Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Washington Sues Facebook, Google For Failure To Disclose Political Ad Spending (techcrunch.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the closed-book dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Facebook and Google were paid millions for political advertising purposes in Washington but failed for years to publish related information -- such as the advertiser's address -- as required by state law, alleges a lawsuit by the state's attorney general. Washington law requires that "political campaign and lobbying contributions and expenditures be fully disclosed to the public and that secrecy is to be avoided." Specifically, "documents and books of account" must be made available for public inspection during the campaign and for three years following; these must detail the candidate, name of advertiser, address, cost and method of payment, and description services rendered. Bob Ferguson, Washington's attorney general, filed a lawsuit yesterday alleging that both Facebook and Google "failed to obtain and maintain" this information.

97 comments

  1. Oh look, Bob Ferguson is campaigning again by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: -1, Troll

    There isn't a minute goes by that weasel isn't trying to build his brand for a run for governor and then president. Would be nice if he actually did his damn job instead of using his office for politically advantageous activism and grandstanding.

    1. Re:Oh look, Bob Ferguson is campaigning again by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What bearing has this on the veracity of the allegations made in the lawsuit? None whatsoever? Thanks for playing!

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:Oh look, Bob Ferguson is campaigning again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      A common retort of the lawfare advocate.

    3. Re:Oh look, Bob Ferguson is campaigning again by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      You could complain that the law shouldn't exist or that it's a bogus prosecution. The gibberish you just posted is completely worthless.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Oh look, Bob Ferguson is campaigning again by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, can you try that again in English? Thanks!

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re:Oh look, Bob Ferguson is campaigning again by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      Lawful + welfare = ...lawfare??

      You're Russian, aren't you?

    6. Re:Oh look, Bob Ferguson is campaigning again by fluffernutter · · Score: 0

      The good news for him is that being a weasel is now apparently the new way to become president. Good luck for the future, Americans!

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    7. Re:Oh look, Bob Ferguson is campaigning again by DeVilla · · Score: 1

      New? How new? Do you mean the guy who was going to increase protections for whistle-blowers, stop warrant-less surveillance and close Guantanamo Bay?

      Or are you thinking of the fellow who was "a uniter and not a divider" that was going to keep America out of quagmires that don't have a clear exit strategy?

      Are you reaching back to the gregarious fellow who's appearance, including his hair color changed almost as much as his contradictory campaign promises based on the audience he was going to appear before?

      Or are you reaching back even further for the start of this "new" trend? Because this isn't getting any more difficult. Admittedly the latest specimen doesn't exhibit the refined, cultured quality of deceit that his predecessors had developed. But I'd be hard pressed to call it any more weaselly.

      Heck, he's so bad at lying he's arguably more transparent than what we are used to seeing in Washington. I guess it's a matter of whether you want to see the lie coming or if you'd rather a lie you can believe in.

    8. Re:Oh look, Bob Ferguson is campaigning again by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Well, at least you used to have weasels with some integrity. Now you don't even have that.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    9. Re:Oh look, Bob Ferguson is campaigning again by DeVilla · · Score: 1

      I must have a narrower definition of integrity than you.

    10. Re:Oh look, Bob Ferguson is campaigning again by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      There's something new to learn every day, I guess.

      Still pretty damn obscure, if you ask me.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    11. Re:Oh look, Bob Ferguson is campaigning again by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      No, law + warfare. See the Wikipedia entry.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  2. They have to keep track of who pays for ads? by ITRambo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe both Facebook and Google are used to simply taking money from advertisers, rather than keeping track of all the details involved. That might require real people to do work and verify information veracity. I wonder what excuses they'll come up with to explain why they ignore laws that apply to everyone else.

    1. Re:They have to keep track of who pays for ads? by Narcocide · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wonder what excuses they'll come up with to explain why they ignore laws that apply to everyone else.

      LOL! They'll say they can't afford to comply.

    2. Re:They have to keep track of who pays for ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you include Microsoft in that? I've seen several political ads on Bing since Microsoft keeps illegally changing my search engine to their garbage.

    3. Re:They have to keep track of who pays for ads? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 0

      The law sounds like it is about political campaign and lobbying contributions and so I don't know why Google and Facebook would be required to keep track of money spent on other people's campaigns, especially when there are so many ways to get around the spending spending limits (PACs for one).

      If I'm running a political campaign it's up to my campaign to keep track of the money coming in and from whom. When I go to spend money in advertising it shouldn't be up to them to keep track of things as campaign contributions.

      Is this attorney general also saying that newspapers, radio stations, TV stations, and any other company that does online or offline advertising also has to comply with the law?

    4. Re:They have to keep track of who pays for ads? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      Whut? They track everything and everyone! They can more details than makes sense in their own database!

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    5. Re:They have to keep track of who pays for ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Your post could be a perfect example of the precision of the libertarian mind, or perhaps a reminder of why one shouldn't do drugs.

      The law is simple. If you sell political advertising, then you have to keep basic identifying information about the purchaser of the ads. No, you don't have to keep track of "other" campaigns whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. You just have to note the customer's basic info. So if Vlad Putin buys a political add, the info will be available from the add seller rather than relying upon Vlad Putin to provide it. Not that hard to grasp really.

  3. Censorship is Important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember, anonymitiy is crucial to free speech, and requires those advertising to have their name and address published is a deliberate attempt to allow the masses to punish unpopular political speech.

    1. Re:Censorship is Important by Narcocide · · Score: 0

      Russians don't have the right to freedom of speech so your statement is invalid.

    2. Re:Censorship is Important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe "anonymity" is included in the 1st Amendment. And the law suit is not going after all advertisements they are focusing on political ads. There are long standing campaign regulations requiring any political ads to disclose the source. Political ads on TV or the radio all disclose the source of the ad at the end of the ad. "This message was brought to you by â¦."

      And why do people automatically believe "anonymous" sources to be honest
      ? Anonymous sources are just a good way of making shit up and not having to prove the veracity of your statements. It also provides reports and all media in general from libel charges.

    3. Re:Censorship is Important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't speech, it's paid speech.

      Thomas Paine can anonymously print and hand out all the anti-British pamphlets that he wants to, and we all agree to protect his ability to do that.

      But if someone wants to hire other people to annoyingly shove unwanted pamphlets in everyone's face, there's something beyond free political expression happening here. The King of England can easily afford to outspend Paine and win the propaganda war, but The People have a counter-measure: his paid propaganda will be openly visible as paid propaganda.

      "This pro-British essay paid for, by the fucking King."

      Speak your mind, without rules. But go pro? Here, have some rules.

    4. Re:Censorship is Important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course, your example fails when everyone is heads down in their smart phones. No, you really want to censor dissenting views.

    5. Re:Censorship is Important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We don't assume they're honest. We do assume, however, that the political violance against the CA proposition 8 supporters will be repeated by other SJWs, and consequently see the need for anonymous speech to protect the freedom of speech. It's not free speech if you'll be targeted with violence for speaking.

    6. Re:Censorship is Important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't believe "anonymity" is included in the 1st Amendment.

      It was essential to forming both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

      And why do people automatically believe "anonymous" sources to be honest?
        Anonymous sources are just a good way of making shit up and not having to prove the veracity of your statements. It also provides reports and all media in general from libel charges.

      The value of an anonymous source is that words can exist under their own weight. There is no appeal to authority for a claim made anonymously, and only fragile ad hominem attacks like the one you made. The words are worth what they are worth, no more, and only a fool insists less.

    7. Re:Censorship is Important by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Same reason they believe most of what they read; especially if it has quotes around it.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  4. Which Washington? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Washington state, or the Washington that matters?

    1. Re:Which Washington? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only idiots don't know the difference. Hint: One has a few extra letters in the name.

    2. Re: Which Washington? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      'Washington' could be either the state, or a city in the District of Columbia. 'DC' is not part of the cities name, anymore than Illinois is part of Chicago's name. A news article published on, say, the BBC news site could easily use 'Washington' to refer to the US government and would be very unlikely to append 'DC' while doing so.

    3. Re:Which Washington? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      Hey mannnnn, we're not all that bad.
      Skagit county best county

  5. Paid political ads should NEVER be anonymous by KixWooder · · Score: 2

    Exactly who paid for the ad should be visible within the ad, without having to click a link or run your mouse over it. Same as TV ads that say "paid for by".

    --
    I hate fat people.
    1. Re:Paid political ads should NEVER be anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Exactly who paid for the ad should be visible within the ad, without having to click a link or run your mouse over it. Same as TV ads that say "paid for by".

      Only espoused by non-thinkers who can't get their brain past ad hominem childishness.

    2. Re:Paid political ads should NEVER be anonymous by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You are not at all clever.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:Paid political ads should NEVER be anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      You are not at all clever.

      Go on, continue to display your complete ignorance:

      The history of anonymous expression in political dissent is both long and with important effect, as in the Letters of Junius or Voltaire's Candide, or scurrilous as in pasquinades. In the tradition of anonymous British political criticism, The Federalist Papers were anonymously authored by three of America's Founding Fathers. Without the public discourse on the controversial contents of the U.S. Constitution, ratification would likely have taken much longer as individuals worked through the issues.

      Please, grow a brain before you try to display your cleverness again.

    4. Re: Paid political ads should NEVER be anonymous by KixWooder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can have all the anonymous political talk and promoting you want. Once money is involved, the anonymity should end.

      --
      I hate fat people.
    5. Re:Paid political ads should NEVER be anonymous by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      False equivalences all the way down.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    6. Re: Paid political ads should NEVER be anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      +1 ideas are anonymous, and new ideas sometimes need that protection

      But money spent influencing people should never be anonymous, we need to know who is buying votes and politicians , because when they spend a lot of money on it there is usually something in it for them ... I've seen the odd millionaire sponsor a petition but that is small change compared to what is involved in getting someone elected or getting a bad idea to pass a referendum

      Captcha: wolves

    7. Re: Paid political ads should NEVER be anonymous by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Where is the cutoff? Lawn placards, and handbills, cost money. So do web pages, newspaper ad space, or television time. And the tracking of contributions can have a very quelling effect on free speech, since those lists can be be sent or sold to very dangerous political enemies.

    8. Re:Paid political ads should NEVER be anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't really think that solves the core issue.

      The problem is that they are allowed to state lies that causes damage without it being clear that it is lies.
      Stating who paid for the ad doesn't prevent peddlers of "essential oils" to trick mothers into replace their kids asthma medication and thereby killing them.

      Not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to make whatever claims they like, just that they should have to face some consequences when it turns out they are wrong.
      In the asthma case it would seem reasonable to at least bring up charges for manslaughter against the advertiser that tricked the mother.

  6. AWW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://i.redd.it/5pg7pckqt621...

    The spy-o-crats sure were happy when it was 99% sure and no need to look into anything.

    Never mind H ran a terrible campaign, and most presidential elections are 48/48 with 4% of the voters picking the winner at the electoral college.

  7. Just sad that Obama didn't do that by greenwow · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Trump is trying to reduce foreign influence to our elections which was one of his campaign promises.

    1. Re:Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      During Obama's last election foreign influence was helping him which was the right thing for the world. Of course he didn't take a stand against that. All thinking people knew he had to be elected.

    2. Re:Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      But foreigners that interfered with our elections then were doing the right thing. The British spy Christopher Steele that was paid by Hillary to interfere with our elections also did so for the right reasons.

    3. Re:Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary paying a foreign spy was fine since she did so for the right reasons.

    4. Re:Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Ahh yes, the old "just let the smart people decide for you" concept. Or classic liberal elitism as many of us call it. Obama was a shitty president with a sub-100 IQ (look it up). Nothing but a figurehead. Really, in retrospect, Trump and Obama will not look so different as unqualified figureheads.

    5. Re: Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary didnâ(TM)t hire him. Her law firm Perkins Coie here in Seattle hired him. She isnâ(TM)t responsible.

    6. Re: Just sad that Obama didn't do that by greenwow · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're talking about Marc Elias. He was the general counsel for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and for John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. That's a weak argument to say she wasn't responsible.

    7. Re:Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait. Are you saying the end justifies the means?

    8. Re:Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Trump is trying to reduce foreign influence to our elections which was one of his campaign promises.

      Why would he actually do that?

      The foreign influence got him elected in the first place.

    9. Re:Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the foreign influence from the law firm Perkins Coie here in Seattle, I guess you're right. Their lawyer Marc Erik Elias was head lawyer for Kerry's and Hillary's campaigns. His lawyer firm has represented the DNC for many years and was also Al Franken's lawyer when there were many shenanigans during his 2008 senate campaign. He was Hillary's "attorney of record" so there's no way he can distance himself from what she did.

    10. Re: Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because he was Hillary's and Kerry's attorney doesn't mean they're responsible for him selling foreign influence.

    11. Re: Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He destroyed Perkins Coie influence so that is a good thing. One of their lawyers was the attorney on record for both Hillary and John Kerry. Both of which used foreign spies to influence our election.

    12. Re: Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. We all need to consider the end instead of the means.

    13. Re:Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you misread the summary? This is about Washington state, not "Washington" as in DC. Pretty sure Washington state's agenda is not dictated by Trump except maybe going out of their way to oppose whatever Trump is doing.

    14. Re:Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. The intent is what matters.

    15. Re: Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really saying she isn't responsible for what her main attorney does?

    16. Re:Just sad that Obama didn't do that by greenwow · · Score: 1

      True but an attorney from Seattle named Marc Elias from Perkins Coie LLP was the general counsel for both Kerry's and Hillary's campaigns.

    17. Re: Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She isnâ(TM)t responsible for what people she hired did.

    18. Re: Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Exactly. Hillary and Kerry had nothing to do with him. They aren't responsible for indirect foreign influence in our elections.

    19. Re: Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Are you really saying that you're not responsible for everything your attorney does? And how about your manicurist?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    20. Re: Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, every real American knows that Obama held the rope from which Hilary Benghazi Clinton hung outside the Trump office window wire taping his phones while that saint of a man, with very strong and big hands, everybody says, worked to save orphans all over the world so they could see the really tremendous golf course at Mara Lago and huge crowds, really huge, biggest in history, im saying , everybody is saying, i could shoot comey and not be obstructing the Mexicans love me everybody loves me. Melania come back, I'm scared, so scared, big hands....everybody is saying..

    21. Re: Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if Kerry or Hillary could know everything their attorney Marc Elias did. He also helped Obama and several other Democrats. According to:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perkins_Coie

      they accepted foreign contributions to their candidates they represented.

    22. Re:Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary said she would take down half of DC if she wasn't elected. I say OK to that.

    23. Re:Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Republicans made her hire that Seattle law firm so everything they did wrt to hiring a foreign spy was their fault.

    24. Re: Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Try again some time.

    25. Re: Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      At that level? Please. It's a plum job for a law firm to list on its resume.

      They won't just do risky stuff for their client's benefit without their knowledge. At best, they will fake no knowledge for plausible deniability purposes.

      Wait, are we talking about Hillary's lawyer or Trump's children and lawyer?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    26. Re: Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Paying foreign governments to interfere with us is fine fire the right reasons.

    27. Re: Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Try again some time.

      You're a bit cryptic, but I totally agree: there is zero evidence that Donald Trump is trying to reduce foreign influence on our elections, or that that was one of his campaign promises. Some people are trying to rewrite history, though.

    28. Re:Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This 'spygate' is just about as lame as Donald Trump's `spygate', and comes from the same motivation: utter desperation, mixed with a huge dose of projection.

    29. Re:Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, deplorable - how did Hillary have Steele interfering with our elections?

      Steele just compiled information for Fusion GPS, which he then took, on his own initiative, to British and American intelligence. Trump had the Ruskies actively engaging in hacking the DNC and running disinformation campaigns, by buying advertising all over Facebook.

    30. Re: Just sad that Obama didn't do that by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Hillary didnâ(TM)t hire him. Her law firm Perkins Coie here in Seattle hired him. She isnâ(TM)t responsible.

      Trump didn't pay Stormy Daniels. Trump's law firm paid her.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    31. Re: Just sad that Obama didn't do that by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      You should hit the road with this.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  8. Facebook Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump supporters swallow.

    1. Re: Facebook Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes!
      We're all happy about your mom's ability!
      And who cares about her politics....

    2. Re: Facebook Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really want to get blown by... Roseanne? *shudder*

  9. Russian intervention perhaps? by stroxor · · Score: 0

    Oh man my russian brother would be fast and furious 'bout this!

  10. NEWSFLASH: Facebook gives to 4 Chinese companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BREAKING NEWS: Facebook has given at least four Chinese companies access gto user data. One has been flagged by U.S. intelligence as a security threat. http://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/technology/facebook-device-partnerships-china.html

    Enough of this shit. Facebook are a treasonous company which presents a clear and present danger to national security. If Trump sends in SEAL TEAM 6 to Facebook HQ to take these fuckers out I'd forgive him for everything else.

  11. Re:NEWSFLASH: Facebook gives to 4 Chinese companie by ole_timer · · Score: 1

    and you're surprised by this? facebook gives everyone all the data. always has.

    --
    nothing to see here - move along
  12. fucVkeR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    risk looking even the accounting

  13. How do they differentiate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When is an ad political, and when is it just an ad?
    If I take out an ad to smear some politician, is that a political ad?
    What if I do the same ad about some random person?

  14. Newsflash: Facebook is a global corporation by mysidia · · Score: -1

    Washington state laws are unable to impose requirements upon Facebook's advertising transactions, as they are interstate and international commerce, and the constitution specifically reserves the authority to the Federal Government which thus pre-empts and denies states the power to regulate such commerce.

    Also, Political free speech is protected against abridgement by the 1st amendment. Including the right to pass on speech made by a 3rd party while retaining anonymity of the source and other protections designed to protect the source from potential acts of shunning or other retaliation for their speech.

    1. Re:Newsflash: Facebook is a global corporation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post brought to you by Putin and/or the Koch brothers.

    2. Re:Newsflash: Facebook is a global corporation by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Assuming you are not trying to be a dumb ass, where in the Constitution is the Internet discussed?

    3. Re:Newsflash: Facebook is a global corporation by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Assuming you are not trying to be a dumb ass, where in the Constitution is the Internet discussed?

      Article I Section 8. The Commerce Clause. Provides congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

      The legal cases showing how this addresses transactions over the mail, the internet, and other common carriers such as by telephone --- include ones such as Quill Corp. v. North Dakota and Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue

      Held: The Commerce Clause prohibits a State from imposing the duty of use tax collection and payment upon a seller whose only connection with customers in the State is by common carrier or by mail. Pp. 386 U. S. 756-760.

      We need not rest on the broad foundation of all that was said in the Miller Bros. opinion, for here there was neither local advertising nor local household deliveries, upon which the dissenters in Miller Bros. so largely relied. 347 U.S. at 347 U. S. 358. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of commercial transactions more exclusively interstate in character than the mail order transactions here involved. And if the power of Illinois to impose use tax burdens upon National were upheld, the resulting impediments upon the free conduct of its interstate business would be neither imaginary nor remote. For if Illinois can impose such burdens, so can every other State, and so, indeed, can every municipality, every school district, and every other political subdivision throughout the Nation with power to impose sales and use taxes. [Footnote 12] The many variations in rates of tax, [Footnote 13] in allowable exemptions, and in administrative and recordkeeping requirements [Footnote 14] could entangle National's interstate
      Page 386 U. S. 760

      business in a virtual welter of complicated obligations to local jurisdictions with no legitimate claim to impose "a fair share of the cost of the local government."

      The very purpose of the Commerce Clause was to ensure a national economy free from such unjustifiable local entanglements. Under the Constitution, this is a domain where Congress alone has the power of regulation and control. [Footnote 15]

  15. Washington does not want by oldgraybeard · · Score: 2

    your corporations in the state I'd start to move everything out to a friendlier place.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

    1. Re:Washington does not want by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      your corporations in the state I'd start to move everything out to a friendlier place.

      By friendlier do you mean more corrupt?

  16. Russian Ads? by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

    Do ads from outside the U.S. have to be disclosed also?

    1. Re:Russian Ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are ads for vodka, they likely do not. If they are ads for Cheeto for POTUS they probably do have to make disclosure (EG, paid for by the Russians for Cheetos Foundation), at least if the ad takes place in Washington. Am basing this off the summary, not a lawyer etc.

    2. Re:Russian Ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are ads for vodka, they likely do not. If they are ads for Cheeto for POTUS they probably do have to make disclosure (EG, paid for by the Russians for Cheetos Foundation), at least if the ad takes place in Washington. Am basing this off the summary, not a lawyer etc.

      A political add paid for by the Russians for Cheetos Foundation is quite possibly illegal, and should therefore not be shown at all. I suspect we'll learn more about this corner of US law in the coming years courtesy Mr Mueller's special investigation.

  17. Why are you okay with racism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being racist against Russians is evidently a-okay in your book.

    1. Re:Why are you okay with racism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, we don't have to be tolerant against the intolerant.

    2. Re:Why are you okay with racism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russian is now a race?

      holy retard batman

  18. Please could this breach GDPR ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd just love to see the lawyers fight it out.

  19. Let's clean up that headline by Required+Snark · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "Washington Sues Facebook, Google For Failure To Disclose Political Ad Spending"

    Translation. "Washington State Sues Business Rivals of Microsoft"

    Now it makes sense.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  20. Does the US Postal Service comply with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like FB, USPS is paid to deliver political advertising. Does USPS maintain this data and make it public? I don't think so.
    Is the law really applying to the 'deliverer' of the advertising or the 'originator'/'submitter' of the material?

  21. Not politically motivated at all is it? NOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THey should also show how much money they spend supressing the news as well!

  22. USPS is a "common carrier" by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    > Like FB, USPS is paid to deliver political advertising. Does
    > USPS maintain this data and make it public? I don't think so.

    The post office and the phone company are "common carriers" which gives them different rights and responsibilities. E.g. if a TV or radio station program falsely called you a pedophile, you could sue them. If A sends a letter to B saying Anonymous Coward is a pedophile, the post office cannot be sued for transmitting the letter. Ditto for the phone company not subject to lawsuits if someone phones your neighbour falsely telling them you're a pedophile.

    A common carrier, by definition, *MUST* provide it's service to everybody, unless they have a good reason not to do so. E.g. an airline can refuse to carry fireworks in the cargo hold on a passenger flight.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user