The McCain Institute played host to several “disinformation experts” in Phoenix last week, where they discussed how best to control free speech online.
These experts, Bret Schafer and Rachael Dean Wilson, hail from Alliance for Securing Democracy at the German Marshall Fund.
Schafer created and manages Hamilton 2.0, an online open-source dashboard tracking the outputs of Russia, Chinese, and Iranian state media outlets, diplomats, and government officials. Wilson was the communications director and advisor to the late John McCain.
Schafer’s Hamilton 2.0 is a continuation of his original project within Alliance For Securing Democracy, Hamilton 68, which culled data from major social media companies to identify content similarities between foreign adversaries and Americans — X when it was “Twitter” prior to Elon Musk’s buyout, Facebook, and Instagram — shortly after Donald Trump assumed the presidency in 2017. Musk paywalled X’s application programming interface, stymieing Schafer’s data stream.
Schafer was part of investigations into practices by social media companies that were weaponizing the government against right-wing citizens.
During last Thursday’s panel, Schafer said that an individual from Meta (Facebook) told him that they began to implement more “guardrails” following the Christchurch shooting, since the shooter used the company’s live-stream function, “Facebook Live,” to film and publish the attack. Schafer said that artificial intelligence (AI) was the “reverse” of efforts to implement guardrails, and expressed concern that there should be greater limitations on “problematic” online speech.
“I think the concern is this pollution in the information space, so if somebody has a narrative that’s particularly problematic it now seems as if it’s coming from 50, 100, 200,000 different sources and it can kind of drown out competing voices who are not using manipulated information to get their message out,” said Schafer.
Schafer advocated for social media companies to reduce the spread of content not originating from certain officials or media outlets. He recalled how those technology companies did some of this during the 2020 election. Schafer lamented that public perception of social media companies controlling content reach and visibility became “politicized” and controversial.
“The only way to make sure the people who genuinely want to actually access accurate information […] is for [social media companies] to make some decisions about what is and is not quality information,” said Schafer. “That has become politicized in ways that I think are really problematic so I think we do need to pressure the companies to the various mechanisms we can: advertisers, everything else to ensure at least around elections that they are taking an active role in making decisions about what should be prioritized because if it’s just left up to the algorithms we’re not going to see the good information surface at the top.”
Wilson agreed. She added that officials could rely on online influencers to spread their information. Combined with Schafer’s proposal of increasing and prioritizing reach for certain information from certain officials and experts, that may mean influencers would be incentivized to spread certain information in order to increase their visibility, engagement, and monetization.
“I think getting the influencers to encourage referencing experts is really important,” said Wilson.
Secretary of State Adrian Fontes also participated in the panel discussions.
Like the Hamilton initiative, the Alliance for Securing Democracy was founded after Trump took the White House. The organization is led by Laura Thornton, whom the McCain Institute hired in August to serve as senior director of global democracy programs.
Among its team members are David Salvo, former Obama administration foreign service officer within the State Department, and Shanthi Kalathil, former deputy assistant to the president and coordinator for democracy and human rights at the National Security Council under President Joe Biden.
Alliance for Securing Democracy used to publicize its list of advisory members until some time late last year or earlier this year.
Mike Cherthoff, formerly the W. Bush administration Homeland Security Secretary;
Toomas Ilves, formerly the Estonia president and a World Economic Forum co-chair;
David Kramer, formerly a McCain Institute senior director and W. Bush administration State Department official;
Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard and former staffer for the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations;
Rick Ledgett, formerly the Obama administration NSA deputy director;
Mike McFaul, formerly the Obama administration ambassador to Russia;
Michael Morelll, formerly the Obama administration CIA acting director;
Ana Palacio, lawyer and formerly European Parliament member;
John Podesta, formerly Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair and an official for both the Clinton and Obama administrations.
Mike Rogers, CNN commentator and formerly a GOP congressman, army officer, FBI special agent;
Marietje Schaake, formerly a European Parliament member;
Kori Schake, American Enterprise Institute director and formerly employed by the State Department, Defense Department, and White House National Security Council; and,
Nicole Wong, formerly the Obama administration deputy chief technology officer, Google vice president and deputy general counsel, and Twitter legal director for products.
This week, the McCain Institute announced it had been accepted to be featured in the competitive annual event, South by Southwest.
Last week’s full panel is available here:
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Arizona’s Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs is insisting that the Prop 139 amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would state, “Every individual has a fundamental right to abortion,” would not include minors. However, prominent critics of the Proposition, such as Cindy Dahlgren, communications director for Center for Arizona Policy Action, says different. Dahlgren told reporters, “It would clearly be argued that ‘every individual’ includes minors.”
In the text of the Proposition, the new amendment would read:
“Every individual has a fundamental right to abortion, and the state shall not enact, adopt or enforce any law, regulation, policy or practice that does any of the following:
Denies, restricts or interferes with that right before fetal viability unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means.
Denies, restricts or interferes with an abortion after fetal viability that, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional, is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.
Penalizes any individual or entity for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the individual’s right to abortion as provided in this section.”
The legal definition of “individual” is key to this argument:
According to A.R.S. 18-551, under Arizona law, an “individual” is defined as, “a resident of this state who has a principal mailing address in this state as reflected in the records of the person conducting business in this state.”
Under A.R.S. 43-104, “‘Individual’ means a natural person.”
Under family law in Arizona, A.R.S. 25-1202 also clearly establishes that the definition of “individual” applies to minors through the inverse: “’Child’ means an individual, whether over or under the age of majority.”
As reported by the Arizona Capitol Times, Hobbs claimed that even if the amendment to the Arizona Constitution were to overturn current abortion laws requiring parental consent, that minors would still be unable to obtain an abortion without that consent.
“Health care providers would be subject to the same provisions relating to minors as they are under any other circumstance,” Hobbs told the outlet.
However, current Arizona law under A.R.S. 44-132 doesn’t seem to bear that conclusion out. The law in question states clearly:
“The consent of the parent, or parents, of such a person is not necessary in order to authorize hospital, medical and surgical care.”
The Arizona Capitol Times noted that Attorney General Kris Mayes, another Democrat advocate for the sweeping pro-abortion law, told reporters that this major legal distinction would likely need to be settled in court. “If Prop 139 passes, my office will conduct an analysis on its impact to other statutes,” Mayes explained.
“As with most newly passed referendums, litigation may be necessary to determine the specific impact on state law,” she added. “Ultimately, the courts may have to decide how any new constitutional provisions interact with current laws.”
The Arizona Capitol Times also observed that there is existing legal language in statute that addresses a judicial path for a minor to seek abortion without parental consent if she proves to a judge she is “sufficiently mature and capable of giving informed consent.” And while not a majority of the abortions performed involve minors, these cases do present a significant portion, about 12% of the total cited in 2022: 37 out of 250.
The outlet also spoke with Attorney Andrew Gaona, representing Arizona for Abortion Access, who told reporters that the measure would create “a fundamental right to abortion and sets forth the standard that existing and future laws regulating abortion must satisfy.” He also claimed that the new law wouldn’t be definitive on the question of minors.
“How that standard will apply to the more than 40 existing abortion-related statutes if a party chooses to challenge some or all of them will be determined by Arizona courts,” he said.
Bethany Miller, an attorney representing the Center for Arizona Policy told the Arizona Capitol Times that the distinction between Prop 139 and other amendments pertaining to individual rights comes down to the wording. “The Arizona right to bear arms is not ‘fundamental,’” she said, citing a 1994 ruling that declared the right to bear arms a qualified rather than absolute right. “In other words, Arizonans do not have the right to bear arms in any time or any way.”
“By contrast,” she warned, “Prop. 139’s fundamental right is likely to be interpreted as a near absolute right.”
Former Ambassador and Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) wrote a post to X on Sunday in which he reiterated his support for Democrat Presidential nominee Kamala Harris, extolling the virtue of the “rule of law.” In a scathing response to the post, former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio refuted Flake’s stance based in the “rule of law” by hearkening back to a 2014 scandal that nearly ended Flake’s career.
In his post, Flake wrote, “I’m voting for Kamala Harris not in spite of being a conservative, but because I’m a conservative. Conservatives believe in the rule of law.”
In reply, an evidently unamused Arpaio wrote, “Your son Austin and his wife killed 23 dogs, and then sued me and the Sheriff’s Office for prosecuting them. You tried to destroy me and my detectives, you don’t believe in the rule of law!”
Your son Austin and his wife killed 23 dogs, and then sued me and the Sheriff's Office for prosecuting them. You tried to destroy me and my detectives, you don't believe in the rule of law!
Arpaio was referring to an incident which found Flake’s son Austin Flake and wife Logan Flake (née Hughes) indicted on multiple felony charges in connection with the deaths of 23 dogs at the Green Acre dog-boarding facility, owned by his in-laws Jesse Todd and MaLeisa Hughes. Arpaio, then-Sheriff, was the public face of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department which led the investigation and told the public during a press conference, “The caretakers were the Senator’s son and his wife.”
As reported by ABC15, the case against the Flakes was dismissed and the Hughes pleaded guilty to animal cruelty charges in 2014. As the saga unfolded, the Flake family launched a lawsuit, alleging malicious prosecution against Arpaio and his now-late wife Ava personally, along with Maricopa County, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, and Deputy Sheriff Marie Trombi and her husband.
The legal battle raged for three years until its resolution, largely in Arpaio’s, Trombi’s, and the county’s favor in 2018. That’s when a final effort to revive the lawsuit and a civil trial was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Neil Wake, according to AZCentral.
During the ongoing litigation, then-Senator Flake announced that he would not seek re-election. Flake was facing collapsing populariaty, had vocally set himself against the sitting President Trump, and faced primary defeat from pro-Trump Republicans. At the time, Politico reported that a top GOP strategist “said Flake’s team had been polling the race since the beginning of the year and had repeatedly found no path to victory in either the GOP primary or the general election.”
“He basically lost to all comers,” the GOP strategist told the outlet. “There wasn’t a Republican or a Democrat you could put next to him on the ballot who he wouldn’t lose to.”
Since his public fall from grace with the Arizona GOP, Flake has become a minor surrogate for the Biden administration, attracting a small cohort of anti-Trump Arizona Republicans. He was rewarded for siding against Trump with a posting as U.S. Ambassador to Türkiye. The 61-year-old ex-Senator stood down from his post in Ankara in September and has since aligned himself with the Biden campaign at first, and now the Harris campaign as previously reported by AZ Free News.
Flake’s enthusiastic advocacy for Harris has left many in Arizona wondering what a future under Harris could hold for the Snowflake-born politician. When asked by AZ Free News if he received any policy concessions for his endorsement, such as protecting the filibuster, religious liberty, or SCOTUS; or if he was promised another ambassadorship or a cabinet post, Flake did not reply.
The financier of the ballot initiative seeking to reform Arizona’s elections with open primaries and ranked-choice voting has the impact of flipping states blue — much like its primary funder did in Colorado.
That financier, Unite America, is listed as the single biggest funder on the campaign media spending report for the entity behind Proposition 140, the Make Elections Fair PAC. Unite America gave over $1.7 million to boost the political action committee earlier this month.
Unite America’s primary funder is one of its board co-chairs, Kent Thiry, who was behind several election reforms that shifted Colorado to a blue state. Thiry acquired his wealth being the chairman and CEO of the national dialysis provider DaVita from 1999 to 2019, a role that resulted in him facing a 2021 federal indictment for violating antitrust law. A jury acquitted Thiry of the conspiracy charges in 2022.
Additionally, DaVita agreed to pay out a $34.5 million settlement earlier this year over whistleblower allegations of anti-kickback laws. The millions were a portion of the nearly $1 billion in whistleblower settlements: $450 million in 2015 over allegations of defrauding Medicare by billing the government for trashed dialysis drugs, and $350 million in 2014 for other alleged kickbacks to doctors.
Rather than reform his dialysis business over those years, Thiry trained his sights on elections.
Through his investments and organizational efforts, Thiry has taken credit for several major reforms in Colorado. Those reforms include allowing unaffiliated voters into party primaries (2016), establishing a public vote and nixing in-person presidential caucuses (2016), and thwarting gerrymandering through the establishment of an independent commission (2018).
This year, Thiry has spent millions to achieve the ultimate goal in Colorado and all other states, including Arizona: establishing open primaries and ranked-choice voting. Thiry believes that America won’t survive without those two major reforms.
“There aren’t that many great democracies that have survived more than a couple hundred years. And in order to survive, you have to modernize and modify and reflect society,” said Thiry in an interview with CPR News.
Those three gradual reforms contributed to the state’s shift from purple to blue over the years.
With Thiry’s help, Unite America has spent over $70 million since 2019 on getting states to similarly reform their elections with open primaries and ranked-choice voting.
Unite America (formerly the Centrist Project) gained more momentum in Colorado following Republican firebrand Lauren Boebert’s surprise congressional victory in 2020.
That year, Unite America successfully spent over $3 million to enact open primaries and ranked-choice voting in Alaska. In the first election cycle after those reforms, Republican House candidate Sarah Palin lost the House race, and Republican moderate Lisa Murkowski defended her Senate seat against a more conservative challenger.
In addition to Arizona, the organization has invested in state campaigns for the major election reforms that have benefited centrists and Democrats in Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Per Unite America’s research arm, Unite America Institute, their goals for election reforms include top-four nonpartisan primaries, full voting from home, ranked-choice voting used for all offices, and an independent redistricting commission.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Arizona Republicans continue to fight to protect the integrity of women’s sports.
Last week, Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen, House Speaker Ben Toma, and Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne filed a cert petition at the Supreme Court of the United States, asking the nation’s high court to accept a case to decide the fate of the state’s Save Women’s Sports Act, which was signed into law in 2022.
“We cannot remain silent and allow these wrongs against women and girls to continue. We must stand up and fight to protect our daughters, nieces, sisters, and granddaughters from bigger and stronger males who are claiming their identities, their private spaces, their sports, and are putting their safety at risk,” said Petersen. “What’s even more disheartening is that we have a Democratic Governor and Attorney General that claim to support women, but they refuse to keep boys out of girls’ sports. Republicans stand in solidarity to defend women and girls, and I’m confident the U.S. Supreme Court will make it clear- Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act should be enforced.”
In their brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Republicans argue that “the Ninth Circuit decided an important question of federal law in an opinion that contradicts this Court’s precedent and splits with other circuits on multiple issues, [and that] this case presents an ideal vehicle to address these important questions.”
In July, Judge Jennifer Zipps granted a preliminary injunction against SB 1165, the Save Women’s Sports Act, which blocked the law from going into effect. Arizona’s Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, the defendant in the case, promised to appeal the ruling, saying, “This will ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court, and they will rule in our favor. The Plaintiffs in this case claimed that this only involves pre-pubescent boys, but we presented peer-reviewed studies that show pre-pubescent boys have an advantage over girls in sports. The only expert presented by the Plaintiffs was a medical doctor who makes his money doing sex transition treatments on children and who has exactly zero peer-reviewed studies to support his opinion.”
On the other side, one of the representatives of the plaintiffs, Justin R. Rassi from Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, lauded the judge’s ruling, writing, “The Court’s well-reasoned decision exposes the lack of any legitimate justification for this discriminatory law, which inflicts severe and irreparable harm on transgender girls like Megan and Jane. We are very happy that, as a result of this ruling, Jane and Megan will be immediately able to resume playing sports with their friends.”
A panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that the district court’s opinion was in order, agreeing that “before puberty, there are no significant differences in athletic performance between boys and girls;” and that “Arizona’s transgender ban discriminates on its face based on transgender status.” This decision led to the appeal to the nation’s high court by the Republican petitioners.
Republican State Senator Wendy Rogers cheered on the filing at the U.S. Supreme Court, writing, “Arizona Senate Republicans protecting women!”
A Republican state legislator is standing up for the Second Amendment in a municipal matter.
Last week, State Representative Quang Nguyen transmitted a letter to Sedona Mayor Scott Jablow. The letter, which was also sent to city councilmembers, addressed the validity of Ordinance 12.30.090, which states that “[i]t shall be unlawful to carry or discharge into any park, trail, or open space area firearms or projectile weapons… or other device capable of causing injury to persons or animals or damage or destruction to property.”
State Representative @QuangNguyenAZ Raises Legal Concerns Over Sedona Firearms Ordinance
STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX (Tuesday, October 15, 2024) – Arizona State Representative Quang Nguyen, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a staunch defender of Second Amendment rights,… pic.twitter.com/zMtOc1daKw
In a press release accompanying the announcement of his letter, Nguyen said, “I urge the City of Sedona to review Ordinance 12.30.090 to ensure it complies with Arizona law. It’s important that local ordinances do not infringe upon the constitutional rights of Arizonans or conflict with state statutes.”
In his letter, Representative Nguyen highlighted that the prohibition in Sedona’s Ordinance “on carrying firearms is not consistent with Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3108,” thus making it “invalid and unenforceable because it exceeds what state law authorizes. He pointed out that “cities may…enact ordinances ‘[l]imiting or prohibiting the discharge of firearms in parks and preserves’ when certain statutory conditions are met.”
The northern Arizona lawmaker requested that the city leaders “conduct a legal analysis of the validity of Ordinance 12.30.090 and contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss your findings and any next steps you intend to take to ensure that Ordinance 12.30.090 complies with state law.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
