DOCSLIB.ORG

July 16, 2019 the Honorable Ted Cruz Chairman Subcommittee On

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
July 16, 2019 the Honorable Ted Cruz Chairman Subcommittee On July 16, 2019 The Honorable Ted Cruz Chairman Subcommittee on the Constitution Committee on the Judiciary U.S. Senate 404 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Mazie Hirono Ranking Member Subcommittee on the Constitution Committee on the Judiciary U.S. Senate 713 Hart Senate Office Building Washington D.C. 20510 RE: Google and Censorship through Search Engines Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Hirono, Members of Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution: The 2016 Republican Party Platform declared, after calling for repeal of existing regulation of political speech and campaign finance, “[w]e likewise call for an end to the so-called Fairness Doctrine, and support free-market approaches to free speech unregulated by government.”1 Yet now it is Republicans, led by Senator Cruz and Senator Hawley, who are calling for sweeping regulation of online speech — and what amounts to a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet. Truly, the world has turned upside down. We write to remind these Senators in particular, and the entire committee, of core principles that should transcend partisan affiliations — and to urge you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Hawley, to desist from stoking this manufactured controversy for partisan advantage. 1) The First Amendment In No Way Justifies Government Intervention Here Senators Cruz, Hawley and other Republicans have consistently framed “censorship” by Internet companies as an attack on free speech, and claimed that social media companies and search engines 1 Republican Platform 2016, at 12, (2016), available at https://prod-cdn- static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL%5B1%5D-ben_1468872234.pdf. should operate as “public fora.”2 As we explained in our submission to this subcommittee’s hearing in April, these claims have no basis in First Amendment law. These services simply are not public fora. If there were ever any doubt about this, it was removed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck.3 To frame this issue as a matter of free speech, or otherwise invoke the First Amendment, ignores both the plain language of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law…") and the Supreme Court's clear jurisprudence about when the First Amendment applies. Such conflation is beneath the dignity of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which should lead by example in always drawing the clearest possible distinctions regarding the application of constitutional principles. 2) In Fact, the First Amendment Prohibits Government Intervention Here The First Amendment is not a sword to be wielded by politicians to produce outcomes they prefer, but a shield against meddling by the government in media — a point that used to be a Republican mantra. It is no more appropriate for Republicans to hold hearings into alleged platform “bias” than it would be for Democrats to hold hearings on the political bias of Fox News, Sinclair Broadcasting, talk radio, Breitbart, or any other media they might dislike. Such hearings are themselves offensive to the First Amendment because they are a form of political pressure exerted upon media companies for the purpose of changing how they exercise their editorial discretion. I attempted to make this point as a witness before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on “filtering practices of social media platforms” in April 2018.4 In the course of doing so, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) interrupted, saying that when airplanes crash, Congress holds oversight hearings — and this was no different. But it is different: Congress can hold oversight hearings on airplane safety because it has every right to regulate airplane safety. Congress should not hold oversight hearings or otherwise exert its investigatory powers (on pain of subpoena) in the context of speech because the First Amendment bars Congress from regulating how private companies exercise their editorial discretion. As Rep. Ted Lieu asked of me during that hearing: 2 Facebook, Social Media Privacy, and the Use and Abuse of Data: J. Hearing of S. Comm. on the Judiciary and S. Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transp., 115th Cong. (2018) (statement of Sen. Ted Cruz, member, S. Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transp.), available at http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=video&id=3715. 3 Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1930 (2019) (“Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. After all, private property owners and private lessees often open their property for speech. Grocery stores put up community bulletin boards. Comedy clubs host open mic nights.”). 4 Filtering Practices of Social Media Platforms Before the H. Comm. on The Judiciary, 115th Cong. (2018) (statement of Berin Szoka, TechFreedom)[hereinafter “Szoka Testimony”], available at https://docs.house. gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20180426/108231/HHRG-115-JU00-Wstate-SzokaB-20180426.pdf. Rep. LIEU. ...there is a more fundamental problem. The First Amendment applies to the government. Can we just get that clear? It does not apply to the strict content of private companies. So let us just go through something very simple. And I will ask you, Mr. Szoka. We do not tell Fox News what to filter. Right? Mr. SZOKA. Correct. Mr. LIEU. And we cannot tell Facebook what content to filter; the government cannot. Right? Mr. SZOKA. Correct. Mr. LIEU. That would just be flat out unconstitutional. Right? Mr. SZOKA. Yes, sir.5 3) What Republicans Are Asking for is a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet Attached as Exhibit A is my testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.6 At its core, any attempt by the government (this administration or a future administration controlled by a different party) to mandate “neutrality” on social media platforms and search engines would impose a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet, a concept antithetical to Republican principles for over 70 years. The robust broadcast media that has emerged since the repeal of the broadcast Fairness Doctrine demonstrates just how chilling such “neutrality” fiats were, and how the marketplace for ideas is the only solution to perceived bias. In vetoing an attempt by Congress to reinstate the broadcast Fairness Doctrine in 1987, President Reagan’s said the following: [W]e must not ignore the obvious intent of the First Amendment, which is to promote vigorous public debate and a diversity of viewpoints in the public forum as a whole, not in any particular medium, let alone in any particular journalistic outlet. History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.7 His warning should not be ignored today — least of all by the very Republicans who claim President Reagan’s mantle. 4) Section 230 Is Working Exactly as It Should Far from being a Democratic sop to big tech, Section 230 was drafted by a Republican Congressman, Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA) to ensure that tech companies would not be hounded by lawyers seeking to hold them liable for user content. Attached as Exhibit B is a statement of principles we recently drafted in collaboration with leading Section 230 experts, signed by 28 organizations and 53 5 Filtering Practices of Social Media Platforms Before the H. Comm. on The Judiciary, 115th Cong. (2018) at 43, available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115hhrg32930/pdf/CHRG-115hhrg32930.pdf. 6 Szoka Testimony supra note 4. 7 Veto of Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987, 133 Cong. Rec. 16989 (June 23, 1987), available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=34456. academics from across the political spectrum.8 We quote here from two principles that are particularly relevant to this issue: Principle #3: The law shouldn’t discourage Internet services from moderating content. To flourish, the Internet requires that site managers have the ability to remove legal but objectionable content — including content that would be protected under the First Amendment from censorship by the government. If Internet services could not prohibit harassment, pornography, racial slurs, and other lawful but offensive or damaging material, they couldn’t facilitate civil discourse. Even when Internet services have the ability to moderate content, their moderation efforts will always be imperfect given the vast scale of even relatively small sites and the speed with which content is posted. Section 230 ensures that Internet services can carry out this socially beneficial but error-prone work without exposing themselves to increased liability; penalizing them for imperfect content moderation or second-guessing their decision-making will only discourage them from trying in the first place. This vital principle should remain intact. Principle #4: Section 230 does not, and should not, require “neutrality.” Publishing third-party content online never can be “neutral.” Indeed, every publication decision will necessarily prioritize some content at the expense of other content. Even an “objective” approach, such as presenting content in reverse chronological order, isn’t neutral because it prioritizes recency over other values. By protecting the prioritization, deprioritization, and removal of content, Section 230 provides Internet services with the legal certainty they need to do the socially beneficial work of minimizing harmful content. 5) Antitrust
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MAP Act Coalition Letter Freedomworks
    April 13, 2021 Dear Members of Congress, We, the undersigned organizations representing millions of Americans nationwide highly concerned by our country’s unsustainable fiscal trajectory, write in support of the Maximizing America’s Prosperity (MAP) Act, to be introduced by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.). As we stare down a mounting national debt of over $28 trillion, the MAP Act presents a long-term solution to our ever-worsening spending patterns by implementing a Swiss-style debt brake that would prevent large budget deficits and increased national debt. Since the introduction of the MAP Act in the 116th Congress, our national debt has increased by more than 25 percent, totaling six trillion dollars higher than the $22 trillion we faced less than two years ago in July of 2019. Similarly, nearly 25 percent of all U.S. debt accumulated since the inception of our country has come since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now more than ever, it is critical that legislators take a serious look at the fiscal situation we find ourselves in, with a budget deficit for Fiscal Year 2020 of $3.132 trillion and a projected share of the national debt held by the public of 102.3 percent of GDP. While markets continue to finance our debt in the current moment, the simple and unavoidable fact remains that our country is not immune from the basic economics of massive debt, that history tells us leads to inevitable crisis. Increased levels of debt even before a resulting crisis slows economic activity -- a phenomenon referred to as “debt drag” -- which especially as we seek recovery from COVID-19 lockdowns, our nation cannot afford.
    [Show full text]
  • Culture Wars' Reloaded: Trump, Anti-Political Correctness and the Right's 'Free Speech' Hypocrisy
    The 'Culture Wars' Reloaded: Trump, Anti-Political Correctness and the Right's 'Free Speech' Hypocrisy Dr. Valerie Scatamburlo-D'Annibale University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada Abstract This article explores how Donald Trump capitalized on the right's decades-long, carefully choreographed and well-financed campaign against political correctness in relation to the broader strategy of 'cultural conservatism.' It provides an historical overview of various iterations of this campaign, discusses the mainstream media's complicity in promulgating conservative talking points about higher education at the height of the 1990s 'culture wars,' examines the reconfigured anti- PC/pro-free speech crusade of recent years, its contemporary currency in the Trump era and the implications for academia and educational policy. Keywords: political correctness, culture wars, free speech, cultural conservatism, critical pedagogy Introduction More than two years after Donald Trump's ascendancy to the White House, post-mortems of the 2016 American election continue to explore the factors that propelled him to office. Some have pointed to the spread of right-wing populism in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis that culminated in Brexit in Europe and Trump's victory (Kagarlitsky, 2017; Tufts & Thomas, 2017) while Fuchs (2018) lays bare the deleterious role of social media in facilitating the rise of authoritarianism in the U.S. and elsewhere. Other 69 | P a g e The 'Culture Wars' Reloaded: Trump, Anti-Political Correctness and the Right's 'Free Speech' Hypocrisy explanations refer to deep-rooted misogyny that worked against Hillary Clinton (Wilz, 2016), a backlash against Barack Obama, sedimented racism and the demonization of diversity as a public good (Major, Blodorn and Blascovich, 2016; Shafer, 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • C00490045 Restore Our Future, Inc. $4116274
    Independent Expenditure Table 2 Committees/Persons Reporting Independent Expenditures from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011 ID # Committee/Individual Amount C00490045 RESTORE OUR FUTURE, INC. $4,116,274 C00499731 MAKE US GREAT AGAIN, INC $3,793,524 C00501098 OUR DESTINY PAC $2,323,481 C00000935 DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE $1,759,111 C00495028 HOUSE MAJORITY PAC $1,073,851 C00487363 AMERICAN CROSSROADS $1,016,349 C00075820 NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE $810,157 C00507525 WINNING OUR FUTURE $788,381 C00442319 REPUBLICAN MAJORITY CAMPAIGN $710,400 C00503417 RED WHITE AND BLUE FUND $573,680 C00448696 SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND $479,867 C90012758 CITIZENS FOR A WORKING AMERICA INC. $475,000 C00484642 MAJORITY PAC $471,728 C00495861 PRIORITIES USA ACTION $306,229 C00495010 CAMPAIGN TO DEFEAT BARACK OBAMA $266,432 C00499020 FREEDOMWORKS FOR AMERICA $241,542 C00504241 9-9-9 FUND $226,530 C00498261 RESTORING PROSPERITY FUND $202,873 C00503870 RETHINK PAC $156,000 C00432260 CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC $145,459 C90011057 NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE $142,841 C00454074 OUR COUNTRY DESERVES BETTER PAC - TEAPARTYEXPRESS.ORG $141,526 C00473918 WOMEN VOTE! $133,976 C00508317 LEADERS FOR FAMILIES SUPER PAC INC $122,767 C00488486 COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA WORKING VOICES $107,000 C00492116 COOPERATIVE OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS IE COMMITTEE $102,184 C90011230 AMERICAN ACTION NETWORK INC $96,694 C00348540 1199 SERVICE EMPLOYEES INT'L UNION FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION FUND $83,975 C00505081 STRONG AMERICA NOW SUPER PAC
    [Show full text]
  • Support the Pandemic Healthcare Access Act, H.R. 6338 and S. 3546
    April 2, 2020 Support the Pandemic Healthcare Access Act, H.R. 6338 and S. 3546 On behalf of FreedomWorks’ activist community, I urge you to contact your representative and senators and ask them to cosponsor the Pandemic Healthcare Access Act, H.R. 6338 and S. 3546, introduced in the House by Reps. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) and Chip Roy (R-Texas) and in the Senate by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). The Pandemic Healthcare Access Act is a simple, common-sense piece of legislation focused on giving all Americans, regardless of their insurance plan, access to a safe vehicle to save their own money tax-free for healthcare expenditures. Especially in a time of crisis such as this, it is crucial that we ensure Americans have easy access to healthcare, and expanding the use of health savings accounts (HSAs) is a straightforward method towards that end. HSAs are a special type of savings account backed by the federal government that allow qualified individuals to set aside money pre-tax to pay for qualified medical services. These types of accounts are an excellent way to grant individuals greater flexibility in managing their healthcare needs. Unfortunately, only individuals with High Deductible Health Plans are allowed to use HSAs under current law, severely limiting the availability of these accounts. Americans should have the freedom to choose how they manage their healthcare. Expanding HSAs is just one way to grant individuals more choice. Now more than ever, as Americans are dealing with the realities of the novel coronavirus, there is a desire for people to know that they have control and means by which to address healthcare needs that may arise.
    [Show full text]
  • The Second Tea Party-Freedomworks Survey Report
    FreedomWorks Supporters: 2012 Campaign Activity, 2016 Preferences, and the Future of the Republican Party Ronald B. Rapoport and Meredith G. Dost Department of Government College of William and Mary September 11, 2013 ©Ronald B. Rapoport Introduction Since our first survey of FreedomWorks subscribers in December 2011, a lot has happened: the 2012 Republican nomination contests, the 2012 presidential and Congressional elections, continuing debates over the budget, Obamacare, and immigration, and the creation of a Republican Party Growth and Opportunity Project (GOP). In all of these, the Tea Party has played an important role. Tea Party-backed candidates won Republican nominations in contested primaries in Arizona, Indiana, Texas and Missouri, and two of the four won elections. Even though Romney was not a Tea Party favorite (see the first report), the movement pushed him and other Republican Congressional/Senatorial candidates (e.g., Orin Hatch) to engage the Tea Party agenda even when they had not done so before. In this report, we will focus on the role of FreedomWorks subscribers in the 2012 nomination and general election campaigns. We’ll also discuss their role in—and view of—the Republican Party as we move forward to 2014 and 2016. This is the first of multiple reports on the March-June 2013 survey, which re-interviewed 2,613 FreedomWorks subscribers who also filled out the December 2011 survey. Key findings: Rallying around Romney (pp. 3-4) Between the 2011 and 2013 surveys, Romney’s evaluations went up significantly from 2:1 positive to 4:1 positive surveys. By the end of the nomination process Romney and Santorum had become the two top nomination choices but neither received over a quarter of the sample’s support.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Media and the 2016 US Presidential Election
    Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Faris, Robert M., Hal Roberts, Bruce Etling, Nikki Bourassa, Ethan Zuckerman, and Yochai Benkler. 2017. Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Paper. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33759251 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA AUGUST 2017 PARTISANSHIP, Robert Faris Hal Roberts PROPAGANDA, & Bruce Etling Nikki Bourassa DISINFORMATION Ethan Zuckerman Yochai Benkler Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is the result of months of effort and has only come to be as a result of the generous input of many people from the Berkman Klein Center and beyond. Jonas Kaiser and Paola Villarreal expanded our thinking around methods and interpretation. Brendan Roach provided excellent research assistance. Rebekah Heacock Jones helped get this research off the ground, and Justin Clark helped bring it home. We are grateful to Gretchen Weber, David Talbot, and Daniel Dennis Jones for their assistance in the production and publication of this study. This paper has also benefited from contributions of many outside the Berkman Klein community. The entire Media Cloud team at the Center for Civic Media at MIT’s Media Lab has been essential to this research.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tea Party in Congress: Examining Voting Trends on Defense and International Trade Spending Legislation
    The Tea Party in Congress: Examining Voting Trends on Defense and International Trade Spending Legislation Peter Ganz Creighton University I test how members of the United States House of Representatives associated with the Tea Party movement vote on four pieces of legislation relating to Both defense and international trade spending. Members with high FreedomWorKs scores, an interest group rating associated with the Tea Party, were found to have distinctly different voting patterns than the House of Representatives in general, while representatives that self-identified themselves as Tea Party showed no distinct voting patterns. Ganz 1 Research Question Since the Tea Party’s emergence in American politics in 2009 and its role in the Republican taKeover of Congress in the 2010 midterm elections, political scientists, politicians, media outlets, and special interest groups have sought to understand exactly what maKes the movement unique. While those associated with the Tea Party often call themselves RepuBlicans, there must Be differences that set the two apart; otherwise there would Be no reason for such a movement. Until now, investigations into the Tea Party have typically discovered that members of the movement are in favor of smaller government, decreased spending, and economic freedom, elements shared with the RepuBlican Party (Scherer, Altman, Cowley, Newton-Small, and Von Drehle, 2010; Courser, 2011; BullocK and Hood, 2012). Is there anything more significant that can be used to distinguish between the Tea Party and the rest of Congress? Drawing inferences from commonly accepted ideas about the Tea Party, this paper investigates whether or not members of the Tea Party extend their Beliefs in smaller government and decreased spending to the defense budget and the international trade budget.
    [Show full text]
  • Suffolk University/USA Today National July 2015
    Suffolk University/USA Today National July 2015 Region: (N=1,000) n % Northeast ---------------------------------------------------------- 207 20.70 South --------------------------------------------------------------- 354 35.40 Midwest ------------------------------------------------------------ 227 22.70 West ---------------------------------------------------------------- 212 21.20 Hello, my name is __________ and I am conducting a survey for Suffolk University/USA Today and I would like to get your opinions on some issues of the day. Would you like to spend seven minutes to help us out? {ASK FOR YOUNGEST IN HOUSEHOLD} 1. Gender (N=1,000) n % Male ---------------------------------------------------------------- 484 48.40 Female ------------------------------------------------------------- 516 51.60 2. How likely are you to vote in the election for President in 2016 --very likely, somewhat likely, 50- 50 or not likely? (N=1,000) n % Very likely --------------------------------------------------------- 928 92.80 Somewhat likely ------------------------------------------------- 48 4.80 50-50 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 24 2.40 3. Do you think of yourself as a Democrat, Republican, or Independent? {IF INDEPENDENT, “Which party would you lean toward/feel closest to”} (N=1,000) n % Democrat ---------------------------------------------------------- 369 36.90 Republican -------------------------------------------------------- 313 31.30 Independent ------------------------------------------------------ 279
    [Show full text]
  • Capitol Insurrection at Center of Conservative Movement
    Capitol Insurrection At Center Of Conservative Movement: At Least 43 Governors, Senators And Members Of Congress Have Ties To Groups That Planned January 6th Rally And Riots. SUMMARY: On January 6, 2021, a rally in support of overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election “turned deadly” when thousands of people stormed the U.S. Capitol at Donald Trump’s urging. Even Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who rarely broke with Trump, has explicitly said, “the mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the President and other powerful people.” These “other powerful people” include a vast array of conservative officials and Trump allies who perpetuated false claims of fraud in the 2020 election after enjoying critical support from the groups that fueled the Capitol riot. In fact, at least 43 current Governors or elected federal office holders have direct ties to the groups that helped plan the January 6th rally, along with at least 15 members of Donald Trump’s former administration. The links that these Trump-allied officials have to these groups are: Turning Point Action, an arm of right-wing Turning Point USA, claimed to send “80+ buses full of patriots” to the rally that led to the Capitol riot, claiming the event would be one of the most “consequential” in U.S. history. • The group spent over $1.5 million supporting Trump and his Georgia senate allies who claimed the election was fraudulent and supported efforts to overturn it. • The organization hosted Trump at an event where he claimed Democrats were trying to “rig the election,” which he said would be “the most corrupt election in the history of our country.” • At a Turning Point USA event, Rep.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tea Party Movement As a Modern Incarnation of Nativism in the United States and Its Role in American Electoral Politics, 2009-2014
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 10-2014 The Tea Party Movement as a Modern Incarnation of Nativism in the United States and Its Role in American Electoral Politics, 2009-2014 Albert Choi Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/343 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] The Tea Party Movement as a Modern Incarnation of Nativism in the United States and Its Role in American Electoral Politics, 2009-2014 by Albert Choi A master’s thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Political Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, The City University of New York 2014 i Copyright © 2014 by Albert Choi All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. ii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Political Science in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Master of Arts. THE City University of New York iii Abstract The Tea Party Movement as a Modern Incarnation of Nativism in the United States and Its Role in American Electoral Politics, 2009-2014 by Albert Choi Advisor: Professor Frances Piven The Tea Party movement has been a keyword in American politics since its inception in 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • A Financial System That Creates Economic Opportunities Asset Management and Insurance
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY A Financial System That Creates Economic Opportunities A Financial System That T OF EN TH M E T T R R A E A Financial System P A E S D U R E That Creates Economic Opportunities Y H T Asset Management and Insurance 1789 Asset Management and Insurance TREASURY OCTOBER 2017 2018-03031 (Rev. 1) • Department of the Treasury • Departmental Offices • www.treasury.gov 2018-03031 EO ASSET MGT COVER vSILVER.indd 1 11/2/17 12:27 PM T OF T OF EN TH EN TH M E M E T T T T R R R R A E A E P P A A E E S S D D U U R R E E Y Y H H T T 1789 1789 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY A Financial System That Creates Economic Opportunities Asset Management and Insurance Report to President Donald J. Trump Executive Order 13772 on Core Principles for Regulating the United States Financial System Steven T. Mnuchin Secretary Craig S. Phillips Counselor to the Secretary T OF EN TH M E T T R R A E P A E S D U R E Y H T 1789 Staff Acknowledgments Secretary Mnuchin and Counselor Phillips would like to thank Treasury staff members for their contributions to this report. The staff’s work on the report was led by Jared Sawyer and Dan Dorman, and included contributions from Joseph Dickson, Rebekah Goshorn, Sharon Haeger, Alex Hart, Gerry Hughes, W. Moses Kim, Daniel McCarty, Bimal Patel, Bill Pelton, Frank Ragusa, Jessica Renier, Bruce Saul, Steven Seitz, Brian Smith, James Sonne, Mark Uyeda, and Darren Vieira.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tea Party: a Party Within a Party a Dissertation Submitted to The
    The Tea Party: A Party Within a Party A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Government By Rachel Marie Blum, M.A. Washington, DC March 22, 2016 Copyright c 2016 by Rachel Marie Blum All Rights Reserved ii The Tea Party: A Party Within a Party Rachel Marie Blum, M.A. Dissertation Advisor: Hans Noel, Ph.D. Abstract It is little surprise that conservatives were politically disaffected in early 2009, or that highly conservative individuals mobilized as a political movement to protest ‘big government’ and Obama’s election. Rather than merely directing its animus against liberals, the Tea Party mobilized against the Republican Party in primaries and beyond. This dissertation draws from original survey, interview, Tea Party blog, and social network datasets to explain the Tea Party’s strategy for mobilization as a ‘Party within a Party’. Integrating new data on the Tea Party with existing theories of political parties, I show that the Tea Party’s strategy transcends the focused aims of a party faction. Instead, it works to co-opt the Republican Party’s political and electoral machinery in order to gain control of the party. This dissertation offers new insights on the Tea Party while developing a theory of intra-party mobilization that endures beyond the Tea Party. Index words: Dissertations, Government, Political Science, Political Parties, Tea Party iii Dedication To M.L.B., and all others who are stronger than they know.
    [Show full text]