Read on Twitter
Alright, I feel like there's a lot of confusion about what is going on with so many bills related to the covid relief, so let's try to break it down a little (*thread) 1/23
Since May, the house of representatives has passed multiple Covid-19 relief bills which subsequently died in the Senate, specifically because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was able to block debate and/or votes. 2/23
There were multiple rounds of negotiations, Democrats wanted $2k checks, then $1,200 checks, and eventually it was agreed to do $600 checks. This bill, which we'll call the "relief bill" includes the direct payments as well as more loans to businesses to help with payroll, 3/23
money for testing and vaccine distribution, enhanced unemployment benefits, rental assistance, more money to fight food insecurity, etc. This is the information most people already know, but the confusing part is how it got moved forward procedurally. 4/23
The leaders in both houses decided to attach the "relief bill," to a yearly "omnibus spending bill." The "spending bill" is the huge piece of legislation that needs to be passed every fiscal year in order for the government to pay for all the things it spends money on. 5/23
This is the bill at play when we have government shutdowns, that happens because the government can't spend money without a spending bill. These bills are separate pieces of legislation (even the "spending bill" is numerous bills all tied together for easier passage). 6/23
They were put together to try to force a vote on the relief package while also ensuring there would be no shutdown. So when politicians or others say "the relief bill gave x amount to Sudan and only $600 to you," they are being purposely disingenuous; 7/23
the international spending is separate and apart from the relief bill, they were just bundled for political expediency. That said, the "relief" portion was massively underfunded, and when the President said it was a disgrace, he was right. 8/23
Democrats had been saying that the whole time, but no one wanted to address that til it was attached to the spending bill. It's important to note that most of the spending Trump railed against in his diatribe was money he had previously requested in his budget proposal. 9/23
Tying the vote on raising the relief checks to $2k per person to changing the appropriations in the spending bill would be doing exactly what Republicans are accusing the Dems of, holding payments to those in need hostage to wage a policy war unrelated to Covid relief. 10/23
That brings me to the final point, Section 230.McConnell blocked a simple vote on increasing payments & instead is looking to tie the relief payments to a repeal of a decades old law which, for any & all flaws, is one of the main reasons we have the internet we have today. 11/23
Section 230 was passed in 1996, with its goal being to shield websites from liability for what third parties post on their site. The example often used is that websites (such as Facebook, Twitter, etc.) are more akin to bookstores than book publishers. 12/23
Basically, 230 says that when a post is made on a website, it is not the website talking, it is the individual or entity who published the post whose speech is in question, therefore any liability for the speech should fall on the "speaker" rather than the website. 13/23
Another provision, and one against which the president has taken a particularly aggressive stance, is the provision which allows these internet companies to remove postings on their pages without being opened up to civil litigation. 14/23
I think of this like saying a book store can decide to not have books on their shelves if they feel they are objectionable, and that doesn't violate free speech (even if the book (or post) is protected speech). 15/23
Without going even further into 1st amendment law, a private entity does not need to allow speech on their platform just because the speech is constitutionally protected (hate speech is protected by the 1st A, doesn't mean companies need to allow it). 16/23
Now, the irony of Trump and others wanting to repeal Sec 230 is that doing so would likely have a serious chilling effect on speech. If companies like FB & Twitter are liable for ALL posts on their platform, they'll be very heavy handed when it comes to censoring content. 17/23
At this point you may be asking, why is this at all related to Covid-19 relief (it isn't), and if it isn't, why are McConnell and Trump trying to group them together? Until this point, I have tried to have some editorial distance, but at this point I'm moving on from that. 18/23
I believe Trump is just mad his posts during the election were marked as disputed or potentially false & he has an ax to grind with the very platform that empowered his rise to the Presidency. He's mad, he was told he couldn't sue Twitter bc of Sec 230, so he wants it gone. 19/23
McConnell, on the other hand, realizes what it is that Sec 230 does & knows that a wholesale repeal of the law isn't going anywhere. He's once again tying relief for individuals who've been hit hard by this crisis to an unpopular and unrelated piece of legislation.
20/23
20/23
He wants Democrats to either vote no on $2k or vote yes on full repeal of Section 230. He wants his Republican colleagues to have cover if they decide to vote against the package as he is selling it. It is once again seriously disingenuous behavior, and unacceptable. 21/23
There are arguments to be made on all sides of the debate around Section 230, just like there are legitimate discussions to be had about what we spend our money on both here and abroad in the funding bill. 22/23
However, that has nothing to do with whether the Senate should increase the survival checks to $2k or not, and anyone who says anything different is trying to sell you something. 23/23
