Ron DeSantis on Technology

Free speech for American tech; free market for Chinese tech

DESANTIS: No. I think you look at how our societies developed, they have huge amount of power over our society. They've cracked down on free speech. We're not saying you don't want them to do business, but you want with it to be a free market. And right now, they're monopolies. But this issue of China is really going to be fundamental. We have subcontracted out so much of our national needs to the CCP [Chinese Communist Party]. We rely on them for a whole host of issues. We need to reshore, and we need to decouple all those important industries. We need to get that back in the United States. They are our top geopolitical adversary by a country mile. [Chinese President] Xi Jinping's got huge ambitions not only in the Asian-Pacific, but as you mentioned earlier, in our region. But ultimately, we've got to beat them on the economy.

Enact protections for the data privacy of all Floridians

Floridians have a right to control their personal data

Hold big tech accountable for political censorship

Net neutrality was an FEC massive power grab

DeSantis: No. Obama-era FCC requirement for net neutrality was a "massive power grab."

Gillum: Yes. FCC decision to dismantle was an attack on FL communities & residents.

FCC requirement for net neutrality was a massive power grab

Ron DeSantis (R): No. Obama-era FCC requirement for net neutrality was a "massive power grab."

Andrew Gillum (D): Yes. FCC decision to dismantle was an attack on FL communities & residents.

Award research grants based on national interest.

Congressional Summary: Scientific Research in the National Interest Act: This bill directs the National Science Foundation (NSF) to award federal funding for basic research and education in the sciences only if the grant promotes the progress of science in the United States, is worthy of federal funding, and is in the national interest.

Support on GovTrack.us: Lead sponsor Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX-21)--chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee--noted the millions of dollars the NSF has doled out for purposes he considers less than worthwhile. In particular, he cited a few examples he considered particularly egregious, including:

• $700,000 to support a climate change-themed musical
• $487,000 to study the Icelandic textile industry during the Viking era
• $516,000 to help amateurs create a video game to `Relive Prom Night`

Opposition on GovTrack.us: The Science Committee`s ranking member, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX-30) called the bill anti-science. She wrote, `Most Members of Congress lack the relevant expertise to fairly evaluate the merits of any particular grant. If we do not trust the Nation`s scientific experts to make that judgement, then who are we to trust?` Johnson also noted that the NSF already has a rigorous review process, only funding about 1/5 of grant proposals.

White House Opposition: Contrary to its stated purpose, [HR.3293] would add nothing to accountability in Federal funding for scientific research, while needlessly adding to bureaucratic burdens and overhead at the NSF. It would replace the clarity of the [current rules implemented in] 1950, with confusing language that could cast a shadow over the value of basic research.

Legislative outcome: Passed House 236-178-26 (roll call 70, CR H684) on 2/11/16; bill died in Senate committee. The White House had threatened to veto the bill if it passed the Senate.