Warren, Graham partner in proposing new agency to regulate tech giants

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are teaming up on legislation to create a new agency that would have the power to regulate tech giants.

The bipartisan Digital Consumer Protection Commission Act, unveiled Thursday, would create an agency charged with oversight of Meta, Google, Amazon and other large tech companies and seek to promote industry competition and consumer privacy online.

The commission would work alongside the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ), the agencies that currently operate as antitrust enforcers, according to the bill.

The legislation would also set regulations in place requiring “dominant platforms” to be licensed and allow for licenses to be removed for repeated anticompetitive and anti-consumer conduct violations.

The bill is the latest effort from Congress to rein in the power of tech giants.


More from The Hill


Last year, two bipartisan antitrust reform bills advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee — the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and the Open App Markets Act — but failed to make it to the floor for a vote. Companion bills that advanced out of the House Judiciary Committee also failed to advance to a full floor vote. 

Warren and Graham’s proposal seeks to target tech regulation more broadly by creating a commission specifically tasked with oversight of the booming industry.

The legislation would also grant the new commission with oversight over how to respond to emerging risks, including from artificial intelligence (AI) — an area where lawmakers and regulators have been scrambling to understand and put rules in place.

“Enough is enough. It’s time to rein in Big Tech. And we can’t do it with a law that only nibbles around the edges of the problem,” the senators wrote in a joint op-ed published in The New York Times on Thursday. 

“Piecemeal efforts to stop abusive and dangerous practices have failed. Congress is too slow, it lacks the tech expertise, and the army of Big Tech lobbyists can pick off individual efforts easier than shooting fish in a barrel. Meaningful change — the change worth engaging every member of Congress to fight for — is structural,” they added. 

Lawmakers have long faced an uphill climb when pursuing tech reforms, with the industry launching massive lobbying campaigns targeting congressional legislation.

At the same time, Republicans leading the House have focused their tech agenda on content moderation battles rather than advancing bills aimed at reining in the market power of Big Tech.

For Warren, her proposal with Graham is the second time the progressive firebrand has recently joined forces with a colleague across the aisle. Last month, Warren joined Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) to put forward a bill that targets failed bank executives with harsher penalties.

David Cicilline led the fight against Big Tech. Here’s what comes next.

The House is losing its top antitrust reform champion later this year when Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) resigns. 

The congressman announced last month that he will retire from Congress in June to take a role as president and CEO of the Rhode Island Foundation, a community foundation and largest funder of nonprofit organizations in the state, ending his seven-term run in the House.

By reaching across the aisle, Cicilline led the House Judiciary Committee, as chair of the antitrust subcommittee, in advancing a series of bipartisan proposals to revamp antitrust laws in a way that targeted the nation’s largest tech companies.

Cicilline and his coalition of antitrust reform supporters said the rules on the books fail to address the modern day industry giants, namely Meta, Amazon, Google and Apple.

The proposals sought to address concerns critics said the tech platforms raised, such as boosting their own products and services over rival offerings, and to redefine what firms qualify as dominant companies based on market cap and user base numbers.

But his efforts were often met with opposition.

The companies have pushed back strongly on that assertion, with tech groups arguing that the proposals would force them to unwind services and features users enjoyed.

Cicilline and the bills' supporters said the bills would not have the effect, but failed to pass any of them. Despite the rare bipartisan support, most of the proposals failed to make it to President Biden’s desk in the last Congress. 

Lobbying during a House transition

The combination of hefty lobbying from tech giants and a flip in House control to GOP leaders means the antitrust proposals are seemingly at a standstill.

While a handful of congressional Republicans support taking antitrust action against Big Tech companies, GOP lawmakers as whole have focused their tech agenda on content moderation and censorship.

In an interview with The Hill, Cicilline said he is still hopeful there is still a path forward for the agenda he laid the groundwork for in the House. 

“There's still really strong bipartisan support for that whole package. We had the votes in the last Congress. My sense is we have the votes in this Congress, too. I think what will make it a little more challenging for the next couple of years is the Republican House leadership's opposition to these bills,” Cicilline told The Hill. 

In another blow to the antitrust reform push, House GOP leaders replaced Cicilline’s Republican counterpart in the fight, Rep. Ken Buck (Colo.), in the top spot on the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee.

When they took control this year, Republicans placed Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a staunch libertarian, as subcommittee chair in yet another sign that they won’t take up the bills.

Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.)
Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) gives remarks during an enrollment ceremony for The Respect for Marriage Act at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, December 8, 2022.

How Cicilline joined the antitrust fight

Cicilline was hesitant at first to take the reins as ranking member of the antitrust subcommittee in 2017. Rich Luchette, a longtime former senior adviser to Cicilline, said he even advised his boss against doing so. 

“I was thinking to myself, 'He's in leadership, he's gonna have his hands full with that, he should pick one lane. And what is antitrust anyways?' ” he said, referring to lawmaker's role as co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee. 

“Fortunately, he did not listen to me,” Luchette added. 

For Cicilline, his reluctance was rooted in the fact that he had little experience with antitrust law. But upon advice from Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, he took the post. 

“He said, ‘Sometimes you should take a new assignment just because you're going to stretch your mind and learn something new,'" Cicilline said.

"And it turned out to be very good advice, because shortly after taking this role, the big Cambridge Analytica breach was revealed, and a lot of information about what was happening online and the focus really became the role of these technology platforms in not only our economy, but in our democracy,” he continued.

While Democrats were still in the minority, Cicilline started by learning more about the issues.

His tutorial on the issues turned into launching the investigation that led to the blockbuster 450-page report on digital marketplace competition — a process that included grilling the CEOs of the nation’s largest companies at committee hearing.

“The more I've learned about it over these years, the more urgent I believe action is. The more damaging, I think, allowing these technology companies that have monopoly power to continue to operate unchecked from any regulation and continue to grow their power and their market share is,” Cicilline said. 

How Cicilline built an antitrust reform coalition 

Although House GOP leaders aren’t showing interest in bringing the bills forward again, the Judiciary Committee’s markup in June 2021 brought together unlikely allies in the House. 

The proposals advanced out of the committee with support — and opposition — from both sides of the aisle, placing lawmakers like Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) on the same side promoting the bills and Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) together on the opposing side

Buck said that bipartisan nature was a key part of how he led the push. 

“I think that we need more of David Cicillines in Congress — people who have strong feelings about their issues, but who are also willing to work across the aisle,” Buck told The Hill. 

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) addresses reporters following the weekly policy luncheon on Tuesday, January 24, 2023.

Buck was a leading Republican voice advocating for the antitrust reform bills. Along with him, Democrats found unlikely allies in Gaetz and Rep. Lance Gooden (Texas) among the handful of Republicans supportive of the effort.

In the Senate, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and other supporters found a GOP ally in Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

Luchette said that bipartisan work was a cornerstone of how Cicilline approached his work in the House. 

“I could go on probably for hours telling you about the times that I worked for him and saw him working with people who are seen as right-wing ideologues, people who are on Fox News all the time, people who give no quarter to the Democratic Party, and he would work effectively with them on issues,” Luchette said. 

“At the end of the day, that's the way the system should work. It's not supposed to work with people just going to their corners and holding the line. You're supposed to be able to find common grounds and to the extent that they were able to do that, I think that was in large part because of the energy and effort that he poured into it,” Luchette added. 

The bills were the result of a 16-month investigation into market dominance in the digital sector, which ultimately led to a series of bipartisan proposals aimed at reforming antitrust laws to tackle concerns critics say are posed by Amazon, Meta, Google and Apple.

Pushback to proposals was immediate and substantial

Because tech giants have denied using anticompetitive practices, the companies and the industry groups that back them pushed back strongly on the proposals, shoveling millions into lobbying and expensive opposition ad campaigns. 

Much of that opposition was largely from groups like Chamber of Progress, NetChoice, and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which represent companies including Amazon, Google, Meta and Apple.

CCIA’s “Don’t Break What Works” campaign launched a series of ads targeting the proposals and arguing they would force companies to unwind services users enjoy or make companies charge users for previously free features. 

California Democrats, especially those who represent tech-heavy Bay Area districts, also pushed back on the proposals, arguing that they didn’t address the problems identified by the House investigation into digital marketplace competition in an effective way to serve the public.

Republicans fought hard against more antitrust regulation

Critical House Republicans, like Jordan, opposed the plans on the basis that the bills would give the Biden administration “more money.” 

To get Buck on board, Cicilline held a field hearing on competition issues in Buck’s home state of Colorado in 2020. 

The hearing featured executives from Tile, Sonos, Basecamp and the Boulder-based company PopSockets that testified over how tech giants were impacting their companies. 

“I wanted to demonstrate to him, even though he was the ranking member, that I respected his role in this work, and I also wanted him to hear from Colorado business folks about the impact of these platforms, on their businesses, business people, and, we just developed a very strong working relationship,” Cicilline said. 

Buck said after the hearing he became more interested and involved, and was able to develop a “trusting relationship” with Cicilline. 

“Which during this time frame is difficult. Obviously, David and I disagreed about the impeachment votes, and we disagreed about a lot of other very contentious issues,” Buck said. 

Cicilline served as an impeachment manager for former President Trump’s second impeachment. Buck voted along with the majority of his party against both impeachments of Trump. 

“But when it came to this, we both found common ground. And he was great if I went to my Republican colleagues and discussed a bill and they said, ‘Well, you know, you got to change this and one, two, and three,’ " he said.

"I would go to David and get those things changed and I would go back and get Republican support. So it really was a process where he was willing to compromise a great deal to get the Republican support that we needed to get the bills passed in the House,” Buck said. 

Cicilline said both lawmakers understood that the tech companies were trying to “desperately make this a partisan issue” and pit the two against each other. 

“And we resisted that at every turn despite their best efforts,” Cicilline said.

Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.)
Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) is seen following the sixth ballot for Speaker on the second day of the 118th session of Congress on Wednesday, January 4, 2023.

What supporters accomplished — and hope to do next

Two of the more high profile proposals, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and the Open App Markets Act, didn’t get floor votes in the House or Senate and failed to be added to end of the year omnibus bills despite a push from the bill’s sponsors and outside supporters. 

The first bill aimed to limit dominant platforms from creating preferences for their own products and services on their platforms.

The second aimed to add regulations for dominant app stores. In the Senate, versions of the bills also advanced out of the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support. 

Lawmakers did, however, successfully get a package of less controversial antitrust reform measures, also part of the proposals spawned from the House investigation, passed.

The package aimed to boost federal and state antitrust enforcers’ power to give them a better shot at taking on powerful tech firms.

“I think for sure when the Democrats take the House back, this will remain a priority and I expect these laws will also make it to the president’s desk,” Cicilline said, of the other antitrust proposals. 

Can Cicilline's legacy evolve into policy?

Democrats controlled the House, Senate and White House before the 2022 election, but the proposals failed to get floor votes in either chamber. 

“It can often take multiple terms of Congress to build sufficient support to pass legislation. So we look forward to continuing to monitor in the Congress and hope to see concrete changes that come about to check Big Tech’s power,” said Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, a nonprofit that supports antitrust and corporate accountability legislation. 

As Cicilline steps down, it is not clear who will take the reins from him when he leaves.

He said Democrats who were sponsors of the proposals that came forward, like Jayapal, Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) and current House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) are the “likely champions” of the antitrust push in the next Congress. 

Harper said the Rhode Island Democrats’ legacy is going to include “educating a generation of Congressional leaders to both understand the dangers of Big Tech and importantly the antitrust tools that Congress has to do something about it.”

“We really see Congressman Cicilline as a once-in-a-generation leader on antitrust, and in many ways the person Congress was waiting for to move this issue forward,” she said.

As Congress grapples with threats from new emerging technologies, such as the rapid rise of ChatGPT and the wave of rival generative AI products, Cicilline said it is “absolutely essential” that Congress “remain and get current on this technology.” 

“I think one of the things that was a tremendous advantage at the big companies was that Congress, sort of let them do what they want to set back and allowed them to continue to grow and be free from any government oversight or regulation,” he said. 

“I hope that was a lesson and that everyone will recognize that those around to make the jurisdiction need to really stay current with these developments, so that we won't be a decade behind the decision that needs to be enacted,” he added.

Cruz: Only Billionaires, Human Traffickers, and Fentanyl Dealers Are Better Off Under Biden

Senator Ted Cruz analyzed the question of whether or not Americans are better off under President Biden than they were two years ago, concluding that the only people reaping the rewards of his administration are Big Tech billionaires, human traffickers, and fentanyl dealers.

Cruz made the comments during an interview with Fox News personality and former Director of the National Economic Council, Larry Kudlow.

The Texas congressman harkened back to one of the most pivotal debate questions ever uttered when Ronald Reagan asked in a 1980 debate: “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

By any economic measure today, it is objectively true that Americans are worse off than when President Biden entered the White House. Cruz, however, did find a quasi-silver lining for the Democrats.

RELATED: Ted Cruz: Biden Impeachment Likely If Republicans Win Back The House

Cruz: Who’s Better Off Under Biden?

Cruz had a “very simple question” for voters sitting at home as they consider their vote in the upcoming midterm elections.

“Are you better off now than you were two years ago when Joe Biden became President?” he asked.

It’s a rhetorical question, of course.

But Cruz added a twist. Watch:

“If you’re a Big Tech billionaire, if you’re a human trafficker, if you’re a fentanyl dealer – then the answer is yes,” Cruz surmised.

“And you probably better go vote for the Democrats.”

RELATED: GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy Pre-Surrenders, Saying GOP Won’t Impeach Biden

Predicts a Massive Red Wave

Elsewhere in the segment, Senator Cruz predicted a massive red wave precisely because the American people are not better off under the Biden regime.

“This election is going to be such a wave election, it’s going to be like 2010,” he predicted. “Republicans are going to take both Houses [of Congress].”

Democrats lost the House and ceded the majority of governorships in 2010.

That prediction in itself is newsworthy. Cruz has contended for some time that he sees the GOP regaining control of the House of Representatives, but acknowledged taking back the Senate would be less likely.

“I put our odds at 50/50,” he previously said of potentially winning control of the Senate. “I think it’s going to be a really good year but it’s a bad map.”

Polls have shifted of late for Republicans in several Senate polls and have grown even more bullish on their chances in the House.

Cruz has asserted that President Biden’s greatest weakness is the border crisis, which has been a boon for human traffickers and fentanyl dealers.

The Texas Republican has suggested the border crisis and Biden’s “decision to just defy immigration laws” are the most likely grounds for impeachment.

“If we take the House, which I said is overwhelmingly likely, then I think we will see serious investigations of the Biden administration,” Cruz has said.

“I do think there’s a chance of that,” he added, referencing impeachment proceedings. “Whether it’s justified or not, the Democrats weaponized impeachment. They used it for partisan purposes to go after Trump because they disagreed with him.”

“One of the real disadvantages of doing that is the more you weaponize it and turn it into a partisan cudgel, you know what’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” he continued.

Biden’s border crisis is having devastating impacts on American families, as cartels use the crisis to smuggle fentanyl and poison our communities at “record rates.”

According to the DEA, “fentanyl is the single deadliest drug threat our nation has ever encountered.”

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

The post Cruz: Only Billionaires, Human Traffickers, and Fentanyl Dealers Are Better Off Under Biden appeared first on The Political Insider.

CNN’s Brian Stelter: ‘Responsible Networks’ Shouldn’t Air Trump’s Visit To Border Wall Live And in Full

CNN reporter Brian Stelter, who produces a newsletter called ‘Reliable Sources,’ claims “responsible TV networks” shouldn’t air President Trump’s visit to the border wall.

The President is scheduled to visit Alamo, Texas today to check on the progress of the wall on the U.S. southern border.

In the latest iteration of his newsletter, Stelter dismissed Trump’s appearance as a “stunt” and tried to shame other networks into not airing the event for fear that the President could make controversial comments.

“There’s a lot of concern about what he’ll say and how he’ll say it,” the CNN reporter said. “Let me just reiterate what I said on CNN Monday morning: Responsible TV networks will not air Trump live and in full. Not after his incitement last week.”

He then claimed his network and other far-left outlets would be more responsible in airing the event than say, Fox News.

“But I think we’ll see a repeat of last Wednesday’s rally coverage, meaning that Fox and other pro-Trump networks will air Trump live, while other outlets will exercise editorial judgment and ingest what he says, then decide if any of it is newsworthy,” surmised Stelter.

RELATED: WH Official: Trump To Visit Texas To See Border Wall Construction – A ‘Promise Kept’

CNN’s Brian Stelter Wants to Censor Trump’s Visit to the Border Wall

It’s bad enough that Big Tech companies are actively doing everything in their power to suppress news and statements made by the President, but now CNN, a supposedly mainstream outlet, is rallying their liberal peers to join in.

Think about what he is essentially saying in that message.

We, the arbiters of truth at CNN, will watch President Trump’s visit to the border wall first, and only then will we decide if you, the viewer, have a right to know what happened.

Glenn Greenwald, a co-founder of The Intercept, slammed Stelter for a very similar interpretation.

“Silicon Valley defenders: Censoring Trump from all the monopolistic platforms is no big deal. He still has a press room,” Greenwald mocked.

He added, “The press: we should censor what Trump says and only broadcast and report the parts we want the public to hear, concealing the rest.”

RELATED: Hillary Clinton Calls Capitol Riots ‘Result Of White-Supremacist Grievances,’ Agrees Trump Should Be Impeached

The Media is the Most Corrupt Institution in America

Greenwald also highlighted a New York Times columnist who he says is perfectly content with Big Tech censorship “as long as they use that power to censor her adversaries, not her allies.”

“That is the authoritarian mindset in its purest expression, right there,” he added. “As long as Silicon Valley monopoly power is harnessed to silence those who think differently than I, I support it.”

Greenwald points out that there hasn’t been a single voice of opposition to silencing Trump and his supporters, with many media outlets actually cheering the Big Tech monopolies on.

Back to Stelter, the reality here is that he doesn’t want CNN to cover a story that might put President Trump in a positive light, like a visit to the border wall.

Do you think for one moment CNN wouldn’t cover the event “live and in full” if Trump were to discuss the ongoing impeachment effort or if he were to make a statement of resignation?

Instead, he’s there to celebrate an American achievement, as one White House official put it: “The completion of more than 400 miles of border wall — a promise made, promise kept.”

That’s what they really don’t want you to hear about. And it just might work, now that the President is unable to share videos of his speech or his accomplishments on social media.

What kind of country do we live in where the one man who can’t speak to the American people directly right now is the President of the United States?

The post CNN’s Brian Stelter: ‘Responsible Networks’ Shouldn’t Air Trump’s Visit To Border Wall Live And in Full appeared first on The Political Insider.

Devin Nunes On Big Tech Parler Ban: ‘There Should Be A Racketeering Investigation’

Republicans Congressman Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said Sunday that the Justice Department should launch an investigation into tech companies’ efforts to remove Parler from their platforms.

Nunes made his comments on Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures.”

RELATED: AOC Calls For Trump To Be Impeached – ‘We Came Close To Half Of The House Nearly Dying’

Nunes On Parler Ban: ‘It’s Far Worse Than What I Could Even Imagine’

“Well, Maria, when I wrote that book, I was hoping to warn Americans so that they would vote right and that maybe this wouldn’t happen and this could be prevented,” Nunes told Fox News host Maria Bartiromo.

Nunes said the move by Big Tech violated antitrust laws, civil rights and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

“Unfortunately, it’s far worse than what I could even imagine,” Nunes said. “The effect of this is that there is no longer a free and open social media company or site for any American to get on any longer, because these big companies, Apple, Amazon, Google, they have just destroyed a — what was likely — Parler is likely a billion-dollar company.”

“Poof, it’s gone,” he added.

‘This Is Clearly A Violation Of Antitrust’

Nunes then stressed that conservatives need to have the same social media abilities that non-conservatives enjoys.

“But it’s more than just the financial aspect to that,” Nunes explained. “Republicans have no way to communicate.”

“If — and it doesn’t even matter if you’re a Republican or conservative,” he continued.

“If you don’t want to be regulated by left-wingers that are at Twitter and Facebook and Instagram, where you get shadowbanned, nobody gets to see you — nobody gets to see you, they get to decide what’s violent or not violent, it’s preposterous,” Nunes said.

Nunes then cited the violation of antitrust laws.

“So, I don’t know where the hell the Department of Justice is at right now or the FBI,” Nunes said. “This is clearly a violation of antitrust, civil rights, the RICO statute.”

RELATED: GOP Sen. Ben Sasse Will Consider Impeachment, Ilhan Omar Predicts President Trump WILL Be Removed

Nunes Denounces ‘Attack’ On Parler And Conservatives Being Able To Operate On Social Media

“There should be a racketeering investigation on all the people that coordinated this attack on not only a company but on all of those like us, like me, like you, Maria. I have 3 million followers on Parler,” he added.

“Tonight, I will no longer be able to communicate with those people,” Nunes lamented. “And they’re Americans.”

The post Devin Nunes On Big Tech Parler Ban: ‘There Should Be A Racketeering Investigation’ appeared first on The Political Insider.

Major Corporations Will Halt Donations To Republican Lawmakers Who Argued For Election Integrity

Three major corporations are reportedly halting donations to Republican lawmakers who argued for election integrity and adherence to the Constitution.

Popular Information reports that the corporations are citing last week’s riot at the Capitol, and alleging Republican lawmakers “encouraged the rioters by objecting to the certification of the Electoral College vote.”

The outlet contacted corporations who donated to Republicans in the past and asked if they would continue to do so.

Out of 144 companies contacted, Popular Information received a commitment from three to no longer donate to anybody who objected to the election results.

The three corporations are:

  • Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.
  • Marriott International.
  • Commerce Bancshares.

No word on whether or not the same outlet contacted corporations who donated to Democrats who, over the summer, helped bail out arsonists and looters.

RELATED: GOP Sen. Ben Sasse Will Consider Impeachment, Ilhan Omar Predicts President Trump WILL Be Removed

Corporations Pulling Donations From Republican Lawmakers

Bloomberg News reports that several other companies are pausing political donations in the wake of Wednesday’s Capitol protests.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. “plan to pause all political contributions,” they write.

In a memo to employees, Citigroup said: “We want you to be assured that we will not support candidates who do not respect the rule of law.”

In a sane world, that would mean every single Democrat who supported race riots over the summer, or who supported the soft coup by the Obama administration against President Trump, would lose support.

But we no longer live in a sane world.

No, many companies whose businesses or locations actually suffered at the hands of Democrat-fueled riots over the summer – riots that took place over many months – will now take action against Republicans because of one protest that got out of control.

RELATED: Federal Prosecutor Could Bring Criminal Charges Against President Trump For Capitol Violence

The Purge of Conservative Thought Continues

Of all of the efforts to stifle conservative thought taking place in America today, this one might hurt the most as it has monetary implications for lawmakers who actually care about voter fraud and other conservative platforms and principles.

Big Tech is purging conservatives from their social media platforms by the thousands. The President is being threatened with impeachment. Republican congressmen are being threatened with expulsion.

And now, donations to the politicians who support conservative principles plan to tighten their purse strings.

This is all part of what ABC News accidentally admitted is an effort at “cleansing the movement” of those who support the President.

It’s amazing how bad things have gotten in the span of a few days. But all of these efforts to stifle political opposition have been ongoing for years. Democrats and the media just needed a spark to start a full-on assault of free speech.

If Republicans don’t find another means to stop this process of ‘cleansing’ conservative thought from America there may not be an America much longer.

The post Major Corporations Will Halt Donations To Republican Lawmakers Who Argued For Election Integrity appeared first on The Political Insider.