topics and the issue today is the order to restore the Internet Freedom which includes a number of important provisions, one is classifying Broadband Access services as an Information Service as it was once before, removing the ambiguous internet conduct standard and the bright line rules, reestablishing the private mobile Service Classification for mobile broadband and promoting Internet Service provider transparency among other things and the transparency issue is very important to us because it helps give consumers better information to make better decisions. But theres a lot of noise out there, confusion, misinformation on what will mean for consumers and today we have a panel of experts that will address the issues but first id
Today about president trumps first 100 days. And i would suggest that yes, the Supreme Court is a big deal. But the things that the chairman is working on right now potentially have the longest impact of anything coming out of this administration. That is definitely doable. So i have been at Freedom Works for 12 years. And 12 years ago, when i started this was one of the first issues we worked on. And last year i was very nervous that we were going in the wrong direction. President obama passed new regulations on the internet that i feared was primly stop innovation. Particularly 15 billion devices connected to the internet. That number is gonna go up to 50. So obviously well get into a whole new level of change. And we can either try and regulate that change or we can let the market develop. So we are encouraged to hear that chairman ajit pai, the announcements you will be making today. Well be looking at opening up the internet for development and in a way that will increase competit
Cant get up and say what is on their mind or take part in the political process, is in danger. Has been in danger. This is an attack. That is just the way we have to put it. It is an attack on the First Amendment rights of our citizens just because they dared to differ from this administration. I cant think of anything more reprehensible. Certainly i am not going to stand idly by when the administration tries to dodge and weave its way out of this. Lately the commissioner, the new been a littlehas crafty with his remarks. He made these remarks last tuesday. Sort of a verbal somersault to downgrade the problem. Whetherically asked him he would put a stop to the regulations he has been detailed to implement, the regulations that would enshrine the stifling of free speech, at least until we are done in the ways and Means Committee and at least until we are done in the finance committee and also the Government Affairs committee in the house. Rate, he dodged, he ducked, he told us several t
Ranging from buckley very chalet hoe, to Citizens United to the recent mcchurch con case, have reheat repeatedly argued disclosure advances Public Interest and the court rejected the arguments put forward by senator mcconnell and justice thomas. The courts have put forward three main arguments in favor of disclosure. One, the Public Interest in knowing who is spending money to try to influence their votes. Two, that transparency serves an important anticorruption interest, and, three, that disclosure helps to enforce other Campaign Finance laws like the prohibition on foreigners or foreign owned corporations spending money in u. S. Elections. Heres what the sprem court said in buckley with respect to disclosure of both direct contributions to campaigns and independent expenditures. I quote Disclosure Requirements deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity. A public armed with information abou
Contributions to the naacp infringed on the right of Free Association because it exposed those individuals to physical severe threats and retribution. The court in the naacp case put for district test for groups seeking to avoid disclosure. And in the later 1976 buckley decision the court rejected a challenge to Disclosure Requirements based on the earlier naacp case. The Buckley Court found that the strict tests for avoiding disclosure in naacp did not void the Campaign Finance Disclosure Requirements that they upheld in buckley and the Buckley Court did say that a group could seek an exemption from the Disclosure Requirements if it they could demonstrate as the naacp did in the alabama case that would be subject to an actual not speculative verdon on the freedom of association. And in fact the fec has determined that the socialist Workers Party which they found based on history of violence harassment and threats to quote has met that task and exempted them from current Disclosure Req