Senators Announce New Bill That Would Regulate Online Political Ads (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: As tech companies face continued scrutiny over Russian activity on their ad platforms, Senators today announced legislation meant to regulate political ads on the internet. The new bill, called the Honest Ads Act, would require companies like Facebook and Google to keep copies of political ads and make them publicly available. Under the act, the companies would also be required to release information on who those ads were targeted to, as well as information on the buyer and the rates charged for the ads. The new rules would bring disclosure rules more in line with how political ads are regulated in mediums like print and TV, and apply to any platform with more than 50 million monthly viewers. The companies would be required to keep and release data on anyone spending more than $500 on political ads in a year. It's unclear how well the bill will fare. Companies like Facebook have been successfully fighting regulations for years. But this latest attempt has some bipartisan support: the act, sponsored by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) is also co-sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). "Americans deserve to know who's paying for the online ads," Klobuchar said at a press conference announcing the legislation.

Comments

First post

[wyattstorch516]

All this for 100K of Russian ads?

Re:First post

[dywolf]

as opposed to the current WH occupant, who has had his S on display openly for 70 years, and GOP voters were like "i dunno, lets see what he's got to say".
proof that lying about a woman for 40+ years can pay off in the end.

I think you may be confused...

[SuperKendall]

But this latest attempt has some bipartisan support: the act, sponsored by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) is also co-sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).

If it were bi-partisan, wouldn't it have some Republican support as well?

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill

[PopeRatzo]

The CU verdict explicitly states that anyone, regardless of nationality, can put money into US elections, as money is speech.

The CU doesn't mention nationality. In fact, it did not overturn existing laws banning foreign campaign expenditures. And, it has specific language about transparency in campaign spending. In the majority opinion, Justice Scalia specifically said that Congress needed to pass laws requiring that all campaign expenditures should be transparent.

All this new bill does is codify what the Supreme Court decided in Citizens United.

Knowing buyer of ad doesn't matter...

[CarterMeyers]

Knowing the buyer of an advert doesn't matter if you can't get any info about the buyer's doners... basically, all this will do is move the needle to anonymous superpacs... "this ad is brought to you by [insert name of superpac]". We need legislation that let's us know who donates to these pacs to begin to understand their agendas... no anonymous donations - could Be out shortly argued as being akin to the "no mask" laws that already exist in several states.

You can't fight in here!

[somenickname]

You can't fight in here! This is the war room!

-- From Dr. Strangelove

Okay, then ...

[fahrbot-bot]

"Americans deserve to know who's paying for the online ads," Klobuchar said at a press conference announcing the legislation.

... how about also requiring all, and all types of, Political Action Committees (PACs) to disclose their donors and amounts donated (note that some, but not all types, of PACs are already required to do so). And, perhaps, prominently disclose when lobbyists and special-interest groups author or edit the legislation for you Senators and Representatives. And, how about more strictly enforcing the laws the prohibit the revolving-door appointments between industry and the departments regulating those industries -- like the new FCC Chairman Ajit V. Pai, who was previously Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications.

Americans deserve to know who's paying (off) our Representatives and deserve to have those representatives and the others running our government to work for the benefit of ALL the people as a whole and not just the rich and powerful. </rant>

It wasn't the ads dummy

[Arzaboa]

The ad's were to suck folks in. It was the barrage of interactive trolling that sealed the deal. Propaganda works.

--
"No Branch!" -- Poppi

Re:It wasn't the ads dummy

[Xyrus]

There should be an asterisk next to that statement. Propaganda always works IF you know the population you are targeting.

Russia knew EXACTLY who they were targeting. They knew the issues, the hot buttons, the ideologues. In fact, the world of global media made their job almost idiotically simple. Most Americans don't give a shit about what happens in the rest of the world, but the rest of the world certainly gets more than they care for of America via our never ending stream of media. No subterfuge or spying necessary. The Russians literally just watched our 24 hour news networks and built a targeted propaganda campaign from that.

And of course, that never-ending stream of idiocy also primed the pump to the point where it was almost impossible for the Russian campaign to fail. People WANTED to believe. They turned off the critical thinking parts of their brain long ago, and would just vacuum up anything that agreed with their world view no matter how ludicrous or questionable the source might be. The Russian troll masters didn't even need to try. One comment and an entire forum would go up like a tinder box.

Easiest intelligence operation ever.

What's a political ad?

[ScentCone]

So, if I spend $501 running ads that say things like, "Hey, internal combustion engines really aren't so bad. Firefighters need them!" or "Really, we need to be careful with our H1-B visa program" or "We need leaders that only want peace, non-GMO corn, and no guns" ... which politician or party just benefited from my spending? If I spend $501 on fancy printed signs and march around downtown proclaiming the same things, how is that different?

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill

[dywolf]

BS yourself.
Requiring disclosure of who paid for the ads != free speech violation.

Controlling means content.
This has nothing to do with content.
This has nothing to do with restricting speech.

All this does is bring online political ads to the same standard that already exists for all other forms of political advertising (print, radio, tv, etc).

You once again are miscomprehending and misrepresenting the issue.

end of political speech

[doctorvo]

The companies would be required to keep and release data on anyone spending more than $500 on political ads in a year.

This would basically mean the end of political speech for individuals, because anybody who publishes a controversial ad as an individual will be torn apart by "activists" from the opposing political party.

It's also unlikely to survive legal scrutiny, since SCOTUS has repeatedly affirmed the right to anonymous free speech; this isn't the first time politicians have tried to restrict it after all.

Don't miss the forest for the trees

[cordovaCon83]

If the idea is to identify Psy Ops performed by the Russkies then indeed this bill is missing the forest for the trees. Just think Pizzagate - no one in their right mind would consider that a political ad. Still, it played a part in discrediting the Democrats and the Clinton campaign. I still think it's a good bill though - online political ads should be treated no differently than tv ads. Just don't miss the forest for the trees..

Re:Citizen's United nixes this bill

[t0rkm3]

The entire premise of freedom is that you must be "free" to exercise your rights. You are free to kneel during the anthem, and I think it appropriate that the employer should not be able to fire them for doing so. However, if the employer has to look at cutting budget due to a downturn in viewership, and the action has a direct correlation with said downturn, then performers have just denied themselves a job. Interestingly, refer to Dolly Parton's opinion on this matter. She's friends with Lily Tomlin and other hard core libs but she doesn't express her opinions in a venue where it will affect her work. Smart.

However, due to the stupidity of equating words and opinions with violence we now can legitimately express concern regarding people expressing their opinion and having violent jackasses show up at their door or their place of work. Representative governments only work when civility is applied from both sides. Expressing an opinion is a far different thing than attempting to destroy the proponent of a view that you do not hold. In that climate, the eventual result is mob mentality, then violence (St Louis), then more restrictive reactionary government. Laws like this are the ropes of the Lilliputians attempting to tie Gulliver down, but, in this case, Gulliver will not negotiate.

This law in particular is taking rights away from people passively and setting us down the road toward places like the UK, where you can now be jailed for viewing "subversive" material. Is that really where we want to be? Some of us, those that cannot think that they will ever be on the receiving end will answer yes. Personally, I use this as an empathy test. If a person cannot imagine being oppressed in the future, then their current outrage is simply an expression of desire to belong or have power, rather than an interest in building a society in which no one need fear the government.

Just because jackbooted thugs wandering the streets are enforcing the desires of a totalitarian government rather than people dressed in fatigues does not make the government less oppressive. To avoid Godwin's law, I will instead invoke early Soviet Bolshevism or populist violence associated with Cromwell. Notice in both instances the violence of the people led to more power and oppression by the government.