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

[CoolDiscoRex]

Anyone think this would be happening if Hilary had won?

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

[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!

[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!

[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).

I'll take any restrictions on ads

[mapkinase]

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

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?

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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]

Because some citizens legitimately don't have valid IDs.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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?

[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...

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.

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.

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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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.

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.

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....

Re: Trump still would have won

[HornWumpus]

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

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

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.

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

[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.

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

[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: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?

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.

Re: Trump still would have won

[Cederic]

incel Trump Eunuch

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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).