DOCSLIB.ORG

Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 109 Filed 06/24/21 Page 1 of 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION NETCHOICE, LLC d/b/a NETCHOICE, a 501(c)(6) District of Columbia organization; and COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONS Civil Action No.: INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION d/b/a CCIA, a 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF 501(c)(6) non-stock Virginia corporation, Plaintiffs, v. ASHLEY BROOKE MOODY, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Florida; JONI ALEXIS POITIER, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Florida Elections Commission; JASON TODD ALLEN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Florida Elections Commission; JOHN MARTIN HAYES, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Florida Elections Commission; KYMBERLEE CURRY SMITH, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Florida Elections Commission; and PATRICK GILLESPIE, in his official capacity as Deputy Secretary of Business Operations of the Florida Department of Management Services, Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 109 Filed 06/24/21 Page 2 of 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS. ................ 1 A. The State Cannot Evade Strict Scrutiny. ............................................... 1 Editorial Judgments Are Protected Speech........................................... 1 PruneYard and FAIR Are Not On Point. ..............................................3 Turner Confirms Strict Scrutiny Is Required. ....................................... 5 The “Common Carrier” Theory Fails. ................................................. 6 B. The Act Fails Even Intermediate Scrutiny. ........................................... 8 i. The Act Does Not Advance Any Substantial Interest. ................. 9 ii. The Act Lacks Any Tailoring.....................................................11 C. The Act’s Vagueness Exacerbates the Burden on Speech. .................12 D. The Act is Preempted by Section 230. ................................................13 II. THE EQUITABLE FACTORS FAVOR AN INJUNCTION. ......................14 i Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 109 Filed 06/24/21 Page 3 of 25 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) Arizona Free Enter. Club v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721 (2011) ............................................................................................ 10 Biden v. Knight First Amend. Inst. at Columbia Univ., 141 S. Ct. 1220 (2021) .......................................................................................... 7 Denver Area Educ. Telecomms. Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727 (1996) .............................................................................................. 8 Divino Grp. LLC v. Google LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3245 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2021) ....................................... 13 FCC v. Midwest Video Corp., 440 U.S. 689 (1979) .............................................................................................. 7 Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 901 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 2 Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp., 515 U.S. 557 (1995) .....................................................................................passim Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) .......................................................................................... 1, 9 Murphy v. Twitter, Inc., 60 Cal. App. 5th 12 (2021) ................................................................................. 13 NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) ............................................................................................ 12 Nat’l Ass’n of Regul. Util. Comm’rs v. FCC, 533 F.2d 601 (D.C. Cir. 1976) .............................................................................. 7 Nat’l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018) .................................................................................... 8, 11 Otto v. City of Boca Raton, 981 F.3d 854 (11th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................. 2 ii Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 109 Filed 06/24/21 Page 4 of 25 Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. CPUC, 475 U.S. 1 (1986) .............................................................................................. 4, 8 PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) ............................................................................................ 3, 4 Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015) .............................................................................................. 5 Rumsfeld v. FAIR, 547 U.S. 47 (2006) ........................................................................................ 3, 4, 5 Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011) ........................................................................................ 2, 10 Turner Broadcasting Systems v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) ................................................................................ 5, 6, 8, 11 Vigue v. Shoar, 494 F. Supp. 3d 1204 (M.D. Fla. 2020) .............................................................. 14 Wollschlaeger v. Governor, Fla., 848 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 11, 12 Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (1985) .............................................................................................. 8 Zhang v. Baidu.com, 10 F. Supp. 3d 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) .................................................................... 6 Other Authorities U.S. CONST., amend. I ....................................................................................passim iii Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 109 Filed 06/24/21 Page 5 of 25 The State defends a law very different from the one Florida actually enacted. The Act does not regulate the “conduct” of “common carriers” or impose only “incidental” burdens on speech. It overrides online services’ protected editorial judgments, interfering with the messages those judgments express and making the State the ultimate arbiter of private companies’ speech. Florida cannot mandate such “enforced access”—even in the name of “enhanc[ing]” speech, promoting “fairness,” or addressing supposedly “vast accumulations of unreviewable power in the modern media empires.” Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 245, 250-51 (1974). Technology changes, but the First Amendment endures. The Act should be enjoined. I. PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS. A. The State Cannot Evade Strict Scrutiny. Defendants do not seriously dispute that the Act’s core provisions are content- based. Nor do they dispute that the Act singles out particular speakers for burdens while privileging others. These features alone warrant strict scrutiny (PI 23-32), and Defendants’ efforts to evade that standard fail. Editorial Judgments Are Protected Speech. Defendants are wrong in suggesting that the only speech implicated here is that of the online services’ users. Opp. 18-19, 22-23. The First Amendment limits government, not private actors, and Florida is restricting the services’ protected speech—their editorial judgments about Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 109 Filed 06/24/21 Page 6 of 25 whether and how to display user content. PI 21-23. “[P]resentation of an edited compilation of speech generated by other persons … fall[s] squarely within the core of First Amendment security.” Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp., 515 U.S. 557, 570 (1995). It is those editorial judgments that the Act not only burdens, but flatly proscribes. The State is equally wrong in claiming that the Act regulates conduct, not speech. Opp. 30-31. “Labeling certain … communications ‘speech’ and others ‘conduct’ is unprincipled and susceptible to manipulation.” Otto v. City of Boca Raton, 981 F.3d 854, 865 (11th Cir. 2020). That is especially so here, where the editorial functions have long been recognized as speech, and the Act both prohibits posting addenda and compels sweeping disclosures. “Both on its face and in its practical operation, [Florida’s] law imposes a burden based on the content of speech and the identity of the speaker.” Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552, 567 (2011). Enforcing standards about subjects like hate speech, pornography, or disinformation expresses a message about the nature of the online community and what its moderator finds objectionable. No additional speech is needed for such expression to be protected. Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 901 F.3d 1235, 1243-45 (11th Cir. 2018). That such editorial judgments 2 Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 109 Filed 06/24/21 Page 7 of 25 may take place behind the scenes (Opp. 31) is irrelevant—just as it is when newspapers reject op-eds. It is also untrue that only “highly selective” newspapers or “parades” expressing a “common theme” enjoy constitutional protection. Opp. 21-23. “[A] private speaker does not forfeit constitutional protection simply by combining multifarious voices, or by failing to edit their themes to isolate an exact message.” Hurley, 515 U.S. at 569-70. Newspaper op-ed pages, for example, have no “common theme”—they collect disparate perspectives. Similarly, that some online services choose to host a wide range of views and topics is no basis for curtailing their First Amendment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: Research Library Perspectives June 2021 by Katherine Klosek
    Issue Brief Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: Research Library Perspectives June 2021 By Katherine Klosek With thanks to Jonathan Band, General Counsel at ARL; Greg Cram, Director of Copyright, Permissions & Information Policy at New York Public Library; and Judy Ruttenberg, Senior Director of Scholarship and Policy at ARL Introduction 3 Background 3 Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 5 Libraries and Section 230 7 FOSTA: The Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafcking Act 9 Discussion 10 Appendix: Discussion Guide 12 Access to Information 12 Afordability 12 Anti-harassment 12 Diversity 13 Open Internet 13 Political Neutrality/Freedom of Expression 14 Privacy 14 Issue Brief: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—June 2021 2 Introduction The 117th US Congress is holding hearings and debating bills on changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), a 1996 law that protects internet service providers and internet users from liability for content shared by third parties. When it was enacted, Section 230 ofered liability protections for then- nascent services that are integral to the development of the internet we have today. But Section 230 has come under fre from Democrats who believe internet service providers are not engaging in responsible content moderation, and from Republicans who believe that large social media companies censor conservative voices. This myopic debate ignores the longstanding role that research libraries have played as internet service providers, and the vast experience research libraries have in moderating and publishing content. More information on this topic can be found in the “Discussion” section of this brief.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021.06.11 FINAL Chamber of Progress- Amicus FL SB 7072
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION NETCHOICE, LLC d/b/a NETCHOICE, a 501(c)(6) District of Columbia Civil Action No. organization, and COMPUTER & 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION d/b/a CCIA, a 501(c)(6) non-stock Virginia corporation, Plaintiffs, v. ASHLEY BROOKE MOODY, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Florida, et al., Defendants. / PROPOSED BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE CHAMBER OF PROGRESS, CONNECTED COMMERCE COUNCIL, CTA®, ENGINE ADVOCACY, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL BLACK JUSTICE COALITION, PROGRESSIVE POLICY INSTITUTE, TECHNET, AND WASHINGTON CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY POLICY INCLUSION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .....................................................................................ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ..............................................................................1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................................................5 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................7 I. THE ACT HARMS CONSUMERS .....................................................7 A. THE ACT PROHIBITS ACTIONS THAT PROTECT ............... CONSUMERS ..............................................................................................11 B. THE ACT BURDENS ACTIONS THAT PROTECT ................. CONSUMERS ..............................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • Netchoice V. Moody
    Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 109 Filed 06/24/21 Page 1 of 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION NETCHOICE, LLC d/b/a NETCHOICE, a 501(c)(6) District of Columbia organization; and COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONS Civil Action No.: INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION d/b/a CCIA, a 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF 501(c)(6) non-stock Virginia corporation, Plaintiffs, v. ASHLEY BROOKE MOODY, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Florida; JONI ALEXIS POITIER, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Florida Elections Commission; JASON TODD ALLEN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Florida Elections Commission; JOHN MARTIN HAYES, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Florida Elections Commission; KYMBERLEE CURRY SMITH, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Florida Elections Commission; and PATRICK GILLESPIE, in his official capacity as Deputy Secretary of Business Operations of the Florida Department of Management Services, Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case 4:21-cv-00220-RH-MAF Document 109 Filed 06/24/21 Page 2 of 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS. ................ 1 A. The State Cannot Evade Strict Scrutiny. ............................................... 1 Editorial Judgments Are Protected Speech........................................... 1 PruneYard and FAIR Are Not On Point. ..............................................3 Turner Confirms Strict Scrutiny Is Required. ....................................... 5 The “Common Carrier” Theory Fails. ................................................. 6 B. The Act Fails Even Intermediate Scrutiny. ........................................... 8 i. The Act Does Not Advance Any Substantial Interest. ................. 9 ii. The Act Lacks Any Tailoring.....................................................11 C.
    [Show full text]
  • Accountable Tech Memo on Antitrust Package
    MEMORANDUM TO: Interested Parties FROM: Accountable Tech RE: House Antitrust Package DATE: June 22, 2021 PURPOSE: As Big Tech lobbyists blanket Capitol Hill with disingenuous talking points about the bipartisan House antitrust package, this memo is designed to give a brief overview of what the bills actually do, why each of them is desperately needed to fix the broken status quo, and underscore the extent of the industry’s efforts to kill these overwhelmingly popular measures. I. WHAT THE BILLS DO – AND WHY WE NEED THEM The American Innovation and Choice Online Act will prevent dominant platforms from rigging marketplaces – by self-preferencing and picking winners and losers – and increase opportunity for small businesses and entrepreneurs. Rather than gatekeepers constantly favoring their own products or kneecapping competitors to pad their profits, this bill would level the playing field and put real choice in the hands of consumers. Here’s why we need it: Facebook ● Mashable: Mark Zuckerberg gave the order to kneecap Vine, emails show ● NBC News: Mark Zuckerberg leveraged Facebook user data to fight rivals and help friends, leaked documents show ● NYT: “For years, Facebook gave some of the world’s largest technology companies more intrusive access to users’ personal data than it has disclosed, effectively exempting those business partners from its usual privacy rules” Amazon ● WSJ: Amazon Scooped Up Data From Its Own Sellers to Launch Competing Products ● ProPublica: Amazon’s New Competitive Advantage: Putting Its Own Products First
    [Show full text]
  • 21. AB 587 Gabriel Social Media Companies
    SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair 2021-2022 Regular Session AB 587 (Gabriel) Version: April 28, 2021 Hearing Date: July 13, 2021 Fiscal: Yes Urgency: No CK SUBJECT Social media companies: terms of service DIGEST This bill requires social media companies, as defined, to post their terms of service and to submit quarterly reports to the Attorney General on their terms of service and content moderation policies and outcomes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2005, five percent of adults in the United States used social media. In just six years, that number jumped to half of all Americans. Today, over 70 percent of adults use at least one social media platform. Facebook alone is used by 69 percent of adults, and 70 percent of those adults say they use the platform on a daily basis. Given the reach of social media platforms and the role they play in many people’s lives, concerns have arisen over what content permeates these sites, entering the lives of the billions of users, and the effects that has on them and society as a whole. In particular, the sharpest calls for action focus on the rampant spread of misinformation, hate speech, and sexually explicit content. Social media companies’ content moderation of a decade ago involved handfuls of individuals and user policies were minimal. These programs and policies have dramatically evolved over the years but the proliferation of objectionable content and “fake news” has led to calls for swifter and more aggressive action in response. However, there has also been backlash against perceived censorship in response to filtering of content and alleged “shadow banning.” This bill requires social media companies, as defined, to publicly post their terms of service, with certain required elements, and to provide the Attorney General with a quarterly report on their content moderation procedures and outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • El Plan Fiscal De Biden Impulsa El Alza De Impuestos a Empresas En Europa
    EL ECONOMISTA SÁBADO, 24 DE ABRIL DE 2021 Web: www.eleconomista.es E-mail: [email protected] 7 El Tema de la semana Las consecuencias económicas de la pandemia El plan fiscal de Biden impulsa el alza de impuestos a empresas en Europa Washington quiere limitar la competencia fiscal La UE busca nuevos ingresos para aumentar sus internacional y favorece la armonización europea recursos propios con tasas como Google y Tobin Ignacio Faes MADRID. El nuevo plan fiscal de Estados Uni- dos dirigido por la Administración del presidente, Joe Biden, impulsa- rá la armonización fiscal europea y el alza de impuestos a las empresas que busca Bruselas. El plan de Wa- shington –que quiere para las com- pañías un impuesto mínimo global único con una tasa del 21%– busca limitar la competencia fiscal inter- nacional para que las multinacio- nales no puedan beneficiarse de los territorios de baja tributación. La Unión Europea (UE) comparte es- te objetivo e intenta desde hace años una armonización fiscal comunita- ria en Sociedades. Las medidas suponen un nuevo impulso a las iniciativas de la Unión Europea, cierto sector de la OCDE y el Fondo Monetario Internacio- nal (FMI), que apuestan por con- solidar los ingresos a través de una subida de los tipos a las empresas. Biden anunció este mes un alza en El presidente de Estados Unidos, Joe Biden. EFE el Impuesto federal sobre Socieda- des de Estados Unidos. El presiden- nomista en los últimos años, la UE nuevo plan fiscal y pide que se fije te quiere llevar la tasa del 21% al trabaja desde 2011 en una Base Im- en otros países de la OCDE, como 28% para financiar sus proyectos ponible Consolidada común del Im- Francia.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2020 U.S. Political Engagement Policy and Statement This U.S
    2020 U.S. Political Engagement Policy and Statement This U.S. Political Engagement Policy and Statement describes the two types of political engagement by the Company. The first is lobbying, which includes both direct communications with government officials by the Company as well as advocacy by other organizations (i.e., indirect lobbying) that receive financial support from the Company. The second is campaign contributions to candidates for elected office, political parties, political committees, and other organizations that use the contributions for campaign-related purposes. The Company’s policy is to participate in public policymaking by informing government officials about our positions on issues significant to the Company and our customers. The Company conducts this lobbying in the context of existing and proposed laws, legislation, regulations, and policy initiatives, and include, for example, commerce, intellectual property, trade, data privacy, transportation, and web services. Relatedly, the Company constructively and responsibly participates in the U.S. electoral process by making campaign contributions. The goal of the Company’s political engagement is to promote the interests of the Company and our customers, and the Company makes such decisions in accordance with the processes described in this U.S. Political Engagement Policy and Statement, without regard to the personal political preferences of the Company’s directors, officers, or employees. Click here for archives of previous statements. Review and Approval Process The Company’s Vice President of Public Policy reviews and approves each campaign contribution made with Company funds or resources to, or in support of, any candidate, political campaign, political party, political committee, or public official in any country, or to any other organization for campaign-related purposes, to ensure that it is lawful and consistent with the Company’s business objectives and public policy priorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Antitrust Basic the Antitrust Laws (A Duty Shared with the Department of Justice)
    Explaining the History and Future of Center Forward Basics Antitrust Laws in the U.S. August 2021 Overview Center Forward Basics In June 2021, the House Judiciary Committee introduced a series of bills focusing Center Forward brings together on antitrust regulation and reform. These bills generally seek to increase the members of Congress, not-for authority of U.S. antitrust agencies, prevent companies from acquiring other firms, profits, academic experts, trade require data portability and interoperability with competitors, and prevent associations, corporations and unions to find common platforms from selling or promoting their own products in an attempt to ground. Our mission: to give disadvantage competitors. They are aimed directly at Big Tech, specifically centrist allies the information Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft. If these bills are signed into law, they need to craft common they would reflect the largest expansion of U.S. government antitrust powers in sense solutions, and provide generations. Many critics of the proposals, including tech companies, are worried those allies the support they because this set of bills may hamper American competitiveness, change the user need to turn those ideas into experience, and harm consumers. This Basic will highlight the history of U.S. results. antitrust laws while explaining the House antitrust bills and their impact on Big In order to meet our challenges Tech and customers. we need to put aside the partisan bickering that has History of Antitrust in the U.S. gridlocked Washington and come together to find common The federal government enforces three major antitrust laws (among a few minor sense solutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Weather Roofing
    VolumeVol.Volume 66, No. 65,65, 80 No.No. 207207 MONDAY,MONDAY,THURSDAY, FEBRUARYFEBRUARY AUGUST 6,10,10, 2020 20202020 50¢ A tree fell across wires in Queens Village, knocking out power and upending a chunk of sidewalk. VolumeQUEENSQUEENS 65, No. 207 LIGHTSMONDAY, OUT FEBRUARY 10, 2020 Photo by Teresa Mettela 50¢ 57,000 QueensQueensQueens residents lose power VolumeVolume 65, 65, No. No. 207 207 MONDAY,MONDAY, FEBRUARY FEBRUARY 10, 10, 2020 2020 50¢50¢ VolumeVol.VolumeVol.VolumeVol. 66, 66,66,67, No.65, No. No.65,65, 80No. 80 8038No.No. 207 207207 MONDAY,THURSDAY,MONDAY,MONDAY,THURSDAY,TUESDAY, FEBRUARY FEBRUARYFEBRUARYFEBRUARY AUGUST AUGUSTAUGUST JUNE 8, 6,10, 6,10,20216,10, 10,2020 20202020 20202020 50¢50¢50¢ Volume 65, No. 207 MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2020 50¢ VolumeVol.TODAY 66, No.65, 80No. 207 MONDAY,THURSDAY, FEBRUARY AUGUST 6,10, 2020 2020 A tree fell across wires in50¢ TODAY AA tree tree fell fell across across wires wires in in TODAY DespiteQueensQueensQueens warning Village, Village, Village, knocking knocking knocking outoutout power power power and and and upending upending upending A treeaa chunka chunkfell chunk across of of ofsidewalk. sidewalk. sidewalk.wires in from bigPhotoPhoto bytech, by Teresa Teresa Mettela Mettela VolumeVolumeVolumeQUEENSQUEENSQUEENSQUEENS 65, 65,65, No. No.No. 207 207207 LIGHTSLIGHTSduring intenseMONDAY,MONDAY, OUTOUTOUT FEBRUARY FEBRUARYFEBRUARY 10, 10,10, 2020 20202020 Queens PhotoVillage, by Teresa knocking Mettela 50¢50¢50¢ QUEENS out power and upending 57,00057,000 Queens QueensQueensQueensQueensQueens
    [Show full text]
  • Progress: a New Industry Coalition Promoting Technology’S Progressive Future
    Introducing the Chamber of Progress: A New Industry Coalition Promoting Technology’s Progressive Future Contact: [email protected], 202-470-3046 Technology plays a huge role in Americans’ daily lives -- and important questions loom about how to best ensure that all Americans will benefit from high-tech advancements, and whether the tech industry operates fairly and responsibly. Today, a veteran Democratic tech policy executive launched a new center-left tech policy industry coalition -- called the Chamber of Progress (progresschamber.org) -- to tackle these big questions, help usher in a progressive high-tech future, and ensure that all Americans benefit from technological leaps. In its first action, the Chamber of Progress today called on Congress to pass historic voting rights legislation and encouraged state legislatures to reject pending bills that would curtail Americans’ right to vote. The new organization is founded and led by Adam Kovacevich, a veteran of Democratic politics and the tech industry. Kovacevich served as an aide to Democratic officials including Rep. Cal Dooley (CA), Sen. Joe Lieberman (CT), and State Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum (SC), and was among the founding staff members of the House New Democrat Coalition. He was Google’s seventh DC hire, led Google’s U.S. public policy team, and has held policy leadership roles at the urban mobility company Lime and at the Information Technology Industry Council. “Technology has brought information to our fingertips, delivered affordable goods to our doorsteps, and kept us connected during a pandemic,” Kovacevich said. “Our organization will be focused on making America’s high-tech future bright, fair, and inclusive for all Americans.” The Chamber of Progress will advocate for public policies in three areas: ● Economic progress, including combatting income inequality; promoting a bigger, modern social safety net; encouraging progressive taxation; and supporting reliable, win-win online marketplaces.
    [Show full text]