Sign up for our daily briefing

Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Denver news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Des Moines news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tampa Bay news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Charlotte news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

One of the issues being hotly debated among presidential candidates and political operatives leading up to the 2020 campaign isn't health care, or the economy — it's free speech.

Why it matters: Disagreements about how to apply the First Amendment to the speed and scale of social media are consuming the political debate this election cycle and cementing unprecedented levels of polarization.

Driving the news: In the Trump era, Republicans have found a way to leverage the loose freedoms of social media to gain an upper hand in some elections. Now, Democrats are demanding that big tech companies do something about it.

  • Speaking at an event in New York City Monday, Hillary Clinton said Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg “should pay a price” for what he is doing to democracy.
  • Her comments come as more Democrats argue that Facebook shouldn't let President Trump, or any political candidate, get away with spreading falsehoods via political ads.
  • Almost every major Democratic presidential candidate has condemned Facebook for its political advertising policy, while conservatives for the most part have endorsed it, or stayed quiet.

Conservatives are instead focusing their political attacks on censorship, arguing that Democrats and liberal firms are out to censor their speech to voters.

Case in point: Donald Trump Jr.'s new book —"Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us" — is out today.

The issue of hate speech has become another political flashpoint, with Democrats and Republicans sparring over whether their political perspectives are fair game online.

  • Minority advocacy groups have pushed Facebook to ban Trump's ads around immigration that use nativist undertones and false ads that allege two Muslim members of Congress are "‘anti-Israel, anti-AMERICAN, and pro-terrorist."
  • Meanwhile, Democrats on the campaign trail are calling for Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, an internet provision that protects tech companies from liability for the content people post on their platform, to be reexamined.

The big picture: A majority of Americans (73%) say voters in both parties “cannot agree on the basic facts," according to Pew Research Center.

  • Disagreement over basic facts is making it easier for politicians to spew falsehoods without paying a price.
  • And while news organizations scramble to fact-check these statements, it's proving difficult to do in real time. Trust in mass media is also at a near all-time low.

Yes, but: Despite the onslaught of attention candidates and pundits are bringing to this issue, free speech and the First Amendment rarely come up as highly important issues to voters amongst polls.

The bottom line: The free speech debate is creating a hyper-polarized environment that candidates are exploiting ahead of the 2020 presidential election.

  • It's also an entry point for politicians to talk about regulating Big Tech. Unlike with machine learning bias or anti-competitive behavior, the harm from lying in political ads is easy for voters to understand and legislators to act against.

Go deeper:

Go deeper

Trump grants flurry of last-minute pardons

Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty

President Trump issued 73 pardons and commuted the sentences of 70 individuals early Wednesday, 11 hours from leaving office.

Why it matters: It's a last-minute gift to some of the president's loyalists and an evident use of executive power with only hours left of his presidency. Axios reported in December that Trump planned to grant pardons to "every person who ever talked to me."

Trump revokes ethics order barring former aides from lobbying

Photo: Spencer Platt via Getty

Shortly after pardoning members of Congress and lobbyists convicted on corruption charges, President Trump revoked an executive order barring former officials from lobbying for five years after leaving his administration.

Why it matters: The order, which was signed eight days after he took office, was an attempt to fulfill his campaign promise to "drain the swamp."

  • But with less than 12 hours left in office, Trump has now removed those limitations on his own aides.

Trump pardons former GOP fundraiser Elliott Broidy

President Trump has pardoned Elliott Broidy, a former top Republican fundraiser who pleaded guilty late last year to conspiring to violate foreign lobbying laws as part of a campaign to sway the administration on behalf of Chinese and Malaysian interests.

Why it matters: Broidy was a deputy finance chair for the Republican National Committee early in Trump’s presidency, and attempted to leverage his influence in the Trump administration on behalf of his clients. The president's decision to pardon Broidy represents one last favor for a prominent political ally.