In the News
Wall Street Journal: Proposed ‘Honest Ads Act’ Seeks More Disclosure About Online Political Ads
By Byron Tau
In a press conference Thursday, Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Mark Warner of Virginia unveiled the Honest Ads Act…
Reps. Derek Kilmer (D., Wash.) and Mike Coffman (R., Colo.) have introduced similar legislation in the House.
The bill still faces an uncertain path through Congress. Many GOP lawmakers have balked at Democratic proposals to curb the flow of money in the political process, with many arguing that such spending is protected by the Constitution’s guarantees of free speech. Ms. Klobuchar hoped that it could be attached to one of the must-pass national security related bills that Congress periodically considers…
David Keating, the president of the Center for Competitive Politics, said the new proposal leaves “many unanswered questions.”
“One thing is clear-it won’t do anything to the Russians, but will certainly hit Americans who want to exercise their First Amendment rights,” said Mr. Keating, whose group argues that political spending is a form of free speech and opposes greater restrictions on money in politics.
Mr. Keating said he was concerned that a lot of grass-roots groups could be affected by the law, and that the fear of liability or running afoul of the law may turn social media platforms like Facebook into a “government speech cop.”
The Hill: House slates hearing on social media political ad disclosures
By Joe Uchill
The House will host the first hearing specifically on the need to disclose the sources of political adds online.
Oversight subcommittee on information technology chairman Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas) scheduled the hearing for Tuesday of next week…
The hearing will feature David Chavern, president and chief executive of the newspaper trade association the News Media Alliance; Allen Dickerson, legal director of the campaign free speech rights group Center for Competitive Politics; communications attorney Jack Goodman; Randall Rothenberg, president and chief executive of the advertising trade group the Interactive Advertising Bureau; and Ian Vandewalker, senior counsel of the Brennen Center for Justice.
Washington Examiner: ‘Democracy vouchers’ are a sham
By Alex Cordell
In August, the city of Seattle put its “one-of-a-kind,” “democracy voucher” program to the test. It flunked.
Just weeks after the poor first showing by Seattle’s program, a group in Minneapolis began pushing for a similar program to be implemented. It is their hope that by following in Seattle’s footsteps, democracy vouchers would “create a more participatory and more representative democracy” in Minneapolis’ local elections. Before Minneapolis residents are saddled with an expensive, new program, they should know exactly what they are getting themselves into…
More than 92 percent of the total funding went to three well-established candidates: one incumbent and two activists with deep ties in the political community…
Some maintain this is only the first test for Seattle’s democracy vouchers and hiccups are inevitable. This may be true, but it’s inarguable that the measure is benefiting incumbents and the well-established at the expense of upstart candidates and political newcomers, while simultaneously creating troubling new avenues for waste and corruption.
CCP
Center for Competitive Politics Statement on Warner-Klobuchar ‘Dark Legislation’
“Despite continuing to articulate provisions they purport are in their bill, Senators Warner and Klobuchar still have not unveiled the text of their legislation that is supposed to address the problem of foreign interference in last year’s election campaign on American social media platforms,” said CCP Chairman and Former Federal Election Commission Chairman Brad Smith…
“Even without disclosing the ‘devil in the details’ of their bill,” Smith added, “the legislative principles the Senators have announced are concerning. Though purporting to regulate Russia, in fact this regulates Americans. By imposing more broad burdens on Americans’ speech rights rather than targeting foreign interests interfering with our elections, their bill would make America look a little bit more like Russia,” Smith said…
“Nobody wants Russia interfering with our elections, but a bill that would regulate $1.4 billion in online political advertising because of roughly $100,000 in spending by the Russians is not the right approach,” said CCP Senior Fellow Eric Wang. “Instead, we should be looking at strengthening the enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which is appropriately limited to the type of foreign political activity that Russia engaged in, and amending that law if necessary,” said Wang.
At the time of this statement, the text of the “Honest Ads Act” still had not been made public.
Free Speech
Daily Caller: Respect For Free Speech Dwindles Under The Left’s Assault
By Michael Thielen
Regulations, especially vague ones, make speech cost more. Consider the complex web of campaign finance laws that organizations wishing to speak on political issues and candidates have to navigate simply to express their views: disclaimer requirements, registration and reporting requirements, disclosure rules, and so on. Consider how Democrats are constantly trying to raise the price of speaking through even more regulation, such as through the DISCLOSE Act reintroduced in Congress every year. Consider how campus groups such as the Berkeley College Republicans have had to retain counsel and file lawsuits simply to invite conservative speakers to campus on the same basis as liberal speakers, due to campus speech regulations…
The First Amendment and a cultural appreciation for opportunities to speak freely protect everyone’s right to express their opinions without fear. Let’s talk about these issues openly and trust the people to decide what is right.
Washington Examiner: Joe Biden urges the Left to respect free speech: ‘Liberals have very short memories’
By Emily Jashinsky
Asked on Tuesday at a University of Delaware event with Gov. John Kasich, R-Ohio, about how to “encourage people to be more accepting of opposing viewpoints,” Biden immediately reflected on the Left’s evolution.
“You know, it’s interesting,” he said, “when I was coming up through college and graduate school, free speech was the big issue, but it was the opposite. It was liberals were shouted down when they spoke.”
“And liberals have very short memories,” Biden continued, “I mean this sincerely. It’s a demonstration what’s been lost here.”
Biden proceeded to describe the meaning of the First Amendment, referenced conflicts at Berkeley, and alluded to the marketplace of ideas, stating, “If your idea is big enough, it should be able to compete and you should be able to listen to another point of view.”
“I mean, look,” said Biden, “what we do is we hurt ourselves badly when we don’t allow the speech to take place.”
“I taught constitutional law at Widener law school for 22 years,” he concluded, “The First Amendment is one of the defining features of who we are in the Bill of Rights. And to shut it down in the name of what is appropriate is simply wrong. It’s wrong.”
Internet Speech Regulation
Recode: Here’s how U.S. lawmakers want to regulate political ads on Facebook, Google and Twitter
By Tony Romm
[T]he new Senate bill – obtained by Recode before its official introduction on Thursday – seeks to impose new regulations on any website, web application, search engine, social network or ad network that has 50 million or more unique U.S. visitors in a majority of months in a given year.
For campaigns that seek to spend more than $500 on total political ads, tech and ad platforms would have to make new data about the ads available for public viewing. That includes copies of ads, as well as information about the organizations that purchased it, the audiences the ads might have targeted and how much they cost.
The new online ad disclosure rules would cover everything from promoted tweets and sponsored content to search and display advertising. And it includes ads on behalf of a candidate as well as those focused on legislative issues of national importance, according to a copy of the bill…
[F]ederal lawmakers also seek to ensure that political ads on Facebook, Google and Twitter must have clear and conspicuous disclaimers saying who purchased them. Tiny font isn’t enough, at least in the eyes of Warner and his allies.
Lastly, tech giants would have to employ “reasonable efforts” to ensure that foreign governments and their agents – from Russia or elsewhere – are not purchasing political ads on their platforms.
Axios: Political ad buyers skeptical of new disclosure bill
By Sara Fischer
Political advertisers have some doubts when it comes to the Honest Ads Act, a bill put forward Thursday to increase political ad disclosures. According to several political ad buyers with experience buying ads on an array of platforms, the bill – while well-intentioned – is far-reaching and would be difficult to enforce. Some argue that the new disclosure rules would force advertisers to disclose highly specialized and proprietary information used by campaigns and their vendors.
Political advertisers expressed concern going into the legislative process that lawmakers with little understanding of the programmatic (automated) political ad-buying landscape would create rules that could not be easily implemented, or ones that would have unforeseen consequences. While many worked with lawmakers ahead of Thursday’s bill unveiling to provide recommendations, some worry that the bill still has clauses that would cause adverse affects on privacy.
“This is over-reaching and includes targeting information not supplied by broadcast or cable buyers,” says Jaime Bowers, a consultant who has managed ad buying for dozens of ad campaigns for Republican candidates and advocacy groups. “Digital ads are bought in a variety of different ways, and views on social are proprietary because so much goes into what you pay for a view. Targeting is highly specialized and proprietary for the agency, campaign and pollsters.”
Campaigns & Elections: What Will the Transparency Fight Mean for Digital Advertising?
By Sean J. Miller
If the ad spending isn’t properly disclosed in the newly required database, there could be fines and other liabilities for the online platforms, Klobuchar said…
“It’s really putting this on par with where broadcast and radio are today,” she said.
That idea has practitioners scratching their heads and wondering if the senators, who have both spent millions of dollars on advertising during their campaigns, truly understand the online ecosystem.
“Which agency is going to fine Facebook if the public file isn’t correct? Who’s going to be in charge of corralling the hundreds of thousands of advertisers who hit Facebook every day? There’s no authority to do this,” one Democratic media buyer told C&E. “I think this has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting through as it’s currently crafted.” …
[T]here are major questions that remain unanswered. For instance, what would a new public database of online campaign ads look like, and how will it be accessed? If a website receives 50 million or more unique visitors but is based in, say, Canada, what obligation does it have to comply with U.S. regulations? Will last-minute online spending be treated the same as IE spending, which could be incredibly burdensome to the site required to do the reporting?
Reason: Politicians-Unsurprisingly-Want to Regulate Political Ads on Facebook
By Scott Shackford
Russian meddling is just being used as an excuse to do what politicians and federal agencies have wanted for a long time-to regulate how people campaign online. As The New York Times notes, the Federal Election Commission has been attempting to regulate online political advertising for years, and tech companies have been resisting.
As is often the case when lawmakers attempt to regulate campaign advertising, there’s very little thought about how these lawmakers are not exactly disinterested parties. I mean, it’s not terribly surprising that McCain, in a permanent feud with Trump, might want to find ways to work with the Democrats to control online political ads.
Restrictions on campaign advertising pretty much always benefit incumbents and powerful parties, because they already have a significant amount of money, influence, and media access. Challengers have an uphill climb, and anything that controls campaign expenditures and advertising methods makes that climb steeper.
Wired: Congress’s New Bill Can’t Eliminate Russian Influence Online
By Issie Lapowsky
The most effective way to influence people online often is not through ads, but with viral content…
“When you say ‘ads’ people think of a display ad. When really this is more insidious,” says Albright. “It’s content. It’s news.”
At a time when anyone can start a media company overnight and use Facebook to expand its audience, there’s little reason for someone to register a Super PAC and comply with whatever oversight comes with it, says Andrew Bleeker, CEO of Bully Pulpit Interactive, who ran Hillary Clinton’s digital-advertising operation. “I’m not worried about the Trump campaign,” he says. “I’m worried about the billionaire who, rather than starting a Super PAC, starts a media company that’s not regulated, because there are huge free speech issues.” …
These open platforms now pervade our lives, and there’s likely no amount of legislation that could stop a malicious actor from exploiting them. “Like a lot of regulation, the good actors who follow the rules wind up being boxed in and the bad actors don’t care and will find other ways around it,” Sharp says.
One problem, Sharp says, is that the sponsors are rhetorically framing what is essentially a campaign finance reform bill as national security legislation.
Congress
NBC News: Facebook’s General Counsel to Testify to Congress in Russia Probe
By Jonathan Allen
Facebook’s general counsel, Colin Stretch, will testify before the House and Senate intelligence committees in open hearings Nov. 1 as part of the congressional investigation into Russia’s use of technology to try to interfere with the 2016 presidential election, a Facebook spokesperson told NBC News.
Google and Twitter executives are also expected to testify before the panels that day, according to a source familiar with the hearings. Word of Stretch’s assignment comes the week after Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg met with leading members of Congress…
Sandberg told lawmakers last week that Facebook would turn over Russia-related “organic” content – posts from users – in addition to the ads it already had furnished.
The Media
CNN: RT bucks DOJ request to register as a foreign agent
By Hadas Gold
The Russian television network RT is resisting the U.S. government’s request that its American arm register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
According to the network, the Department of Justice gave it an Oct. 17 deadline to register as a foreign agent. But according to publicly available DOJ filings, RT has not yet registered, and in a statement RT said it plans to fight back.
“Our legal team has been doing everything possible for RT to avoid having to register under FARA and the dialogue is ongoing. On their advice we are not discussing further details at this time,” RT head of communications Anna Belkina said in a statement…
RT America was singled out in a January intelligence community report for the impact it may have had on the 2016 election. The report said RT “conducts strategic messaging for [the] Russian government” and “seeks to influence politics, [and] fuel discontent in the U.S.” The report also mentioned Russian-government controlled website Sputnik as “another government-funded outlet producing pro-Kremlin radio and online content.”
