Slashdot Mirror
Democrats Ask FEC To Create New Rules To Keep Foreign Influence Off Social Media Ads (thehill.com)
Cristina Marcos reports via The Hill: Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday asked the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to establish new guidelines for online advertising platforms that would prevent foreign spending to influence U.S. elections. The move comes after Facebook provided information to Congress and special counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the FBI's investigation into Russia's election interference, about Russian ad purchases during the 2016 campaign.
"The recent revelations that foreign nationals with suspected ties to the Russian government sought to influence the 2016 election through social media advertisements are deeply concerning and demand a response," 20 House and Senate Democrats wrote in the letter. "We are fast approaching the 2018 election cycle. As such, it is imperative the Federal Election Commission begin this effort in earnest," they wrote. CNN, which first reported on the Democrats' letter, cited Facebook sources saying they expect Congress may try to require disclaimers on online political ads in the future, similar to political television ads. The Democratic lawmakers suggested that any FEC guidance address how foreign actors can use corporate or nonprofit designations to avoid disclosing political spending; what advertisement platforms can do to prevent foreign campaign activity; and possible changes to disclosure standards for political advertisements.
"The recent revelations that foreign nationals with suspected ties to the Russian government sought to influence the 2016 election through social media advertisements are deeply concerning and demand a response," 20 House and Senate Democrats wrote in the letter. "We are fast approaching the 2018 election cycle. As such, it is imperative the Federal Election Commission begin this effort in earnest," they wrote. CNN, which first reported on the Democrats' letter, cited Facebook sources saying they expect Congress may try to require disclaimers on online political ads in the future, similar to political television ads. The Democratic lawmakers suggested that any FEC guidance address how foreign actors can use corporate or nonprofit designations to avoid disclosing political spending; what advertisement platforms can do to prevent foreign campaign activity; and possible changes to disclosure standards for political advertisements.
They're happy to invite in any immigrant who they think will vote Democrat. But heaven forbid a Russian conservative buy an ad.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
And how much influence do foreign owned corporations exert in the US election cycle through their unlimited and unaccountable spending on party political advertising and campaigning. Then there's the issue of such corporations' influence over law-making through lobbying. Fake news and hacking political parties email accounts are the least of the US's worries in this respect.
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
The Democrats don't seem to have a problem with the millions of dollars Hillary Clinton took from foreign governments.
...how these discussions and articles and pundents never mention... China... in the list of foreign influences on the USA?
It's not like China has ever directly involved themselves in our elections before...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ... shit.
You know it's illegal for a foreign national to buy campaign ads in the US, right? Has been for a while now. For 45 years, to be exact. FECA was signed into law in 1972, by Richard M. Nixon.
You are welcome on my lawn.
There are already restrictions on campaign advertising. No one claims they violate the first amendment
It's been illegal for foreign nationals to purchase campaign ads for US elections since 1972. It's even illegal to sell campaign ads to foreign nationals (putting Facebook in some jeopardy in the event the Justice Department decides to enforce the law).
The letter from Dems to the FEC is a request for information from the commission explaining how they're going to meet this legal obligation in regard to social media advertising.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No, it's against the law. Unfortunately, Congress has never implemented the disclosure laws that the Supreme Court insisted upon with their Citizens United decision. It's a fucked up situation all around, and there's been zero will from the Republican-controlled Congress to do anything about how easy it is to game our elections with money.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I think they are overspending on this thread. There's like 5 putin rogonosets to every one actual slashdotter who even bothered to open the thread.
Someone had to do it.
You still don't get why Trump won. The sheer level of insufferable arrogance from upper-middle class liberals that dominate internet discussion is a massive reason why. A huge part of why nationalism (whether it's Trump or Brexit or populist parties Swedish Democrats in Sweden, Front Nationale in France, and others throughout Europe) is seeing such a surge in support is in opposition to the CONSTANT liberal circlejerking in the media and refusal to even consider that the working class isn't a bunch of idiotic, evil racists, but bases its vote on real world experiences that they go through and rational self interest.
They are sick and tired of sneering upper middle class liberals scaremongering about anybody who isn't part of the political establishment and being called racists for wanting to maintain a national sovereignty and set of values.People are sick and tired of ad hominems being the dominant form of discourse from the left whenever issues relating to protecting our national borders and culture come up. They are sick and tired of their acquaintances screaming on Facebook UNFRIEND ME IF YOU SUPPORT TRUMP YOU RACIST BIGOT.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Here we have Clinton, who asked the Ukraine for dirt on Trump during the election.
Clinton who lied under oath 7 times provably, and had her husband interfere with an investigation.
Clinton took on the order of $150 million in bribes from Russia while running the state department.
Clinton who literally rigged a national primary for the DNC to win it because she couldn't beat Sanders.
And you complain about Republicans and elections? You are quite possibly the dumbest person on /. these days, and that is including creimer. Don't worry, you are so stupid you will still blindly vote DNC straight down the ticket no matter how corrupt they are or how badly they treat the middle class, because a rock has more common sense than you.
Liberals have hit peak stupidity. They support people who literally rig elections while complaining about a couple Facebook ads that "might" have been bought by Russia. They ignore actual election fraud, support those who commit it, and then complain about freedom of speech. Yes, we have hit peak stupidity with PopeRatzo.
While I agree with you that hubris plays a big role, it's also bigger than that.
It's the blatant dishonesty combined with the hubris. The left basically says we are going to lie to you because we don't trust you to make the "correct" decision if you are fully informed. To wit, in Germany, they claim importing over a million Syrian refugees is vital to the economy, despite the fact that most of them are illiterate in their own language (much less German), and the vast majority are simply unemployable and so will be huge net drains on the economy. So the economic argument is bullshit, but clearly they are serving some other purpose which the left is not being honest about. Same thing with the Affordable Care Act. Remember how it was going to lower prices for most Americans? Remember how it was going to increase access to care? Compare the promises with the actual outcome. The left is pathologically unable to tell the truth about their agenda or their tactics, because the vast majority of people would recoil in horror if they were honest. So they cloak it in terms like fairness, affordable, economic vitality, humanitarianism, etc, while the real goal is enervating the populace and taking ever more control over everyone's lives.
No, it's because GP is correct. Hillary's campaign mostly catered to upper spectrum socioeconomic democrats, while ignoring the wants of practically all of the states that she lost, while at the same time referring to them as "deplorables" and "angry white men", with the media (especially pop-culture talk shows like the view, the daily show, etc) and the democratic political elite doing the same. I see the democrats talk about how we need to protect marginalized groups all the time, and it seems that their solution to protecting them is by marginalizing another group. (European politicians are doing the same thing on a large scale lately, by the way, and they wonder why there's a sudden dramatic rise in the number of people voting for far, far right parties.)
You yourself are beholden to this exact same hypocrisy.
Hillary's loss was well deserved. Besides, I distinctly recall during the 2004 election when the Democrats were praising foreign intervention:
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
Not that I support Russian intervention, mind you, nor do I support Trump, nor am I a conservative.
Wow, this is a parody, right? I said shitting all over people and ridiculously exaggerating what they say was the problem, and you post a comment doing exactly that?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!