Placing Election Ads On Google Will Require a Government ID (gizmodo.com)

Google announced new policies Friday that will require advertisers to prove they are a U.S. citizen or permanent resident when buying election ads. "Under the new guidelines, Google will ask advertisers -- be they individuals, organizations, or political action committees -- to prove they are who they claim to be," reports Gizmodo. "It will also require the ads to include a clear disclosure of who is paying for it." From the report: The change comes after Google and other social media companies revealed their advertising platforms were abused by foreign actors, including the Russian government-backed troll farm Internet Research Agency, during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. It also places Google's policies in line with U.S. laws for traditional media that restrict foreign entities from running election ads. Where Google's effort falls short, at least in its current iteration, is the new policies only cover ads featuring candidates running for office. So-called "issue ads" that advocate a certain point of view on hot-button topics are not covered in Google's policies.

Comments

US ID

[Lonewolf666]

Russians hiring shady US promotion agency in 3..2...1...

Re:US ID

[superwiz]

It's illegal to make political donations with money that someone else asked you to donate. But it's actually still unclear if it's legal or not to place ads with money given to you by someone else. It's not covered by the FEC, either.

Re: US ID

[Anonymous Coward]

It's terrible. Just terrible. As a card-carrying Democrat, I don't think foreigners should be allowed to have opinions, let alone share those opinions with others. Unless they get their opinions from us. In which case, okay maybe they should be allowed to share them.

Re: US ID

[CoolDiscoRex]

Anyone think this would be happening if Hilary had won?

Re: US ID

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not.

In the same way murder would not have been illegal if no-one had been successful before.

Re: US ID

[Anonymous Coward]

True.

Like many forms of electoral fraud, the people in power only make something illegal when the "wrong" people start (allegedly) abusing it.

Re: US ID

[Anonymous Coward]

So you want other countries to support LGBT but doesnâ(TM)t want them to interfere with your guns?

Nice

Re:US ID

[rickb928]

"It's illegal to make political donations with money that someone else asked you to donate."

This is unclear. Care to be more specific? Like I can't be asked to donate? Or is it that my money needs to be used, and I can't donate with money given to me specifically for the purpose for a specific candidate?

Or what?

Re:US ID

[superwiz]

Someone can't give you a pile of cash and say "I am over my specific limit of how much I can donate to candidate X, but can you donate this money in your name to candidate X?"

Re: US ID

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean if the Russian influence wasn't successful in disrupting the election and possibly causing a winner more favorable to their interests?

It probably would not be happening if Hilary had won. We don't tend to dwell on problems that don't succeed in causing damage.

Re:US ID

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really certain about this? The question is how to "pronounce" it.
Somebody can "give" you money, bot not "indicate" to whom to give it.

Re:US ID

[superwiz]

Which means that pronouncing it in this way is illegal. While it may not stop these types of things from happening under the table, it does stop them from happening out in the open en masse. So while a secretary may donate money that her boss asked her to donate, you don't see people opening storefronts where anyone who comes in and signs their name gets to donate $2800 of someone else's money.

Unpossible to bypass!

[ErikTheRed]

Yeah, because if there's one thing foreign intelligence organizations are totally incapable of and stymied by, it's creating a fake ID.

Re:Unpossible to bypass!

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't even need a fake ID, just pay a US citizen to put the ads online.

Re:Unpossible to bypass!

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. This is just more privacy violations from Google to track even more information about us.

Re:Unpossible to bypass!

[hey!]

And if that individual is not registered as the agent of a foreign government, he commits a felony under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.

Re:Unpossible to bypass!

[Anonymous Coward]

None of the 9/11 hijackers used fake IDs. They made sure to let us know who they were.

Re:Unpossible to bypass!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if they work directly for a foreign government.

Re:Unpossible to bypass!

[hey!]

Technically the applies to any "foreign principal", which includes "...foreign political parties, a person or organization outside the United States except U.S. citizens, and any entity organized under the laws of a foreign country or having its principal place of business in a foreign country."

So the law is written to take the obvious work-arounds into account. The only way around is if the principal hiring you hides its foreign affiliation, but the court could still find you guilty if they believe you guilty of "contrived ignorance" -- e.g. pretending not to know the obvious. So -- don't act as the agent for *anyone* wishing to engage in electioneering unless you can determine that they're a US organization (e.g. a PAC).

Re:Unpossible to bypass!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure did. Russians.

Re:Unpossible to bypass!

[Anonymous Coward]

So the law is written to take the obvious work-arounds into account. The only way around is if the principal hiring you hides its foreign affiliation, but the court could still find you guilty if they believe you guilty of "contrived ignorance" -- e.g. pretending not to know the obvious. So -- don't act as the agent for *anyone* wishing to engage in electioneering unless you can determine that they're a US organization (e.g. a PAC).

So that's why so many Facebook employees were sent to prison...

Re: Unpossible to bypass!

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to a homeless man.

Prison = free food
Helping Russians = working for more free food

Re: Unpossible to bypass!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thatâ(TM)s the fundamental tenets of capitalism on an individual level

I'll take any restrictions on ads

[mapkinase]

It's all good. The best is when there are no ads.

Re:I'll take any restrictions on ads

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll match your complete ban on ads, and raise you the elimination of corporate person-hood.

Fake ID?

[b0s0z0ku]

Unfortunately, it's easy enough to fake a scan of a driver's license or passport.

Also, I'm glad this doesn't extend to issue ads. The US and state governments have a history of vindictiveness on certain issues -- drug legalization, mass incarceration, etc. I can see how people supporting those issues might want to remain anonymous while still participating and trying to change public views.

Re:Fake ID?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, it's easy enough to fake a scan of a driver's license or passport.

Only works as long as it isn't verified against a government database.

"We will send a verification letter to the address you are registered at" makes it a lot more complicated to commit identity fraud.

Re:Fake ID?

[b0s0z0ku]

Unlikely since there are many forms of "valid ID" in the US. Address verification via letter -- maybe, but it's easy enough to arrange a mail drop for a one-time thing like this.

Re:Fake ID?

[superwiz]

Unfortunately, it's easy enough to fake a scan of a driver's license or passport.

It's also illegal. Very illegal, in fact.

Re:Fake ID?

[b0s0z0ku]

Because foreign intelligence backed entities really care about legality? It's already very illegal to operate as an unregistered foreign operative in the US.

Re:Fake ID?

[HornWumpus]

So what? Do you have a point?

Everybody commits 3 felonies/day. Once your comfortable with that, the world becomes a lot less stressful.

Re:Fake ID?

[Anonymous Coward]

3? Falling short there son, step up your game.

Re:Fake ID?

[Anonymous Coward]

So if a foreign national places a political ad on Google with a fake id, that makes Google a victim of a crime. If a foreign national places a political ad on Google without a fake id, that makes Google an unwitting accomplice.

Re:Fake ID?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Everybody commits 3 felonies/day.

You meant everybody living in the US, presumably. To make that claim about everybody, period, seems unwarranted.

Re:Fake ID?

[HornWumpus]

The EU also has volumes full of un/selectively enforced laws.

But yeah, there might still be places where they haven't gotten around to making everyone a criminal, just not many.

Re:Fake ID?

[HornWumpus]

3 is a slow one, in bed all day with flu.

Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[kronix1986]

Seems perfectly reasonable to only allow citizens of a country to buy political adverts in that country during an election cycle.

Can't wait to see how some people slam this new regulation as an attack on the free speech of Russians...

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Brett Buck]

Unfortunately, they can still *vote* in many areas, legally or not, and many proposals to require ID have been rejected.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[alvinrod]

Can't wait to see how some people slam this new regulation as an attack on the free speech of Russians...

I'm not going to slam this as I believe that Google is free to do as it likes as a private company, but what I will say is that I find it humorous that the people most likely to be in favor of this move are probably also the same people who are most likely to disapprove of any laws requiring a valid government ID to actually vote in an election.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

That's FUD. You can't just come in and vote. Those legislative proposals are merely about more stringent identification requirements.

By the way, in many countries you don't have to register to vote at all, while in the US you have to, well in advance.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Ayano]

Then those states need to remove the 'poll tax' of the cost of an ID. Everyone seems to say 'but it's as easy as a driver's license' but not everyone has a car, you'd be surprised by the numbers.

Make the IDs free, quick, and easily replaced, and you'd see more motion in this regard, but you don't. There's always a cost for IDs for some reason and when you put a cost on anything, there will be people who cannot afford it. And the moment you say "oh those poor people don't deserve to vote then" is the moment you cease being a true American.

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

How much did it actually cost in your state? The toner of work is much more expensive.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

Then those states need to remove the 'poll tax' of the cost of an ID. Everyone seems to say 'but it's as easy as a driver's license' but not everyone has a car, you'd be surprised by the numbers.

Make the IDs free, quick, and easily replaced, and you'd see more motion in this regard, but you don't. There's always a cost for IDs for some reason and when you put a cost on anything, there will be people who cannot afford it. And the moment you say "oh those poor people don't deserve to vote then" is the moment you cease being a true American.

BULLSHIT.

Texas did just that:

Texas voter ID law can go into effect, appeals court panel rules

And it still wasn't enough to satisfy "progressives".

Why, you'd almost think the goal of "progressives" in fighting voter ID was to do things like allow illegal immigrants to commit vote fraud.

"There's no vote fraud!"

Again, BULLSHIT. How can you tell if there's vote fraud if you don't ID the voter? You can't.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[PopeRatzo]

Unfortunately, they can still *vote* in many areas, legally or not, and many proposals to require ID have been rejected.

Yeah, except no. It doesn't happen. In fact, Trump disbanded his "election fraud" commission because after a year of work they couldn't find election fraud at any level higher than infinitesimal number of instances where some Republican in Texas tried to vote twice. That, and because the guy who Trump picked to head his "election fraud" commission has his own legal troubles.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

https://www.reuters.com/articl...
 

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[PopeRatzo]

Make the IDs free, quick, and easily replaced, and you'd see more motion in this regard, but you don't. There's always a cost for IDs for some reason and when you put a cost on anything,

It's not just the cost. In Texas, as soon as they passed voter ID laws, they closed a bunch of the State Safety offices where you obtain a state ID. But just in the minority areas of course.

State voter ID laws always come as part of a suite of new laws designed to disenfranchise people who might not vote Republican.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[PopeRatzo]

I find it humorous that the people most likely to be in favor of this move are probably also the same people who are most likely to disapprove of any laws requiring a valid government ID to actually vote in an election.

I find it humorous that the same people who are in favor of voter ID laws disapprove of any attempts to require background checks to buy an AR-15, 5000 rounds of ammo and a bump stock.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[superwiz]

That's FUD. You can't just come in and vote. Those legislative proposals are merely about more stringent identification requirements.

Not legally. But there is no active enforcement of laws which prohibit it. There is incidental enforcement. It's the difference between a traffic ticket and a domestic violence call. There is a dedicated police force to actively enforce moving violations. There is no dedicated police force to catch illegal voting. But if someone notices and reports it (like a domestic disturbance), then it gets prosecuted. And without active enforcement, there is simply no way of knowing how frequently fraudulent voting happens.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[superwiz]

I'll be the 1st. This does not attack the free speech of Russians. But attacking free speech of Russians in general is not better than attacking free speech of US citizens in particular. Free speech is afforded to all persons -- not all citizens. It is one of the moment important tenants of our society. And it is far, far, far better to allow speech to more people than to restrict in a way which does not allow trolls to troll. Hate speech should be legal. Offensive speech must be legal. Political speech should be legal for all (even for convicted felons). And if you don't like it, you are the one trying to undermine our Democracy.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they disbanded it because none of the Democrat run states would give them any data - even the publicly available voter rolls they sell to every campaign - and would not allow them to investigate tax records, jury duty records, or anything else that would help reveal voter fraud.

This is the same way Democrats prevent voter fraud from being found in every other attempt. Don't give any data, then claim that because nothing was found, no one should be allowed to look.

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the state government championing voter fraud deliberately blocked the commission. You left that part out, didn't you.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[king neckbeard]

Because voter impersonation is mathematically the dumbest way to rig an election. It's high risk for low reward, and the risk grows exponentially, so you couldn't rig an election for dogcatcher without getting caught. Any other method, including legitimate campaigns, would be a much more effective strategy.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

Background checks to buy an AR-15 have been required for decades.
Even the NRA doesn't have a problem with *reasonable* background checks. Multi-month investigations deliberately designed to never finish or cost huge amount of money, they object to.

Just like even Voter ID supporters would object to a law that required a $100,000 ID card to vote.

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[PopeRatzo]

Of course, the state government championing voter fraud deliberately blocked the commission. You left that part out, didn't you.

Would you give over your citizens personal data to a committee run by a guy who has so little respect for the rule of law that he's found in contempt of court (and then tried to use state funds to pay the fine)?

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[CrimsonAvenger]

Seems perfectly reasonable to only allow citizens of a country to buy political adverts in that country during an election cycle.

First, it must be noted that anonymous political speech is one of those things the Supremes have REPEATEDLY ruled in favour of.

Second, finding a local dupe is easy, if you have a third of a billion people to select among.

Third, we're getting to the point that the "election cycle" is all the time, and this will essentially mean that ALL political speech would be government regulated.

IOW, I can't see how this could possibly go wrong....

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is a private enterprise that isn't required to follow the dictates of the First Amendment. Constitutional protections exist to regulate government actions against it's citizens. Google and all the other non-governmental entities have the same First Amendment protections as your average citizen. As such Google can censor anything they want in delivering their products and services.

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

What? You are a moron.

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

#facts

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Immerman]

Except we're not talking about speech in general - we're talking specifically about *advertising* - aka paying someone else to broadcast your speech to a large audience without their invitation. There are a LOT more restrictions on advertising than speech, and I see no reason why politics, particularly election ads, should get a free pass.

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

Did he ever say First Amendment? Repeat after me: the first amendment is not free speech, free speech is not the first amendment. The first amendment enshrines free speech in the Constitution; but the concept of free speech exists independently of the First Amendment.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Raenex]

The US borders have become a joke. Illegal immigrants live here openly, waving Mexican flags, and making demands. It's not "high risk" when there is no serious effort to make sure illegals aren't voting.

Democrats oppose voter ID because they have become the party of illegal immigration. This was made patently clear when adding the question of citizenship status to the US Census elicited howls from the Left -- because it would discourage illegals from being counted in a census used to determine numbers of Congressman and votes in the Electoral College.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[aardvarkjoe]

Yeah, except no. It doesn't happen.

It's easy to be sure of that, when you and your sort have made it impossible to determine if someone voted illegally.

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's interesting isn't it? You prevent anyone from studying the problem or getting any data, then claim it's a non-problem because you've thwarted every attempt to look into it. Meanwhile, we have Democratic operators bragging about busing people around.

Something here doesn't add up, now, does it?

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

Make the IDs free, quick, and easily replaced, and you'd see more motion in this regard, but you don't. There's always a cost for IDs for some reason and when you put a cost on anything,

It's not just the cost. In Texas, as soon as they passed voter ID laws, they closed a bunch of the State Safety offices where you obtain a state ID. But just in the minority areas of course.

State voter ID laws always come as part of a suite of new laws designed to disenfranchise people who might not vote Republican.

I love the racist idea that somehow minorities are incapable of obtaining ID.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't wait to see how Republicans slam this new regulation as an attack on the free speech of Russians...

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop lying about it. The whole voter fraud myth is an attempt to strip peoples rights away. Nothing more.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

Its very possible, that's how we know "voter fraud" bullshit.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[superwiz]

Well, Republicans are, by definition, Americans. So why wouldn't they expect free speech as a norm?

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Ol Olsoc]

"There's no vote fraud!"

Again, BULLSHIT. How can you tell if there's vote fraud if you don't ID the voter? You can't.

Republicans know there is voter fraud. In the first person. https://www.denverpost.com/201...

http://occupydemocrats.com/201...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=946...

http://nhpr.org/post/mancheste...

https://www.arktimes.com/arkan...

http://archive.jsonline.com/ne...

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/...

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/0...

Yesiree, Republicans know full well that there is voter fraud, and that is because so much Votter Fraud is performed by Republicans - highly ranked ones even - And your wet dream of a voter ID is going to do nothing, not one thing but eliminate a trite old chestnut of a talking point.

Personally, I'm in favor of voter ID - but given that Republicans bring it up every election cycle like it is the cure blessed by God himself for them thar godless commiecrats and their letting them chocolate people - who always commit fraud, amirite? - is just Bullshit - to use your term.

Phase it in, make it free ( hey, maybe we can get that Russian Oligarch who funnels money to Republicans through the NRA to chip in ) and start long before elections.

But how is that going to actually stop Republican election fraud? Or is that Okay because the Republican party has shown it has a lock on the moral high ground?

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

Make the IDs free, quick, and easily replaced, and you'd see more motion in this regard, but you don't. There's always a cost for IDs for some reason and when you put a cost on anything,

It's not just the cost. In Texas, as soon as they passed voter ID laws, they closed a bunch of the State Safety offices where you obtain a state ID. But just in the minority areas of course.

State voter ID laws always come as part of a suite of new laws designed to disenfranchise people who might not vote Republican.

And yet somehow there have been no cases of anyone not being able to obtain an ID. Maybe those 'minorities' are a little more capable then you given them credit for.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Solandri]

For there to be risk, there has to be a way to detect it. If you're not doing anything which could detect voter fraud, like checking people's ID to confirm that they're actually who they say they are and confirming they're actually allowed to vote, then there's zero risk.

Pretty much any other means of vote manipulation (e.g. rigging voting machines, altering ballot counts, foreigners running ads) leaves some evidence of the misdeed, and thus is higher risk. But voter fraud is pretty near impossible to detect because we've passed a bunch of laws making it illegal to collect any evidence which might detect it. So it carries little to no risk. The only person I've heard of charged with it was a reporter who filmed himself doing it to demonstrate how trivially easy it was (he registered and voted at multiple precincts, though he tore up the ballot in all precincts except his real one to invalidate all his illegal votes).

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't give up evidence that I've been elected fraudulently.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Bing Tsher E]

Republicans know full well that there is voter fraud, and that is because so much Voter Fraud is performed by Republicans - highly ranked ones even

Citation needed.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Bing Tsher E]

When the Democrats are out on election day filling busses with homeless people to take them to vote (this is a 'Get Out The Vote' activity that is formally planned and performed in every major election) it would be damned inconvenient for them to have to not only give the homeless person their free pack of cigarettes, but also verify they have the right to vote.

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Bing Tsher E]

"All we like sheep,
have gone astray.
They shall herd us into busses.

And the firmament of votes,
shall make us free or at least get us a pack of smokes."

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

You had to add the other two, because one of those does require background checks. The same should also be done for voting and buying other more dangerous items like alcohol.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're content with just *one*, then just pick *one* from the *seven* that Olsoc supplied, maybe? Fucking dumbass.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[dryeo]

You guys don't have voter registration? Along with marking voters on the list when they vote?
Seems that should produce enough evidence to capture illegal voters.

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, when the Republicans are out filling busses with the elderly in nursing homes with dementia, I don't get how they can botch about it.

See? Whataboutism is the best.

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

So you make a claim voter fraud is happening, only to prove your claim is baseless by logical follow through by stating it can't be proven.

Amazing.

The moon landing was fake, too. And 9/11 was an inside job.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[cascadingstylesheet]

Because voter impersonation is mathematically the dumbest way to rig an election. It's high risk for low reward, and the risk grows exponentially, so you couldn't rig an election for dogcatcher without getting caught. Any other method, including legitimate campaigns, would be a much more effective strategy.

Then why not require IDs? What are you afraid of? It won't change anything, right?

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[cascadingstylesheet]

voter ID is going to do nothing, not one thing but eliminate a trite old chestnut of a talking point.

Then why not do it? What are you (your party) so afraid of? Why the opposition, the BS lawsuits, etc.?

Don't you want to eliminate a talking point of your opponents?

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, the census is simply a count of the number of people in a state, not the number of citizens. The only exception to this, to date, was counting slaves as 3/5s of a person, and well, we decided that was a bad idea overall.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that the way many states are getting around the idea of legal abortions is to reduce the number of places they can be performed so as to prevent people from getting to such a location, is it any wonder people are dubious of the claim that this isn't a way to keep minorities out when they are closing locations that allow people to get an ID?

These are states with a history of disenfranchising people.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[rickb928]

There's a cost for merely presenting yourself at a polling place and asking to vote. Transportation, time form work, child care, lots of possible costs.

Are we facing having to provide ADA-style transportation? Paid time off? Special needs child care?

Yeah, the 'poll tax' argument is most commonly used by those who want to deny any identification requirements at all. Not sure I accept that at face value.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[rickb928]

"State voter ID laws always come as part of a suite of new laws designed to disenfranchise people who might not vote Republican."

A literal interpretation of your statement leaves us wondering if you realize what you actually wrote.

'Motor voter' laws are 'State voter ID laws', and might be considered to be designed intentionally to encourage and abet non-citizens to register to vote. Some states with 'motor voter' laws require no proof of citizenship, though that was surprisingly common before the NVRA was enacted.

Really, the claim that voter ID laws are a Republican effort to deny voting rights to those they believe do not support their causes is just a dog-whistle for those opposed to Republican causes. "Oppose it all. No voter ID." Sure.

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[rickb928]

Moron? For referencing facts?

"“Despite substantial evidence of voter fraud, many states have refused to provide the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity with basic information relevant to its inquiry,” Mr. Trump said in a White House statement on Wednesday."

Dipping pretty low into the atmosphere here, aren't we?

ps- It warms my heart to quote the New York Times in defense of our President.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, seems reasonable until they use it to block a candidate's ads who could win over the pre-chosen!!

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

Spot on. The same folks saying requiring an ID to vote are going to be the same ones saying we need to stop the Russies from "hacking" our elections.

The incongruence will not be recognized, admitted, or dealt with.

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

The right of the individual to cast a vote in any election is nowhere clearly stated in the constitution.

The right of the individual to possess AR-15s and thousands of rounds of ammo and bump stocks is clearly described in the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights are those rights the founding fathers believed were so vitally critical, completely inviolable and utterly inherent to basic human rights that the specifically listed. They even added one at the end to clarify these weren't the only rights, just the most basic and important ones.

Voting is specifically relegated to the states who are simply prevented from implementing certain discriminatory practices. Abolishing the popular vote would not run afoul of the US constitution. Banning gun ownership does, unless and until the second amendment is repealed.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

For there to be risk, there has to be a way to detect it.

If voter impersonation were a problem - if it were something that happens with any sort of frequency other than a handful of right-wingers trying to prove you can do it and failing - you would expect to hear about people who go in to vote and find out that someone else has voted under their name. But that simply is not a thing that happens. Voter ID is a solution without a problem.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't realize the Democrats ran so many states ... Even Kobach's home state of Kansas refused. Hell, the governor of Mississippi of all places told Kobach to "Go jump in the Gulf of Mexico" over his voter fraud commission.

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[JBallz]

The New York Times quoting the President's statement is hardly a defense of the President. It also doesn't qualify as a fact supporting massive election fraud.

Further in the article you link:
"In fact, no state has uncovered significant evidence to support the president’s claim, and election officials, including many Republicans, have strongly rejected it."

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

That's your takeaway from that article? Talk about dipping low!

Also in that article:

"President Trump on Wednesday abruptly shut down a White House commission he had charged with investigating voter fraud, ending a brief quest for evidence of election theft that generated lawsuits, outrage and some scholarly testimony, but no real evidence that American elections are corrupt."

"In fact, no state has uncovered significant evidence to support the president’s claim, and election officials, including many Republicans, have strongly rejected it."

"Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Kobach have insisted that voting by noncitizens is endemic — Mr. Trump falsely claimed that millions of illegal voters cost him a popular-vote victory in 2016 — but investigations, including ones by Mr. Kobach and the Justice Department under President George W. Bush, turned up scant evidence of fraud."

Yeah, you're really grasping at straws. Just like Kris Kobach.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

Because some citizens legitimately don't have valid IDs.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[king neckbeard]

There is a way to detect it that is already in universal usage: voter rolls. You have to know a person isn't going to vote, because if they vote twice, that's evidence. So, the chances that you are going to get caught goes up exponentially with each vote cast. That's why practically every recorded incidence of voter impersonation has been a family member or someone whose non-voting was known with great certainty. It's never a mass act, because it's a statistical nightmare for risk versus reward outside of the scale of a nuclear family.

he registered and voted at multiple precincts, though he tore up the ballot in all precincts except his real one to invalidate all his illegal votes

The problem with your anecdote is that is NOT voter impersonation and it would NOT be prevented by Voter ID laws. That is indeed a viable, largely unchecked method of electoral fraud, and the reason why is because those voter rolls I mentioned don't coordinate to prevent double precinct voting. Republicans have done nothing to actually combat this.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

An Anonymous Coward noted;

That's FUD. You can't just come in and vote.

Prompting superwiz to respond:

Not legally. But there is no active enforcement of laws which prohibit it. There is incidental enforcement. It's the difference between a traffic ticket and a domestic violence call. There is a dedicated police force to actively enforce moving violations. There is no dedicated police force to catch illegal voting. But if someone notices and reports it (like a domestic disturbance), then it gets prosecuted. And without active enforcement, there is simply no way of knowing how frequently fraudulent voting happens.

Absolutely incorrect.

There is, in fact, a "police force" charged specifically with identifying, preventing, and reporting in-person fraudulent voting. Different states give them different titles (Ohio - where I currently live - calls them "election judges"), but they all share that responsibility, in addition to being obligated (under oath) to check prospective voters' names against the most-current precinct rolls, lead them to the next available voting booth and either hand them a paper ballot, or instruct them in the operation of an official mechanical- or computer-based voting machine, ensure, after they have cast their ballots, that they are properly inserted into the sealed ballot box, or that they have properly submitted their ballots by throwing the final lever, or confirmed their choices by pressing the Cast Vote "button" on a voting terminal's touch screen (and then pressing the one that confirms their desire to finalize their votes, as well - and I have personally had to chase inattentive voters down in the polling location's parking lot, and persuade them to return to the booth to personally press that final button, because election judges are forbidden by law from doing it for them).

If an election judge (or someone in another state that gives such officials a different title that, nonetheless, charges them with those same duties) suspects a prospective voter is attempting to vote illegally, he/she has both the right and the legal obligation to challenge that voter's right to cast a ballot, to refuse to allow him/her to cast a regular ballot, and to allow him/her, under official protest by a sworn elections official, to cast only what is known as a "provisional ballot" (the voter's credentials for which, I assure you, will be closely examined by senior election officials at the county election headquarters, before that ballot is removed, face down, from the clearly-labelled, sealed envelope that bears the provisional voter's verifiable identification information, and is deposited in a ballot box to be counted anonymously, only after it is commingled with other, unchallenged ballots from that precinct - or else be discarded after having been determined to be illegitimate and therefore ineligible for inclusion in the count of votes cast in that election).

And, should that first, precinct-level, elections judge suspect deliberate attempted vote fraud by the voter in question, he or she is also legally obligated to summon sworn (i.e. - badge-and-gun-carrying) law enforcement personnel (typically a county sheriff's deputy) to detain and, should the responding officer(s) decide such action is warranted, arrest and transport to jail the suspect, pending the filing of charges against him/her.

So, I repeat, your statement is absolutely incorrect. Utterly, completely, and egregiously so ...

(Posting here as AC only so as not to undo prior upmods in this thread.)

--

Check out my novel ...

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[apoc.famine]

I'm going to assume you're not a moron and try to explain.

The fundamental, most basic cornerstone of a democratic government is the right to vote. (Yes, I know we're technically a republic.) Everyone has a constitutional right to vote. When you put barriers in place, no matter how innocuous they may seem, you will inadvertently deny people their constitutional right to vote. You will deny them their ability to participate in self-government, which is the cornerstone of freedom.

Voter impersonation does not rise to the level of concern that we should be denying people their right to vote by placing barriers up that don't accomplish their stated goal. I live in Wisconsin, and here are some of the things that happened when we implemented voter ID:

90 Year Old Iwo Jima Vet denied the right to vote.

When he presented his veterans administration card with his picture on it, he was told that the card was not listed as 'acceptable' proof of his identity. He responded: 'You mean veterans can't vote?'

A birth certificate with a typo on it causes a man to not be given a photo ID so he can't vote.
People of all races, all walks of life turned away from the polls.

And for what? For what possible purpose did we implement a voter ID law in Wisconsin?

Attorney General Brad Schimel suggests Donald Trump won Wisconsin because of the state's voter ID law

That's why. Partisan. Fucking. Politics. Not because voter impersonation is an issue. Because some evil asshats decided that getting their people elected was more important than some people's constitutional rights and freedoms.

And for the record, I feel the same way about gerrymandering and denying felons the right to vote. None of these things are helping voters participate in democracy, and they're not solving any issues that are remotely of the scale that it would make it necessary to put these barriers in place.

It's shocking to me how undemocratic we've become (or we've always been, but it's really visible now) as a country, and I think it's well past time to undo all of this stupidity. And make federal voting day a national holiday with a mandatory half day off for everyone. If you really want to tackle voter impersonation, that's an easy way to do it. With a guaranteed half day off, there should be no reason people can't get to the polls. And the more people who vote, the less viable voter impersonation becomes. It's already a non-issue, but something like 90% voter participation would absolutely put a stake in it.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

make the ID's free then

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[rickb928]

In fact, while no state has reported evidence of significant voter fraud, several other entities have. States are mostly trying to ignore this.

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

And not one of them has a shred of credibility.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Raenex]

"To be fair", illegals shouldn't be here, have no right to vote, and hence have no right to count towards representation. The 3/5 compromise by the North was indeed a really bad idea, as was slavery.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Ol Olsoc]

Republicans know full well that there is voter fraud, and that is because so much Voter Fraud is performed by Republicans - highly ranked ones even

Citation needed.

A shitload of citations were provided above. I even quit because I think with the sheer ease of finding Republican Voter Fraud that I was guilding the lily.

And it isn't surprising. A cousin of projection, where typically a person who really wants to engage in homosexual activity but is ashamed will act publicly like he wants them all killed, people who engage in fraud as a matter of course, think that everyone is like them - ie, fraudulent. Of course Republicans are against what they see as fraud by Democrats. They in no way shape or form want to eliminate fraud. They belive that Democrats commit fraud like they do, and want to eliminate that. They still want to vote several times, vote in different areas where they don't live, and believe that fraud is completely acceptable as long as it elects Republicans.

Now go back and read the list of cites I thoughtfully provided. You might have to scroll up a little - hope that isn't too much trouble.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Ol Olsoc]

voter ID is going to do nothing, not one thing but eliminate a trite old chestnut of a talking point.

Then why not do it? What are you (your party) so afraid of? Why the opposition, the BS lawsuits, etc.?

Don't you want to eliminate a talking point of your opponents?

Well Ivan, I am not even remotely a Democrat, and your tipping your bias assuming I am .

I'll try this a little slower. Republicans want the talking point, not the bogus fix. If you read more than the first couple of lines - I am very much in favor of voter Identification. Free, register and get your picture taken and print out a card on the spot. Work it in over time. I already have a Voter ID where I live - Not a problem at all. I would love nothing more than the results of enacting that. REad on to understand exactly why.

Now I'll explain again, since you're having a tough t time on the uptake. There are certain Republican touchstones that can reliably be dragged out to frighten the faithful every election cycle. And one of the big fears is those chocolate people voting. Same with abortion, prayer in schools, Confederate flags and other far right wing existential nightmares.

Here's the important thing Binky - It's politics diversion tactics 101.

Having God fearing Republicans afraid of chocolate people voting is much better at gettting the God fearing Republican people to the polls than actually requiring whatever the latest efforts to keep the Chocolate people away from the polls.

Its why the outrage about removal of the Confederate flag and monuments outrages them so much - they lost a talking point.

And if America suddenly made all abortion illegal and a capital punishment for intentional and manslaughter for accidental fetus death - how are they going to get the far right social conservatives out to vote against the Godless Demoncrats. And their useful idiots fall for it every time. It's like Charlie Brown trying to kick Lucy's football, only to have it jerked out of the way - time after time after time after time.

And the worst part about a national Voter registration? It will catch more Republican fraudsters.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Because voter impersonation is mathematically the dumbest way to rig an election.

Chicago is famous for its history of people voting from the grave and for helping President John F. Kennedy "steal" the 1960 election. (JFK beat Richard Nixon by 9,000 votes in Illinois by capturing what some considered a suspiciously high 450,000 advantage in Cook County.)

Chicago And Rigged Elections? The History Is Even Crazier Than You've Heard

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ivan"? Really?
You are just a racist bigot. I know what assholes like you call Russians: snow n**gers.

Why should we even care about what you demonrat racists say about America? Go away and fuck yourself.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[PopeRatzo]

It's easy to be sure of that, when you and your sort have made it impossible to determine if someone voted illegally.

Arizona, Kentucky, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Wyoming also refused to send data to the Kobach Kommission. Texas still hadn't decided when the Kris Kobach admitted defeat and folded up the whole thing.

Are those the "your sort" to which you refer?

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Bing Tsher E]

The word 'whataboutism' is a liberal dog whistle.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Bing Tsher E]

Most of the sites you linked to constitute fake news. Several of the links make little if any mention of the political affiliation of the actors involved.

Don't spam us with your collection of echo chambers.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Ol Olsoc]

"Ivan"? Really? You are just a racist bigot. I know what assholes like you call Russians: snow n**gers.

Why should we even care about what you demonrat racists say about America? Go away and fuck yourself.

Why would I call myself a "Snow Noogie? Before you go getting your panties all in a knot, you really ought to not make stupid 100 percent wrong accusations, Sheila. Being an anonymous coward was the smartest thing you've done today.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Ol Olsoc]

Most of the sites you linked to constitute fake news. Several of the links make little if any mention of the political affiliation of the actors involved.

Don't spam us with your collection of echo chambers.

You are challenged to prove it is fake News there Beuregard. Otherwise I call fake fake new on you.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are saying it is fine to call other Russians that?
You know who else hated both the Russians and the Jews? Hitler, that's who. You liberals became what you used to hate. So fucking pathetic.

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

You certainly conflate a lot of issues while still missing the point. If requiring Id's is such a huge issue for democracy why do many other countries, legitimately in the same group of "democracy" ex Canada require an ID to vote? The exact nature of the necessary ID has changed to try to avoid a citizen not being able to vote but the rule exists.

Then again there is also coordination of "voting roles" between polling locations to both allow a person to show up at the "wrong location" (you're assigned a location within the neighborhood where u live) and stop u from from trying to vote twice at 2 different locations.

I would argue that neither party in the US REALLY wants to "fix" the problem.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Ol Olsoc]

So you are saying it is fine to call other Russians that? You know who else hated both the Russians and the Jews? Hitler, that's who. You liberals became what you used to hate. So fucking pathetic.

You sound like Kathi Newman in her in her "debate" with Jordan Peterson. It's a big cruel world, and for babushkas like you who are genetically missing your humor gland, bigger, more cruel and harder. Laugh a bit my little lobster, it makes you feel better, and more people will like you. I like you because you make me laugh - now isn't that better?

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[david_thornley]

As I understand it, citizens in many (most?) countries have a national ID card, which is in common use. Where I live, official ID is a driver's license or a non-driving ID card. The driver's license is necessary to drive, which not all people do. The alternate ID card is about as inconvenient as a driver's license, and is rarely used. Not driving, or learning later, is a trend right now, and elderly people may hang up the keys (I was very relieved when Mom did without an intervention).

In addition, voter ID laws have often been associated with making IDs harder to get. This includes closing stations that give out licenses in poor areas, among other things.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[david_thornley]

If nobody's enforcing election laws, than anything goes that's allowed by the authorities, and the only solution is to do something about corruption. Voter ID, or any other, laws won't stop the fraud. Besides, this isn't voter impersonation.

In a district where there's even indifferent law enforcement, voter impersonation has an extremely low risk-reward business.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[david_thornley]

What would voter ID laws have to do with illegal immigration? People who vote have to identify themselves, with or without documents, and so the important thing would be to keep illegal immigrants off the voting list.

Re: Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[david_thornley]

You're quoting Trump to try to establish a fact? Have you ever fact-checked his claims?

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Raenex]

Voting laws vary by locality. In my current residence, I had to supply an ID to vote. In a previous residence, all I had to do was state my name and it was checked off the list. Of course, keeping the list clean from illegals is also important.

Re:Surprised it wasn't already a requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't wait to see how some people slam this new regulation as an attack on the free speech of Russians...

It does strike me as odd that there are such loud "outrage" whenever it is suggested that Russia should not be allowed to place political adverts in American media. I mean - how would those same people feel about it, if the EU commission, the British Government, the Mexicans, ... were found to have campaigned massively for or against one presidential candidate? Or the Chinese, why not? I remember one occasion, the Danish prime minister (Anker Jorgensen) remarked in his congratulation telegram to the newly elected president, that actually he had preferred the other guy - my, oh my, didn't that just cause a stir. Maybe it would have been more acceptable if he had massive adverts against the president before the election? Personally, I don't get it.

How about an informed electorate?

[OffTheLip]

Seems like a better long term goal. US TV is rife with fake ads claiming just about anything one could imagine. Facebook is just the new version of TV.

Trump still would have won

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you lefties seem unable to grasp that?

Re: Trump still would have won

[Anonymous Coward]

Come back to us after the next election, incel Trump Eunuch. Watch what happens.

Re: Trump still would have won

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't Trump comprehend that his Russian hackers didn't deliver the landslide they promised? A savvy businessman would demand a refund.

Even his whores aren't keeping their promises.

Re: Trump still would have won

[Anonymous Coward]

If Cliton runs again... Automatic win for Trump.

Re: Trump still would have won

[HornWumpus]

They aren't _that_ stupid. But they will pivot left, which will produce the same result.

Re: Trump still would have won

[Cederic]

incel Trump Eunuch

The insults keep getting more childish. But please, why capitalise Eunuch?

Shouldn't You ID Yourself When Buying ANY Ad?

[dryriver]

If you are advertising a product or service of any kind online, and making "promises" as to the "benefits" of throwing your "real world money" at it will have for you, shouldn't there be a solid record - a name, an ID number, a contact email and phone number, a valid business or personal address - of who the hell you are? If it is possible to buy online advertising anonymously - no ID of any kind required, just transfer some money somehow - you just made life super-easy for any kind of scammer selling any kind of scam online, whether political, or financial, or otherwise. So in my view, the verified ID information of SOMEONE who is behind the ad in question should be there, and it should be possible to QUERY that information as well. If I, as a person, am being subjected to hundreds of unwanted ads a day, some legit, some scams, shouldn't I have the right to be able to lookup who placed the ad? You're putting YOUR ad in MY webbrowser after all. Why wouldn't I be able to look up who placed or paid for the ad with a simple click?

Re:Shouldn't You ID Yourself When Buying ANY Ad?

[hey!]

Well, sure, but why should Google care as long as they're getting their money?

They're only doing this as a PR gesture. Note that this only applies to actual *campaign* ads -- not to ads promoting fake news.

Re:Shouldn't You ID Yourself When Buying ANY Ad?

[Anonymous Coward]

This comment was paid for by the Corporation to Support dryriver (1010635)'s /. comments.

Re:Shouldn't You ID Yourself When Buying ANY Ad?

[cascadingstylesheet]

If you are advertising a product or service of any kind online, and making "promises" as to the "benefits" of throwing your "real world money" at it will have for you, shouldn't there be a solid record - a name, an ID number, a contact email and phone number, a valid business or personal address - of who the hell you are? If it is possible to buy online advertising anonymously - no ID of any kind required, just transfer some money somehow - you just made life super-easy for any kind of scammer selling any kind of scam online, whether political, or financial, or otherwise.

And?

The X-ray specs sold from ads in the back of comic books didn't work either. The republic survived somehow.

Everybody needs to learn to take everything - including the "legitimate" news media - with a grain of salt. Some folks won't be able to do so, but most can, if they try. And none of this is new.

Re:Shouldn't You ID Yourself When Buying ANY Ad?

[ebvwfbw]

No, of course not. We all know requiring an ID is racist. Especially when it comes to elections.

I can't wait for the echo chamber on this one...

Re:Shouldn't You ID Yourself When Buying ANY Ad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, sure, but why should Google care as long as they're getting their money?

So, buying Google Ads is in fact a great way of laundering money.

What's Meuller gonna do now?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Russians he charged actually showed up in court, and Meuller's team tried to run away and hide:

Judge rejects Mueller's request for delay in Russian troll farm case

A federal judge has rejected special counsel Robert Mueller’s request to delay the first court hearing in a criminal case charging three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens with using social media and other means to foment strife among Americans in advance of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

In a brief order Saturday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich offered no explanation for her decision to deny a request prosecutors made Friday to put off the scheduled Wednesday arraignment for Concord Management and Consulting, one of the three firms charged in the case.

...

How'd Mueller's crack team try to delay? Oh, yeah, by saying the Russians weren't properly served (but damn, they were at the hearing...):

On Friday, Mueller’s prosecutors disclosed that Concord’s attorneys, Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly, had made a slew of discovery requests demanding nonpublic details about the case and the investigation. Prosecutors also asked a judge to postpone the formal arraignment of Concord Management set for next week.

The prosecution team sought the delay on the grounds that it’s unclear whether Concord Management formally accepted the court summons related to the case. Mueller’s prosecutors also revealed that they tried to deliver the summonses for Concord and IRA through the Russian government, without success.

“The [U.S.] government has attempted service of the summonses by delivering copies of them to the Office of the Prosecutor General of Russia, to be delivered to the defendants,” prosecutors wrote. “That office, however, declined to accept the summonses. The government has submitted service requests to the Russian government pursuant to a mutual legal assistance treaty. To the government’s knowledge, no further steps have been taken within Russia to effectuate service.”

The reply from the Russians' lawyers was brutal:

In a blunt response Saturday morning, Concord’s attorneys accused Mueller's team of ignoring the court’s rules and suggesting a special procedure for the Russian firm without any supporting legal authority.

“Defendant voluntarily appeared through counsel as provided for in [federal rules], and further intends to enter a plea of not guilty. Defendant has not sought a limited appearance nor has it moved to quash the summons. As such, the briefing sought by the Special Counsel’s motion is pettifoggery,” Dubelier and Seikaly wrote.

The Concord lawyers said Mueller’s attorneys were seeking “to usurp the scheduling authority of the Court” by waiting until Friday afternoon to try to delay a proceeding scheduled for next Wednesday. Dubelier and Seikaly complained that the special counsel’s office has not replied at all to Concord’s discovery requests.

I guess Meuller didn't expect the Russians to actually show up for their trial.

And now Meuller has to respond to discovery....

Re:What's Meuller gonna do now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah formalities. Don't you just love them?
The site itself writes that it appears to be a pre-emptive strike:

POLITICO reported at the time that the move appeared to be a bid to force Mueller’s team to turn over relevant evidence to the Russian firm and perhaps even to bait prosecutors into an embarrassing dismissal in order to avoid disclosing sensitive information.

Maybe Mueller's team doesn't have anything on them after all. Maybe they do. We'll find out sooner or later.

Re: What's Meuller gonna do now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Begone vile incel Trump Eunuch!

Re:What's Meuller gonna do now?

[PopeRatzo]

The Russians he charged actually showed up in court, and Meuller's team tried to run away and hide:

No, the Russians he charged did not show up in court. Read your own goddamned citation, you soggy saltine.

The 13 people charged in the high-profile indictment in February are considered unlikely to ever appear in a U.S. court. The three businesses accused of facilitating the alleged Russian troll farm operation — the Internet Research Agency, Concord Management, and Concord Catering — were also expected to simply ignore the American criminal proceedings.

Last month, however, a pair of Washington-area lawyers suddenly surfaced in the case, notifying the court that they represent Concord Management.

To summarize, you bag of pus, no Russians have "showed up in court".

Re:What's Meuller gonna do now?

[HornWumpus]

They're charging a corporation. Sending lawyers is how corporations showup in court.

It isn't zero cost, by showing up, they are accepting Mueller's jurisdiction. They also make his team subject to discovery, which is going to suck for Mueller.

Re:What's Meuller gonna do now?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Russians he charged actually showed up in court, and Meuller's team tried to run away and hide:

No, the Russians he charged did not show up in court. Read your own goddamned citation, you soggy saltine.

The 13 people charged in the high-profile indictment in February are considered unlikely to ever appear in a U.S. court. The three businesses accused of facilitating the alleged Russian troll farm operation — the Internet Research Agency, Concord Management, and Concord Catering — were also expected to simply ignore the American criminal proceedings.

Last month, however, a pair of Washington-area lawyers suddenly surfaced in the case, notifying the court that they represent Concord Management.

To summarize, you bag of pus, no Russians have "showed up in court".

Umm, Mueller charged a corporation with a crime.

Then when the corporation showed up in court, Mueller's crack team tried to get the hearings delayed - claiming the corporation hadn't been properly served.

In other words, Mueller's crack team had to shovel bullshit, and the judge was having none of it.

It's going to really suck when Mueller actually has to turn over his evidence.

Or maybe you think it's OK to have criminal charges where the government gets to keep the evidence secret?

Re:What's Meuller gonna do now?

[PopeRatzo]

They're charging a corporation. Sending lawyers is how corporations showup in court.

So where are the "Russians" that showed up in court?

Re:What's Meuller gonna do now?

[Anonymous Coward]

The relevant part is even quoted in the GP:

“Defendant voluntarily appeared through counsel as provided for in [federal rules], and further intends to enter a plea of not guilty. Defendant has not sought a limited appearance nor has it moved to quash the summons. As such, the briefing sought by the Special Counsel’s motion is pettifoggery,” Dubelier and Seikaly wrote.

So they did not appear themselves. And GP even quotes that their move is called pettifoggery.

Definition of pettifogger
1 : a lawyer whose methods are petty, underhanded, or disreputable : shyster
2 : one given to quibbling over trifles

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.co...

Re:What's Meuller gonna do now?

[HornWumpus]

A Russian company showed up. Mueller should have only charged individuals, strategic mistake on his part. Now he's subject to discovery, which will be good fun for all but him.

Re:What's Meuller gonna do now?

[HornWumpus]

The pettifoggery was Mueller's motion, so aside from being completely wrong, you have a point.

Mueller thought he could just pose for those who've already made up their minds, now he has to show his evidence. LOL. I just love it when a bag of shit blows up in a scumbags face.

Re:What's Meuller gonna do now?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a Russian company making an appearance subjecting themselves to US jurisdiction by sending their US lawyers.

No part of this is confusing to normal people.

Mueller was looking for an unopposed win to use as "proof" and is scrambling and trying to delay now that he actually has to fight for it instead of getting a default judgement like he expected.

Re:What's Meuller gonna do now?

[Bing Tsher E]

Pope Rat-so says:

So where are the "Russians" that showed up in court?

Wow, for months now, Russians have been popping up all over in every post you make, motherfucker. Now they've disappeared?

Re:What's Meuller gonna do now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the article. I'm just pointing out what it says. I don't know whether those statements are true or not. But quoting them out of context and make strawmen is the completely wrong thing here.
According to the journalists who wrote that article it's all about technicalities. The quote about pettifoggery also comes from Dubelier and Seikaly according to the article, who work for Mueller. They accuse the defendants of using that tactic. Pot calling the kettle black? Maybe. But again, the journalists from that site appear to agree with Mueller's team. Nearly a month before this they published this article here. They even appear to feel the need to mention that judge Dabney Friedrich was appointed by Trump.

Re:What's Meuller gonna do now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same AC as above. Well, now that's embarrassing. I read wrong. Dubelier and Seikaly do indeed represent 'the Russians' and do indeed accuse Mueller's team of pettifoggery. So that part of my interpretation is clearly false. Still, the other part about the article is. The journalists do not write in favour of the defendants tactics.

Racist

[Anonymous Coward]

This racist policy disenfranchises minorities by requiring that they must get these IDs to participate in this part of the electoral process.

Only in Der Drumpf's America could these big greedy corporations get away with such despicable displays of white privilege.

Re:Racist

[Anonymous Coward]

You're expecting the thoughtful connection of voter ID and an ID for placing ads to occur. Voter ID prevents the right people from voting (in their mind) while ad ID keeps the wrong people from making ads. ;)

Re:Racist

[Anonymous Coward]

This racist policy disenfranchises minorities by requiring that they must get these IDs to purchase a firearm, a 2nd Amendment civil right.

FTFY

All Rights are Equal.

Google has ads?! I never noticed

[Anonymous Coward]

If you use a reasonable ad blocker ads don't exist. Those should really become more prevalent, the whole ad-based model is problematic, and the excessive power of Google, Facebook et alia is a manifestation of what happens when we ignore that problem.

We have arrived

[Anonymous Coward]

Papiere, bitte.

Re:We have arrived

[superwiz]

arrived where? It said that the policy was made consistent with what it has always been for the traditional media.

This is Google we're taking about

[Anonymous Coward]

The "government id" required is probably many, many of Ben Franklin's own id.

The one on green paper...

Fake ID

[Anonymous Coward]

Just use fake ID or better yet pay someone for the use of theirs. So many ways around this.

Billing Information

[Anonymous Coward]

See, bring the 10-25% VAT to all US internet services and your problems are solved as all transactions require identification to enable taxation, and a resemblance of customer service. But that latter may still be a non-issue to Google anyway.

issue ads don't need to be covered

[superwiz]

FEC says the court has already ruled that

Despite the general prohibition on foreign national contributions and donations, foreign nationals may lawfully engage in political activity that is not connected with any election to political office at the federal, state, or local levels.

It is pretty odd though that Google didn't require an id to place political ads for candidates up until now. I don't actually know if it's more odd or scary. Frankly, I am more worried about our policy being governed by ad buying by Middle Eastern oil money than by Russian money.

Re:issue ads don't need to be covered

[Archangel Michael]

I wonder how people really feel about foreign born convicted felons using their wealth to influence an election.

Re:issue ads don't need to be covered

[superwiz]

Foreign born? Or non-citizen? There is plenty of foreign-born US citizens. A conviction for a crime committed after becoming a citizen does not effect citizenship. For all intents an purposes a foreign-born US citizen is the same as a US-born US citizen. It doesn't matter how people "feel" about that. Citizenship rights of fellow citizens don't get diminished because some people feel they should. Let's hope they never do.

As for whether actual foreigners influencing elections is something that "should" be illegal, well, they can't contribute anything of value to political candidates. But if some country's citizens want to start an information campaign (let's say against a war that is being waged against their country or promoting tourism in their country), then that's the kind of political and commercial speech which has always been legal and I think we just assume that it should remain legal because it's part of our conversation as a society.

Who is the gatekeeper here...

[SuperKendall]

So I think it's a great idea, that will really put some fear into Democrats and Republicans alike.

However there's one last aspect I'd love to see - let me see the name on the ID that was approved for purchasing the ad. That would go a long way to uncovering a variety of shadow groups, including false flag ads...

Re:Who is the gatekeeper here...

[PopeRatzo]

However there's one last aspect I'd love to see - let me see the name on the ID that was approved for purchasing the ad. That would go a long way to uncovering a variety of shadow groups, including false flag ads...

That's a good idea. It was also part of McCain/Feingold campaign reform. Get that done again and then all you have to do is overturn the Citizens United case and we might get back to something like fair elections.

Re:Who is the gatekeeper here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm... Hillary outspent Trump by many multiples and still lost. We have fair elections despite Citizens United.

Re:Who is the gatekeeper here...

[Anonymous Coward]

And Hillary won the popular vote
And Trump still spent obscene amounts of money
And shadow group still ran advocacy ads that only an election commissioner could consider not an election ad
And the top 2 vote getters where historically disliked

Sorry, but to point to Trump beating Hillary as an example of money not distorting elections is absurd.

Re:Who is the gatekeeper here...

[Anonymous Coward]

How? How hard is it to launder ads through some random schmoe you've never heard of?

I bet, if it became an issue, any major party candidate in the country could find at least a thousand supporters willing to allow their ID to be attached to at least one ad.

Re:Who is the gatekeeper here...

[Bing Tsher E]

There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. The. Popular Vote.

We live in a republic of united State governments. Each State has it's voting mechanisms and it's constituionally defined mechanism to deliver said votes in the election.

Furthermore, if the polling process was changed, the result totals would change with it, so the numbers conjured up by the journalists would change due to changes in how the candidates would run their campaigns.

"The Popular Vote" is a bunch of journalists playing mish-mash with numbers they are unqualified to manipulate.

Re:Who is the gatekeeper here...

[Zontar The Mindless]

So we have someone who doesn't know the difference between its and it's telling us that there's no such thing as numbers...

Re:Who is the gatekeeper here...

[Cederic]

There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. The. Popular Vote.

Don't be silly, of course there is.

It just lacks relevance when determining which candidate becomes president.

Re:Who is the gatekeeper here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey cool, more support for the Real ID Act.

Re:Who is the gatekeeper here...

[mpercy]

Note that Sec. Clinton won less than half of the popular vote and that only about half the eligible voters in the country voted so she represents about 25% of the US population. Her "about 25%" is slightly larger than his "about 25%", something like 26% to 24%. Hardly a mandate for her either.

But this completely ignores the fact that people vote or not at least partly according to their perception that their vote will count. How many Republicans who might have voted for Trump in California simply did something else on election day because Clinton's victory in that winner-take-all state was assured? How many Democrats stayed home in Alabama in that winner-take-all state because they figure Trump had the state locked up?

If we had a nationwide popular vote, the candidates' campaign strategies would be different, the response of voters would be different. Hell, states are not even required to have a popular vote for President. They are free to appoint their electors however they chose to do so. It just so happens that right now most states use a winner-take-all vote. Article II, Section 1: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct...". If California passed a law that allowed the Governor to simply appoint all of the states 55 electors however he (or she) likes--presumably on party lines--about 10M "popular votes" go poof.

The "popular vote" is meaningless UNLESS that it the metric used for the actual election. Too many factors affect it otherwise. It wasn't.

The system in effect was the Electoral College, with the numbers of votes per state know before hand and the number needed for a win. Clinton and her team knew EXACTLY how the EC system works. She campaigned accordingly, and STILL lost to an odious rookie whom she outspent by about 4:1. She lost 5 states that Obama carried twice.

If this were a football game, an analogous case might be: Clinton had 658 yards of total offense while Trump had 629 yards, but Clinton lost by 4 touchdowns after having 5 turnovers. She simply failed to do the things necessary to score.

Re:Who is the gatekeeper here...

[Archangel Michael]

Arguing about Popular vote is like arguing over who won the Chess match.

Donald Trump, "Check mate"
Hillary, "But I have more pieces on the board, so really, I won!"

Re:Who is the gatekeeper here...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not arguing about the popular vote, just pointing out that the candidate that spent the most money had the most people vote for her. Whether that spending was part of an effective strategy is orthogonal to my point.

But it seems to be a damn easy hook to try to change the subject that Trump winning was not a victory against the moneyed interests.

Re:Who is the gatekeeper here...

[Bing Tsher E]

There of course are such things as numbers. But the numbers from each voting entity are weighted differently. That's how the system is set up by design.

Government is meant to stay as local as possible. That is what allows it to be democratic.

Well that should put a stop to all that then

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a good thing there are absolutely no actual American citizens who would be sympathetic or naive enough to be accomplices to foreign agents. Google is supar smert!

Will that apply also in other countries?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is interference in non-US countries (often by US entities) allowed?

Don't need a government ID to vote, but to buy ads

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohhh kay!

Sounds great, does nothing

[laughingcoyote]

In all fairness, I don't think there's much Google even can do about it, but this makes it seem like the problem's being addressed when it's not. All a foreign actor would have to do is hire a US-based consultant or PR company and have them place the ads.

This issue won't really get settled until we find a way to get the money out of politics. And of course, politicians are not exactly interested in doing that, so I'm not holding my breath. But this won't in any way prevent foreign actors from having influence in US elections, and may just serve to obfuscate when they do.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

To post a political, require ID. To vote, no ID required in many states. Lol

Re: Don't need a government ID to vote, but to buy

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking the same thing. Libs. Eventually their thinking will come full circle when they find out Russians are crossing the border.

This is not a one-sided coin

[brennz]

Let's hope other countries do the same thing too.

Remember, agencies of the US government regularly attempt to influence elections overseas, and, oppose the natural desires of their electorate

Below are a selection of links about the same, from across the political spectrum that are quite well-documented.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

https://www.channel4.com/news/...

https://www.straitstimes.com/w...

https://www.telesurtv.net/engl...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/...

https://www.wnyc.org/story/his...

http://www.truth-out.org/opini...

https://www.foreignaffairs.com...

https://www.thenewamerican.com...

https://www.npr.org/2016/12/22...

https://www.politico.eu/articl...

https://www.strategic-culture....

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Military Bases and Occupation Zones

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has military bases in these countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I welcome hearing how the residents of those countries feel about US bases. They should be able to campaign for/against withdrawal in US elections.

Re:Military Bases and Occupation Zones

[Cederic]

Why?

If I wanted American bases in the UK closed I'd campaign in the UK for the UK Government to work to that end.

That doesn't preclude writing to US politicians (or even candidates) but really that's not where my time and resources are best applied.

So this is ok...

[Anonymous Coward]

But providing government ID in order to vote in the US is racist?

ID

[Anonymous Coward]

Showing ID has been declared racist many times

Google is racist.

Attempting to do what is already done?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I find it humorous that the same people who are in favor of voter ID laws disapprove of any attempts to require background checks to buy an AR-15, 5000 rounds of ammo and a bump stock.

Who's attempting to require that? It is required and it's not hard to look up the process. The NRA was the one helping blacks get guns to defend themselves from the Democrat-founded KKK lynchers, so it's kind of a mystery why making it harder for black people to buy guns somehow isn't racist, when black men suffer so much of the gun violence, isn't it? It's almost like this is just an excuse to get what you want and not something you actually care about...

When you're buying a gun from a licensed retailer, you'll have to provide more than a handshake and money. Identification and confirmation of the above Federal guidelines regarding firearms will need to be provided. This process will vary from country to country.

In the United States, you'll need to furnish a photo ID and fill out Form 4473. This is used to confirm your status as a citizen who is qualified to own a firearm in the United States. These forms are kept on file at gun stores, to make records easily available to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE), if necessary. If and when a gun store closes, these forms become the property of BATFE.

From this information, licensed retailers perform background checks, in the event that you're trying to purchase a handgun. Background checks are performed through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), and are required any time you want to purchase a handgun.

Background checks and waiting periods aren't one in the same. In some places, the background check will come back immediately, while in others it may take up to three or four days if the system is bogged down. Eventually, the response should come back "approved," "disapproved," or will come back with a "delay," which means that more investigation is required. This will all need to happen before a waiting period takes effect.

https://www.wikihow.com/Buy-a-Gun

Re: Attempting to do what is already done?

[Anonymous Coward]

All your gaslighting doesn't change the actual facts, namely:

1)The gun show/private sale loophole continues to exist and provides the conduit through which most weapons hoarders and mas shooters acquire their armaments.

Re: Attempting to do what is already done?

[Anonymous Coward]

2) Nixon's Southern Strategy and the progressive movement in the Democratic Party led to the mass exidus of white supremacists from the to the GOP nearly half a freaking century ago.

3)When Reagan and his crew were in charge of California, the NRA strongly supported his efforts to curtail gun ownership by politically active minority movements like the Black Panthers, and it was only after the GOP began to kowtow to apocalyptic white gun nuts that they and the NRA began taking their current hardline stance on gun regulation.

Of course, some of us actually paid attention in history class and/or were born before 1990 and can actually remember this shit happening.

Re: Attempting to do what is already done?

[mpercy]

Which mass shooter got their weapons this way? Sandy Hook? Nope, he murdered his mother and stole her guns. Florida? Southland? Nope.

The "guns-show loophole" simply doesn't exist in reality as it does in the minds of the gun confiscation crowd. Anyone purchasing a firearm from a dealer, even at a gun show, must go through the same ID, Form 4473, and background check as they would in a store. In truth, at any gun show there may be a few private individuals who might sell one or two firearms, without a check required, but they can do that without being at a gun show. It's simply a private sale. If you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personal collection, you do not need to be licensed.

Also, background checks are required for all sales at gunshows in most blue states already (so if that's where mass shooters get their guns, by your logic, mass shootings in blue states demonstrate the failure of these laws).

Also, it seems to me that gun "hoarders" would actually be a good thing. They own far more firearms than they can use at one time, so they are in fact keeping those weapons of the street.

Re:Attempting to do what is already done?

[david_thornley]

The NRA was the one helping blacks get guns to defend themselves from the Democrat-founded KKK lynchers,

The KKK hasn't lynched people recently, but the NRA doesn't seem to have cared when a black man with a concealed carry license was shot (Philando Castile).

bias

[pD-brane]

Google will ask advertisers [...] to prove they are who they claim to be

I would not be surprised that it would become difficult to get the permit if you are of a party that is not of the current administration.

Why pay a third party?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rich people can get residency really easily. Then they pretty much lobby or buy ads spending however much they want.

Same as US corporations do already, essentially.

Why do I care who buys ads on Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they provide a government ID does that make them unlockable by my AD blocker or something?

Re:Why not just ban election ads altogether?

[Anonymous Coward]

So that Google's tweaks to their algorithms would decide outcomes of elections? That would the quickest way for them to be declared a public utility.

Re:Why not just ban election ads altogether?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well. They won't make money from not displaying paid ads or will they? So they'll present a superficial solution that makes some people feel satisfied and safer while still getting to reap that ad revenue.

Who gives a rat'z azz...

[OYAHHH]

When you have one party actively promoting voting by non-citizens?

Hilarious

[nehumanuscrede]

Require an ID to place political ads and everyone is cool with it.

Require an ID to prove you are a citizen who is allowed to vote and people lose their !?&@&!? minds.

This place makes zero sense.

Re:Hilarious

[superwiz]

I think the question is whether you have to show your id before you can talk rather than whether you have to show your id before you can vote. BTW, I do agree that you should show your id before paying money to put up an ad saying "John Smith is a crook and should not be trusted with a political office", but I also think the distinction between who can vote and who can talk is a thing.

Re:Hilarious

[Anonymous Coward]

But, how do you know who can vote if you don't make them show ID?

Re:Hilarious

[Yosho]

I know, with the way people throw a fit, you'd think that voter ID laws have historically been intentionally abused to disenfranchise minorities and the poor. Not to mention, of course, that buying political ads is a fundamental right that our forefathers wanted to ensure for every citizen.

I can tell you've put a lot of thought and research into this.

Re:Hilarious

[Cederic]

Since voting is a subset of talking, you appear to support IDs for both.

Re:Hilarious

[superwiz]

No, voting is not a subset of talking. Voting is a subset of governing. You don't vote for someone with whom you agree on everything. You vote for someone who will be making decisions which will have actual effect on lives. Voting is not an opinion poll. It's a choice of actions to actually take.

Re:Hilarious

[superwiz]

But I do think that one should show an id before voting. I agree with OP on that. I just don't quite agree with what it is one does when one buys a political ad.

Legal/illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's illegal for foreign people to buy political advertising but legal for foreign owned corporations in the US to do it.

How about just banning all election Ads

[Anonymous Coward]

Election Ads are generally just plain wrong.

It at most allow candidates to get through a simple black or white stance on issues rather than allowing people to understand the candidateâ(TM)s ideas, reasons, moral standing, motivations etc.

Election Ads are mostly fake news anyway even if itâ(TM)s by US citizens.

We should set a limit on campaign spending and have more robust debates rather than fucking Ads.....

Re: How about just banning all election Ads

[Anonymous Coward]

So how do you differentiate election Ads from activism Ads?

Re: How about just banning all election Ads

[Anonymous Coward]

flood activism ads in support of candidateâ(TM)s position without naming the candidate.

Make Coal Mines Great again Ads
Make Pornstars / Prositutes disclosures illegal
immigrants murder everyone Ads
NRA Ads
Wall Construction Company ads

Re: How about just banning all election Ads

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything must be up for sale! in true Capitalism. You have no choice!

Re: How about just banning all election Ads

[superwiz]

I am not sure that NRA advertises at all. They could be just as effective by sending info letters to their members. Their largest strength is in their large base of single-issue voters (the members, who also supply as much as 50% of NRA's budget).

Re:How about just banning all election Ads

[Anonymous Coward]

An Anonymous Coward proposed:

We should set a limit on campaign spending and have more robust debates rather than fucking Ads.....

The problem with your proposal is that SCOTUS has essentially outlawed restrictions on third-parrty, Federal-level campaign spending, and has awarded corporations, as fictitious "persons," the unrestricted right to political free speech. Oh, and it also ruled (back in 1976!) that money and free speech are the same thing, for campaign spending purposes.

All of those decisions were 5/4 votes, split purely along party lines, btw. (I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to guess which justices voted in favor of no limits, corporate political free speech rights, and money being interchangeable with actual speech.)

Essentially, that means the ONLY way to accomplish what you suggest is via a series of Constitutional amendments (because SCOTUS is likely to rule that the question of corporate free speech rights is a separate issue from that of limits on donations to, and spending directly by, and/or on behalf of candidates) - which require a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of Congress in favor of referring them to the individual state legislatures for votes on ratification AND a vote in favor of ratification by two-thirds of the 50 state legislatures - the completion of which, since 1917, typically has been constrained by a congressionally-mandated time limit (incorporated into the text of the proposed amendment itself), within which it must be accomplished. (The length of that time limit is entirely up to the congress that votes to refer it to the states, although it appears to be possible for a succeeding Congress to extend or potentially even rescind that limit, should it so decide. In that regard, Wyoming challenged the constitutional legality of the 3-year extension of the original 7-year time limit which Congress granted backers of the Equal Rights Amendment, but the extension expired without the minimum number of states having voted to ratify, before SCOTUS - which had voted to expedite Wyoming's appeal - had the opportunity to actually hear the case, and the justices then ruled it to have been mooted, and declined on that basis to hear it. The resolution of that question is therefore still firmly stuck in the "undecided" class.)

So I'm afraid your no-doubt-well-intentioned "solution" - as is the case with so many others - falls under the jurisdiction of what is often now called Mencken's Law, the original version of which (taken from the third chapter of the 1920 edition of the great man's collection of essays entitled "Prejudices: Second Series") in part reads:

... there is always a well-known solution to every human problem - neat, plausible, and wrong.

(Posting as AC only so as not to undo prior upmods in this thread.)

--

Check out my novel ...

What is the difference between Google and I?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just the money.
When I read 1984, I didn't think it was an instructions book.

so, Google won't sell ads to black people?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Democrats and their mainstream media meat puppets have for many years insisted that it is RACIST to require photo ID for voters, with the claim that black people are unable to get legitimate government-issued photo IDs.

If this is true, then I must assume that the new Google policy is to not let black political activists, politicians, etc buy political ads.

It would be nice if all the nation's political hacks could stop trying to play both sides of every issue and simply decide on which reality is the real one.

BS Rules? America would never do this

[Vskye]

This entire Russian thing with them meddling with the US elections might be true, but it's not like the US hasn't done this in numerous countries, like forever.

And regarding the special interest group ads that show up on TV during a election, it's no wonder why I hate elections.

It's amazing that current political figures in power are so clueless about the Internet and technology in general. I propose them passing a test prior to being elected.

Hey, I can always dream.

Unless They're Israeli

[Anonymous Coward]

And then they can participate all they want. All the pearl clutching about Russia conveniently igores Israel's 'interference'.

Tax Implications

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is not Google there are a stack of related companies in low tax countries.
Now by declaring Google bound by American laws, the EU Australia and Italy and France can go after google for cheating tax. Or Alphabet.

And you don't have to run an election ad. Russia could run an ad like - Are you poor and miserable, no job, cant make ends meet, no future, nothing getting better?
You know how to make a difference, do it, I do - then a picture of Stormy D winking

Or running some ads where 'These a cool guns - Russian guns' . If you agree it is your right to buy whatever you like, to keep choices and freedom open, respect the NRA. Not political

You can attack or out the person - thats not political.

US companies

[Kirth]

You want one, you got one. It's not a problem to found or even to buy a US company who can do it.

ISSUE ADS

[jsepeta]

By exempting Issue Ads, Google basically demonstrates that they don't give a rat's ass, and will continue taking Russian money to interfere in the US election process.

Oh Noes!

[zioncat]

Election and IDs?
That's voter suppression!
Disenfranchisement!!
Racist!!!
NAZIS!!!

Re:Why not just ban election ads altogether?

[dcw3]

Could they? Suppose it was from a member of a protected class? Can they legally distinguish between the types of ads? Similar to the case of the gay couple and the wedding cake, no?

Just don't ask for ID to, you know, actually vote

[mpercy]

Because, racist.

Will disproportionately impact people of color?

[mpercy]

Since people of color seem to be unable to get valid government-issued ID. That's always what we're told when voter ID legislation is on the line. So this new policy is just going to prevent people of color from making their voices heard on Google. Google is racist and just trying to suppress those voices.

Re:Will disproportionately impact people of color?

[david_thornley]

In various places, people of color have more difficulty in getting valid IDs because the people controlling who issues the IDs make it more difficult. Only a Republican would think otherwise.

Voter ID

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we just need Voter ID laws to be passed so all the illegal aliens pouring over the Mexican border can't stuff ballot boxes for crooked Hillary.

ID Schizophrenia

[mchall]

So ID required to post political adds, but no ID required to show you're a citizen and are eligible to vote (in CA at least). Yeah, no potential for abuse in either case.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

But voting in the election shouldn't require an ID

[Anonymous Coward]

says the Left.

According to democrats

[kenh]

Requiring a government-issued ID is racist and disproportionately impacts women and minorities.

I know this because Attorney General Eric Holder told me that a press conference about voter-ID laws he held inside a courthouse where, I kid you not, you needed to present gov't ID to hear him speak about how racist and discriminatory requiring a gov't ID is!