I don’t think I’ve ever done this before.

I testified on my bill even though I had been told that it was most likely unconstitutional.

Last year, I was a key player in our first-in-the nation response to the Kremlin’s disruption campaign during the 2016 election.

Several provisions in a bill I introduced were included in the law we enacted. When such ads target our state or local elections, online platforms will be required to retain copies of campaign material and to disclose who paid for political ads.

The Washington Post went to court, and the federal trial court judge ruled that requiring a newspaper to publish this material violated the First Amendment.

Meanwhile, the press reported that the Kremlin’s misinformation campaign did not end after the last ballots were counted. Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted 13 Russian nationals for their roles in this conspiracy.

That prompted me to introduce House Bill 711, which would require online platforms to make reasonable efforts to detect and prevent dissemination of anonymous foreign political communications on their sites, in addition to the campaign-related posts under last year’s law.

Prior to today’s hearing, I asked the Attorney General’s Office if my bill was constitutional. The response: If a court were to apply the reasoning of the trial judge, the bill would most likely be found unconstitutional.

With that legal advice, why did I go forward with my bill hearing?

The decision has been appealed, and the law may be upheld by a higher court.

When the relevant parties meet after that, I want my bill to be on the table.

And I want to be in the room where that happens.