Twitter, Stochastic Terrorism, and Citizens United

We’re a little over a week away from the midterm elections, and it already feels like we’re re-entering bizarro world. Antisemitism is once again on the rise, Nancy Pelosi’s husband was attacked with a hammer, and Elon Musk officially bought Twitter for an outlandish $44 billion.

Back in July I wrote a blog post called “There’s No Reason the Democrats Should Lose the Midterms.” I’m not going to rehash those ideas here, although it’s worth reiterating that Democrats have proven over and over that they are better for the economy. Republicans want to cut taxes for the wealthy and slash social programs that benefit the rest of us. Unless you’re one of the 1%, Democrats will better serve your economic interests. Just keep that in mind every time a Republican candidate mentions inflation or the economy.

Today I’d like to spend some time talking about Musk’s acquisition of Twitter because it feels like a microcosm of the larger political atmosphere. What it really boils down to is money and power. Musk has a lot of money, therefore he can purchase Twitter and gain the power to shape not only its form but also its content. Now, there isn’t anything inherently wrong with this. For better or worse (more often worse) we live in a capitalist society where commodities are bought and sold. Musk has the money (or was able to shore up enough money) to cover the tab, and therefore he now controls the product. That’s the way it is.

What complicates things, of course, is that it’s not just anyone purchasing Twitter — it’s Elon Musk, comic book villain and “free speech absolutist.” And it’s not just any product Musk is purchasing — it’s Twitter, a platform that’s basically synonymous with Trump, politicians of all leanings, and celebrities. As with most things on the internet, Twitter began innocently enough: 140-character messages shared among a small audience of “normal” people. But over time, things became more and more insidious  — particularly once Twitter bots were able to like, retweet, or even tweet their own messages. Celebrities boosted the app’s cache, and then politicians (particularly right-wing politicians) began using the site to openly share misinformation, bigotry, misogynism, and all the other bullshit you now associate with Twitter. Twitter in 2022 is very different from Twitter in 2006, and that’s important to remember because it helps explain why Musk’s acquisition is a cause for alarm.

But let’s step back a minute and talk about the 2010 Citizens United case. Citizens United is a political action committee formed in 1988 who — and this is directly from their incredibly outdated-looking website — “seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens United’s goal is to restore the founding fathers’ vision of a free nation.” It’s coded language to imply they’re pro-white, anti-LGBT+ conservatives.

In the run-up to the 2008 Democratic primary, Citizens United produced a documentary called Hillary: The Movie that is probably about as bad as it sounds. Citizens United wanted to use their funds to promote the movie and air it on TV. A lower court ruled that Citizens United could pay for advertising, but they weren’t allowed to broadcast Hillary: The Movie within 30 days of the primary as it violated the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, particularly the part about how incorporated entities (i.e. PACs) were prohibited from “electioneering communications.” Citizens United appealed, and thus it went to the Supreme Court.

Citizens United v. FEC was a 5-4 decision. Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito were the majority, and they concluded that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act infringed on corporations’ First Amendment rights by limiting their ability to fund independent political broadcasts regarding candidates running for election. The big takeaway is that corporations suddenly gained the right to free speech.

This might not have been all bad in and of itself. However, Speechnow.org v. FEC, a case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is really when things went to shit. SpeechNow was a non-profit organization who pooled money from individuals so that those funds could be used to elect or defeat certain candidates running for office. If SpeechNow spent more than $1,000 in a given year, then they’d have to register as a political action committee. That’s important to note because prior to Speechnow.org v. FEC, PACs were only permitted to spend up to $5,000 per year per candidate.

But Speechnow.org v. FEC happened a couple months after the Citizens United ruling. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit used the Supreme Court’s Citizens United reasoning in their own decision. They found that any contribution limits which applied to SpeechNow violated the organization’s First Amendment rights so long as these contributions didn’t go directly to the candidates. This is what created super PACs — organizations that can raise an unlimited amount of funds.

Super PACs were the real opening of Pandora’s box. As the Brennan Center for Justice notes, “Super PAC money started influencing elections almost immediately after… From 2010 to 2018, super PACs spent approximately $2.9 billion on federal elections. Notably, the bulk of that money comes from just a few wealthy individual donors. In the 2018 election cycle, for example, the top 100 donors to super PACs contributed nearly 78 percent of all super PAC spending.”

Super PACs account for nearly all the political ads you see on TV, Facebook, Twitter, or in the mail. They’re not sending the money directly to the candidate, but it’s clear that their spending is meant to support a candidate or position of their choice and help defeat their opponents. What’s even worse is that most super PACs use dark money — money whose source is secret. It could be a wealthy individual like Peter Thiel, or it could be a corporation like Koch Industries. We know both of those disclosures because they’re documented, but as the Brennan Center points out, it’s hard to properly estimate the impact dark money has had because any analysis doesn’t include super PAC spending that happens outside the “electioneering communications window” of 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.

All of which brings us back to Elon Musk. Twitter, in many ways, is now his own personal super PAC. It feels like the next grotesque extension of the Citizens United case. It’s another example where money buys power and influence. Except in many ways this feels even ickier, given how big Twitter is and how much control Musk will have over it.

Now, it’s entirely possible that Musk won’t use his power to change Twitter all that much. That remains to be seen. But we’re already seeing effects from the news alone. This article from Bloomberg mentions that Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted both “FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!!” and “We are winning” once Musk took control. The article goes on to say that “after the news broke that Musk had closed the deal on Twitter, there was a 1,300% increase in the [N] word appearing… At its peak, the word appeared 170 times every five minutes.” The Anti-Defamation League also identified over 1,200 tweets and retweets using antisemitic memes. It’s never a great sign when racists act entitled.

Which leads us to the other big news story this week: The attack on Paul Pelosi. It should come as no surprise that the attacker was a white guy completely indoctrinated by right-wing misinformation. It’s also no surprise that his real target was Nancy, not Paul.

I forgot until I was reading the news that Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, is the second in the presidential line of succession. It’s awful that this happened at all, but it’s especially horrific that it was targeting someone so high up in the chain of command.

This article from the Guardian rightly points out that political violence is on the rise, and that it affects both parties. Earlier this year a man with a gun was arrested outside Justice Kavanaugh’s house. More recently, the Republican candidate for governor of New York had a man rush toward him with a knife.

But these instances are far from happening at a 1:1 ratio. The Guardian article links to this article from the New York Times which discusses a report by the Anti-Defamation League. The report found about 450 murders by political extremists in the past 10 years. Of those killings, “right-wing extremists committed about 75 percent. Islamic extremists were responsible for about 20 percent, and left-wing extremists were responsible for 4 percent.”

I learned a new term this week. It came from Heather Cox Richardson’s awesome daily newsletter, Letters from an American. While discussing the attack on Paul Pelosi, she mentioned the term “stochastic terrorism.” Basically, it’s what happens when a certain group is consistently targeted and demonized to the point that violence is statistically likely but can’t be accurately predicted. We’ve seen this with the slew of Republican candidates who call Democrats “groomers” or “baby killers” or any other slanderous term. We’ve seen this during the pandemic when Trump used terms like “kung flu” or “the Chinese virus.” We’ve seen this happen time and again, and we’ve seen this happen more often than not on Twitter.

Money muddles everything. It tears apart families during inheritances. It fuels the greed that leads to record levels of profit. It also influences our politics. The rich very understandably want to stay rich. Thus, it’s no surprise that they’d side with the autocratic, authoritarian modern day Republican party. And when Republicans have gerrymandered safe districts — thanks to the outsized influence from said billionaires — then they no longer have to worry about compromising. They no longer have to be civil. Hence the increase in name-calling and stochastic terrorism. It feels like all of these problems we associate with our modern political landscape come back to money.

All this said, I’m hopeful that we can reform the system. It might not happen soon, and if Democrats lose the midterms then it’s going to be even harder and take even longer. That’s why it’s important for us to vote in each and every election — the midterms, sure, but also every off-year election. I’ve read that voter registration among women and people of color and young people is up over the 2018 data. I’ve seen people saying that early voting is higher now than it was in 2018. These are encouraging signs, but we have to keep doing our part to turn up and vote. Otherwise, we’re bound for another bizarro world. And after a week like this, I don’t know how much more of the bizarro world we can handle.