Presidents and the Press: The Early Years

 Many posts have discussed the relationship between presidents and the press. 

Todd Andrlik at Mount Vernon:

Washington read newspapers voraciously and understood the immense power of the printed word. Bruce Chadwick, one of 37 historian contributors to Reporting the Revolutionary War, wrote in George Washington’s War (2004) that “The help of the press was another part of Washington’s winter [of 1777] strategy. The general read as many newspapers as he could… he had friends in every major city in the states send him their newspapers and asked anyone scheduled to visit him to bring along the latest editions. He read them to find out how the press and public felt about the army – and him – but also to determine what the British were doing.”

The following winter, Washington received authorization from Congress to fund the publication of the New-Jersey Journal, a completely army-controlled newspaper that served as Washington’s mouthpiece and helped offset the political vitriol from James Rivington’s and James Humphreys’ Loyalist papers being printed in British-occupied New York and Philadelphia. The story of the Journal is well told in Chadwick’s volume. In Reporting the Revolutionary War, general audiences can now experience firsthand the same impressive assortment of war intelligence and public opinion that Washington craved from newspapers.

Shannon Duffy at Mount Vernon:

The peak of press attacks against Washington came with the public announcement of the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain in 1794, which attempted to ward off an impending war with Britain at the expense of American-French relations. Even before the terms of the treaty were announced, Jay's negotiations stirred up widespread opposition. The hostility was triggered not only by anti-British sentiment, but also by fears that the President was overstepping his authority in negotiating the treaty.

Washington's apparent refusal to acknowledge public opposition to the treaty added to a general discomfort with the power he was wielding. "Belisarius" cast harsh aspersions upon Washington's high-handed manner, which he saw as emblematic of the entire administration: "a brief but trite review of your six years administration, mark the progressive steps which have led the way to the present public evils that afflict your country. . .the unerring voice of posterity will not fail to render the just sentence of condemnation on the man who has entailed upon his country deep and incurable public evils."3

John R. Vile at The Free Speech Center:

In 1792, the new Congress under the Constitution adopted further legislation on the postal service. In setting rates, from 6 cents to 25 cents per letter (depending on the distance it was being sent), Congress provided that newspapers would be charged only 1 or 1 1/2 cents, again based on distance. The law also allowed designated governmental officials including the president, vice president, cabinet officers, and members of Congress to send mail related to their offices for free. This practice, which continues today, is known as the franking privilege.

To facilitate the exchange of information, the law continued the earlier practice that provided that “every printer of newspapers may send one paper to each and every other printer of newspapers within the United States, free of postage, under such regulations, as the Postmaster General shall provide.”

Peter McNamara at The Free Speech Center:

Scholars have traditionally cited 17 indictments and 10 convictions, many upon charges so flimsy as to be comical.  Targets of the act tended to be the editors of Democratic-Republican newspapers who criticized the Federalist administration of President John Adams.

...

The prosecutions and subsequent convictions under the Sedition Act galvanized opposition to the Federalist administration. (Samuel Chase, a Supreme Court justice, was particularly partisan toward the Sedition Act when presiding over prosecutions, and was later impeached for this.) The prosecuted Republican printers and editors became folk heroes. In the election of 1800, the Federalists were swept from power—never to return—and Jefferson, the new Democratic-Republican president, subsequently pardoned those who had been convicted under the law.

Almost 170 years later, the Supreme Court wrote in the celebrated libel case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964): “Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history.” Today, the Sedition Act of 1798 is generally remembered as a violation of fundamental First Amendment principles.

The Federalists in 1800 turned to papers to warn about the election of Thomas Jefferson: 

Monticello:

In order to curb Alexander Hamilton's influence, [James Thomson} Callender published, in his The History of the United States for 1796, a report of the affair between Alexander Hamilton and Maria Reynolds, a married woman.[4] The day before the Alien and Sedition Acts became law on July 13, 1798, Callender fled to Virginia to the home of Senator Stevens Thomson Mason of Loudoun County. Then, in 1799, he moved to Richmond where he wrote for the Richmond Recorder. His anti-Federalist pamphlet, The Prospect Before Us, led to his prosecution under the Sedition Act.[5] He was sentenced on May 24, 1800, to nine months in jail and a $200 fine.

When he got out of jail in the spring of 1801, Callender expected President Jefferson to reward him for his work and his loyalty. He wanted the Richmond postmaster job but he did not get it. In the president's view, Callender was now too radical, and in an attempt to foster reconciliation after the difficult election of 1800, Jefferson did not patronize the more militant or radical Republicans. As Jefferson wrote, "I am really mortified at the base ingratitude of Callender. it presents human nature in a hideous form."[6] In February 1802, Callender joined with Federalist newspaper editor Henry Pace and began to attack both parties, particularly the Republicans and specifically Jefferson. In a series of articles beginning on September 1, 1802, Callender alleged that Jefferson had several children by a slave concubine, Sally Hemings.[7]

Free Speech Center;

Before either of these events, a riot in Baltimore reflected local anger over the publication of the Federalist Republic, a newspaper run by Alexander Contee Hanson.

Reflecting sentiments that prevailed among members of the Federalist Party, it had vehemently opposed American participation in the War of 1812, which Congress had declared at the request of President James Madison, largely over English interference with American shipping. After being driven from his business by rioters, Hanson had retreated to Georgetown but returned to Baltimore where he resumed his vitriolic verbal attacks against the war and its Democratic-Republican supporters.

 

AT&T's California Astroturf

A number of posts have discussed Astroturf, i.e., artificial grassroots lobbying.  Sometimes they write the letters that their "supporters" send on their  behalf.

 AT&T is pushing California legislation to end its obligation to provide landline service.   Yue Stella Yu and Malena Carollo report at CalMatters:

On its face, AB 470 had widespread support this year from Californians for a Connected Future, a recently formed coalition of more than 150 disability advocates, chambers of commerce, tribes, community service organizations, local officials and small businesses, including a construction company and a tennis shop. For months, dozens of those groups testified in public hearings and signed identical letters urging lawmakers to pass the bill, arguing it would incentivize modern technologies and ensure more reliable coverage.

The coalition, which describes itself as “grassroots,” also states it is a “project of USTelecom.” Rhonda Johnson, AT&T’s executive vice president of federal regulatory relations, sits on the trade group’s board. USTelecom received $250,000 from AT&T to lobby on its behalf this year, and also spent between $85,200 and $106,000 running ads on Facebook supporting the bill in the coalition’s name, according to a CalMatters tally.

It’s a prevalent practice commonly known as “astroturfing,” when corporations or trade groups enlist seemingly unaffiliated organizations for the appearance of grassroots support, said Jack Pitney, politics professor at Claremont McKenna College.

“If you don’t read the fine print, you’ll assume that … there are a lot of organizations that sincerely support this legislation.”

While the coalition often bragged about the scale and diversity of its membership, more than 80% of member organizations have ties to AT&T, CalMatters found.

Some of those groups have AT&T’s top leaders serving on their board of directors. That includes AT&T president Susan Santana, who sits on the board of the California Chamber of Commerce. Ben Golombek, the chamber’s chief of staff for policy, most recently served as the west region vice president for public affairs for AT&T. Other AT&T executives, mostly directors of external affairs, double as board members of various local chambers, business groups, foundations and voting rights groups.

AT&T also pays to be a member of many local chambers of commerce, many of whom support the bill. Of the 28 chambers in support, AT&T is listed as a corporate member of 26 of them.

Dozens of coalition members list AT&T as a key funder. The California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce calls AT&T an “invaluable” partner. Groups such as the Concerned Black Men of Los Angeles, which provides mentorship to Black local residents, list the company as a sponsor.

Others, including tribes, youth service groups and senior advocates, have partnered with the company in its $5 billion effort to “bridge the digital divide” nationwide, distributing free laptops donated by AT&T, hosting “connected learning centers” the company set up across the state to offer free digital access or receiving grants from AT&T to address digital inequity.

The telecom giant has also sponsored events for some coalition members, from golf tournaments for the San Gabriel Valley Conservation Corps to the 70th anniversary gala of Society for the Blind.

The financial support can make it hard not to align with AT&T, Pitney said.

“If AT&T has supported you in a material way, you want to make sure that support continues,” he said. “You are likely to look favorably on requests from that organization.”

 

Declining Religiosity

 Many posts have discussed the role of religion in American life.   

Benedict Vigers and Julie Ray at Gallup:

The 17-point drop in the percentage of U.S. adults who say religion is an important part of their daily life — from 66% in 2015 to 49% today — ranks among the largest Gallup has recorded in any country over any 10-year period since 2007.

About half of Americans now say religion is not an important part of their daily life. They remain as divided on the question today as they were last year.

Such large declines in religiosity are rare. Since 2007, only 14 out of more than 160 countries in the World Poll have experienced drops of over 15 percentage points in religious importance over any 10-year period.

Only a small number of mostly wealthy nations have experienced larger losses in religiosity, including Greece from 2013-2023 (28 points), Italy from 2012-2022 (23 points), and Poland from 2013-2023 (22 points). Other countries, including Chile, Türkiye and Portugal, have seen declines similar in magnitude to the U.S. decline.

...

As religiosity has declined in the U.S., the gap between the U.S. and the global median has widened. The global median for religiosity has remained stable for nearly two decades, averaging 81% since 2007 and reaching 83% last year, the most current full-year data available.

At the same time, attitudes in the U.S. are drawing closer to those in other advanced economies. Across the 38 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries in 2024, a median of 36% of adults said religion is important to their daily lives. The gap between the U.S. and the median for these countries is now narrower than at any point in Gallup’s trend.

 

 

Conservative Split

A number of posts have discussed the conservative movement.

Christopher Long at X:

An Open Letter to the Conservative Movement The battle for the heart and soul of the American Conservative Movement is being fought on many fronts, with the latest trench warfare occurring in the boardrooms of its long-standing and most influential foundations and think tanks. The recent controversy @Heritage points to how Conservatism’s venerable institutions have been infiltrated and quietly taken over by a tight-knit, fringe group of post-liberal thinkers who believe America has been “off the rails” since the Founding.

In their minds, the Declaration and Constitution must take a backseat to usher in a new, post-democratic, post-capitalist economic system that advocates isolationism, an immigration ban, and a domestic policy that blurs distinctions between church and state. While often described as MAGA or populist, this group is more tightly aligned to the philosophy of media crank @TuckerCarlson than President Trump’s agenda.

As longtime board members and leaders of @ISI, the oldest conservative campus organization in America, founded in 1953 by William F. Buckley Jr., we have fought to preserve ISI’s longstanding mission from falling victim to a post-liberal hijacking. That battle was lost at a board meeting held last Friday, at the conclusion of which we tendered our resignations.

We hope our experience will serve as a wake-up call that the integrity and longstanding values of conservative institutions are being systematically and intentionally undermined by post-liberals who promote a “no enemies to the right” mindset.

We urged our fellow trustees to terminate ISI’s current President, @johnnyburtka, who formerly served as executive director of the post-liberal journal @amconmag, and return ISI to its core academic work of “Educating for Liberty” by helping American college students to learn and appreciate the perennial ideas and timeless values that have made America great.

ISI has largely abandoned its on-campus philosophical programming, which equipped future leaders to better uphold American ideals. Instead, it focuses on ideological and political podcasts that introduce audiences to alt-right online personalities, such as Tucker Carlson and others who seek to undermine the liberal ideas of the American Founding.

This fundamental shift in ISI’s focus was done behind the board’s back. It’s new signal program, the podcast Project Cosmos, was dropped on X (formerly Twitter) on August 19, featuring postliberal icon @PatrickDeneen and neo-reactionary @curtis_yarvin. Despite two board meetings taking place between the podcast’s release and the start of the costly production in February, the board was never informed of the existence of Project Cosmos.

Three Heritage Foundation directors, @LarryArnn of @Hillsdale, Michael Gleba of the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and Heritage’s current president, @KevinRobertsTX, are trustees of ISI and attended the Friday meeting. None objected to or questioned the judgment of platforming Yarvin in Project Cosmos’s inaugural episode. This, after being confronted with a long list of damning quotes from Yarvin.

Yarvin is a self-described neo-reactionary, unapologetic monarchist, and a leader of the Dark Enlightenment movement who advocates for “rebooting” and replacing liberal democracy. He writes, “If Americans want to change their government, they're going to have to get over their dictator phobia.” He has also said, “Although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff.”

Rather than peeling away disaffected young males who flock to the noxious ideas of Fuentes and Yarvin, ISI’s Project Cosmos fawns over their anti-liberal philosophies. They appear to be successful in appealing to the Yarvin-Fuentes-Carlson echo chamber, as Project Cosmos reported that the video garnered six million views on X, with a skewing of more than 90% male.

What is unclear is how many women and other traditional ISI students, professors, alumni, and donors are turned off by ISI’s celebration of the odious and un-American ideas espoused by Yarvin, Fuentes, and Carlson. Traditionally, ISI’s mission was to teach American ideals to curious students on college campuses. The mission of helping students search for truth is now replaced by the post-liberals’ lust for political power in Washington.

The Heritage Foundation and Hillsdale College are not the only pillars of the modern Conservative Movement to subsidize @TCNetwork. Carlson was the headliner at ISI’s gala two years ago, and this year, one of its three $75,000 annual fellowships went to the Tucker Carlson Network. Before Burtka’s arrival, fellows were found at genuine journalism outlets, including  @WSJ, @USATODAY, @NRO, and @dallasnews.

What happened at Heritage and ISI in recent weeks underscores how a cadre of post-liberals has worked together, behind the scenes, to wrest control of conservative institutions from actual conservatives. They have quietly filled boardrooms with post-liberals, integralists, and other fellow travelers who disdain traditional conservatism’s central tenets of free markets, limited government, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. These usurpers of conservatism, as Yarvin puts it, find America’s core principles to be “historically leftist” and prevent the right from defeating the left both philosophically and at the ballot box.

The leaders of the postliberal project continue to be close friends with Carlson, Yarvin, and their ilk, to be open to discussion with the likes of Fuentes and other racists and antisemites, and to praise autocrats like Hungary’s Viktor Orban—and Carlson even lauds the “social values” of Venezuela’s dictator Nicolas Maduro. They echo Yarvin’s call to overcome the fear of dictatorship and relinquish respect for representative government and the checks and balances the Founders established.

Traditional conservatives who believe in America’s Founding principles and look back at the Reagan Revolution as a step in the right direction need to wake up and understand the battle currently underway.

Heritage’s Founder and longtime ISI Chairman Edwin J. Feulner, Jr., presciently warned in the final article he penned in @NationalAffairs before his death this past July: “An existential identity crisis now grips the American right. A political movement once united by commitment to limited government, moral order, and a robust defense of American ideals now appears fractured, its purpose clouded by populist grievances and ideological drift.”

Supporters of ISI, Heritage, and other mainstream Conservative institutions must be on notice that the programs and purposes they are funding may no longer be what they think they are. Today is the time for choosing. We hope all conservatives will choose to fight on the side of William F. Buckley, Jr. and give no corner to those preaching white supremacy, antisemitism, eugenics, and bigotry. Onward!

Christopher Long, former President, Intercollegiate Studies Institute Thomas Lynch, former Chairman, Intercollegiate Studies Institute

Lobby Spending and Campaign Spending Are Different

Many posts have discussed lobbying, "shadow lobbying," "unlobbying," and "non-lobbying lobbying."

Furnas AC, LaPira TM, Brock C. Conflating Lobbying and PACs: The Surprisingly Low Overlap in Organizational Lobbying and Campaign Expenditures. PS: Political Science & Politics. 2025;58(4):597-605. doi:10.1017/S1049096525100929

Abstract

This article investigates whether campaign contributions and lobbying are complementary, substitutive, or distinct forms of organizational political engagement. Our study reveals minimal overlap between organizations that engage in lobbying and those that make campaign contributions despite the perception that these activities are interchangeable forms of “money in politics.” Using comprehensive contribution and lobbying report data from 1998 to 2018, we find that most politically active organizations focus exclusively on either lobbying or making campaign contributions. Only a small percentage of organizations engage in both activities. This finding challenges the assumption that these forms of political activity are inherently linked. The majority of organizations engaged in political activity do so exclusively through lobbying. However, the top lobbying groups spend the most money and almost always have affiliated political action committees (PACs). Most lobbying money is spent by a small number of big spenders—organizations that also have affiliated PACs. Organizations that both lobby and make campaign contributions tend to be well resourced and rare.

Bruice Mehlman offers a caveat:

Lobbyists are a fraction of influence professionals & the only ones who publicly disclose clients & revenue. Influence campaigns regularly tap the talents of lawyers, PR professionals, grassroots organizers, fundraisers, online influencers and countless others, most of whose activities remain undisclosed. Some estimate the size of the “shadow lobbying” community as equal to the number of registered lobbyists, while others argue it is at least 13x as large. Only those who spend at least 20% of their time on federal lobbying activity need to register as official “lobbyists,” with a great many “19%’ers” carefully monitoring their time allocations to remain unregistered / under the RADAR.

 

Anecdote About Knowledge and the 2025 Elections

Many posts have discussed what Americans do and do not know about their government.

Robin Abcarian at LAT:

“We’re getting calls about polls being closed,” Kentucky’s Republican Secretary of State Michael Adams posted Tuesday on X. “They are closed because we do not have elections today. Kentucky votes next year. You cannot vote today in Kentucky for the mayor of New York City or the Governor of Virginia. Sorry.” (In a subsequent post, he mused about the importance of civics education.)

AI and Reporting

Artificial intelligence is an increasingly important topic in politics, policy, and law.

Benjamin Mullin and Katie Robertson at NYT:

Ryan Sabalow, a reporter for the newsroom CalMatters, noticed something peculiar when he began covering California lawmakers in 2023. Politicians would often give impassioned speeches against a bill, then refrain from voting entirely.

He began to wonder how often legislators were ducking tough votes — and how that influenced California’s laws....

He and his team turned to an A.I. tool, Digital Democracy, which tracks every word uttered in California legislative sessions, every donation and every vote taken. It led to an article, and an Emmy-winning segment on CBS, that revealed that Democratic lawmakers had killed a popular fentanyl bill by not voting at all.

...

Artificial intelligence is sweeping through newsrooms, transforming the way journalists around the world gather and disseminate information. Traditional news organizations increasingly use tools from companies like OpenAI and Google to streamline work that used to take hours: sifting through reams of information, tracking down sources and suggesting headlines.

... 

The Associated Press used A.I. tools this year to quickly sort through tens of thousands of pages of documents relating to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy. The tools made the documents searchable and summarized them, while also allowing journalists to see which parts of the files had been unredacted for the first time.