Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Releases a Searchable Database of US Political Ads (techcrunch.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the show-me-the-money dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: In an effort to provide more transparency and deliver on a promise to Congress, Google just published an archive of political ads that have run on its platform. Google's new database, which it calls the Ad Library, is searchable through a dedicated launch page. Anyone can search for and filter ads, viewing them by candidate name or advertiser, spend, the dates the ads were live, impressions and type. For anyone looking for the biggest ad budget or the farthest reaching political ad, the ads can be sorted by spend, impressions and recency, as well. Google also provided a report on the data, showing ad spend by U.S. state, by advertiser and by top keywords.

46 comments

  1. Ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    Does it include Russian US political ads?

    Hypothetically, I mean, if such a thing existed.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re: Ob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Reveal yourself VLAD.

      -=BeauHD=-

  2. unmask the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If the actual source of the money can be discovered, not "citizens for motherhood and apple pie" shell fronts, this could be most useful. "Follow the money."

    1. Re:unmask the money by LazarusQLong · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Funny you should ask. https://www.followthemoney.org... Is one such site. There are others. Google is your friend here.

      --
      "Governments have been dominated by the corporate entities and citizens have ceased to matter in public policy" true in
    2. Re:unmask the money by LazarusQLong · · Score: 2

      also you can check: http://www.opensecrets.org/

      --
      "Governments have been dominated by the corporate entities and citizens have ceased to matter in public policy" true in
    3. Re:unmask the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Site's down - I get a 503 Forbidden message...

      CAP === 'antics'

  3. Worked great for me by Cornwallis · · Score: 2

    I tried searching "filthy OR crooked OR corrupt OR evil OR morons" and it correctly showed all of them.

    1. Re:Worked great for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried searching "filthy OR crooked OR corrupt OR evil OR morons" and it correctly showed all of them.

      Wait were those ads on Google or ads for Google?

  4. Great idea but won't change a thing by sjbe · · Score: 1

    I think this sort of information is desperately needed. Unfortunately almost nobody who votes actually gives a shit about any of this data nor does it change minds. All it does is tell us who the puppet masters are that are feeding the current political propaganda. Unless this somehow translates into actual restrictions on how and where the money is spent it is purely an academic exercise.

    1. Re:Great idea but won't change a thing by butchersong · · Score: 1

      Yeah but I think transparency is really all that is needed. If there is anything the 2016 election in the US taught us it is that political ads... aren't all that relevant. We live in a networked society now and it is our circles of peers and the information we share between us that influences us most. Jeb Bush spent like 120 million in the primary... wasn't even a contender. At one point it was noted that Trump had $1.2 million on hand vs Hillary Clinton's had $42.4 million. The total figures I've seen for Hillary say about 1 billion for her campaign.

    2. Re:Great idea but won't change a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this sort of information is desperately needed.

      It's also desperately useless. Google only lists ads "featuring a federal candidate or current elected federal office holder from verified advertisers".

      Which means ads for political causes, party ads, state-level ads or even most of the stuff the Russian boogeymen allegedly did wouldn't be included.

    3. Re:Great idea but won't change a thing by ranton · · Score: 1

      At one point it was noted that Trump had $1.2 million on hand vs Hillary Clinton's had $42.4 million

      While that may have been true at one point in the election, actual spending by both candidates (and super pacs) was $1.2 billion for Clinton and $650 million for Trump source.

      If there is anything the 2016 election in the US taught us it is that political ads... aren't all that relevant.

      What is probably should teach us is that paid political ads aren't all that relevant. Free advertising in social media and new channels are far more relevant. One marketing research firm estimates that Trump benefited from $4.96 billion in free advertising while Clinton benefited from $3.24 billion. Both of these figures are far higher than any money they directly spent. And when added together Trump received nearly $1.2 billion more pro-Trump advertising than Clinton did.

      Who knows if that 26% higher advertising figure tipped the election towards Trump, but only about 1 in 200 voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin essentially tipped the scales and declared Trump the winner. One thing is for sure, if an extra $1 billion in advertising (paid or free) cannot persuade an extra 0.5% of the electorate, then advertising truly is meaningless.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    4. Re:Great idea but won't change a thing by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Transparency is great if the amount of information is small enough that you ever hope to digest it all. It's terrible when it's a useless sea of information that you can never understand fully. If you leave it to the media to digest, then you have to fully trust them.

    5. Re: Great idea but won't change a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then advertising truly is meaningless.

      You have begun on the path to seeing what this is all about. The study you cite earlier in your post, the one that quantified (estimated, guessed about convincingly) some vague notion of free advertising, was conducted by an advertising firm. They want to persuade you (persuasion being their game) that social media does have persuasive power, and, what is better, that their firm best understands that power (hence their new metrics) and thus are best positioned to conduct market research or advertising for you.
      Google's transparency gallery is, in fact, an ad showcase. To the consumer, it looks like responsible transparency or some similar concoction of buzzwords that glow fuzzily in the heart; to the marketing departments and campaign staffs of the world, it is a sampler of ideas of how they can work with Google.
      The media industry exists because they have persuaded the corporate and political worlds that persuasion works and that the media industry knows best how to persuade. Google, FB, TWTR, and their ilk must, to secure their existence, maintain the truth or illusion, whichever it be, that their ads change hearts and minds. If they seem dangerous tools that could be used by Russians or Nazis or the wrong side, all the better: dangerous things are powerful things, and you want a powerful company spreading word about your product/candidate, don't you?
      Ignore any evidence that online advertising is rigged to make money for Google instead of making an impact among consumers. Fear Google's power instead: it's dangerous and thus powerful and so right for your advertising needs.

    6. Re: Great idea but won't change a thing by ranton · · Score: 1

      The media industry exists because they have persuaded the corporate and political worlds that persuasion works and that the media industry knows best how to persuade.

      I have worked closely with many marketing campaigns over the year, and they really do work. It can be hard to tell what works, and it isn't as easy as spend $20 on ads to make $30, but marketing and advertising are effect ways to influence people. Worldwide companies aren't spending half a trillion dollars per year on marketing for nothing.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    7. Re: Great idea but won't change a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worldwide companies aren't spending half a trillion dollars per year on marketing for nothing.

      That's what you have to believe for the marketing industry to continue existing. It's also a fallacy: the fact that companies spend (or waste) money on something does not prove the value of that sunk cost. Many companies have devoted and continue to devote large salaries to diversity officers with no discernible positive effect on profits or even the vague concept of "diversity."

      The fallacy aside, it seems likely that advertising has some impact, but Proctor and Gamble's experience with online advertising (vide supra) demonstrates that the marketing industry is out to con their clients as much as they are to work for them persuading the consumer. I suspect that Google, FB, et al. grossly overstate the effectiveness of their platforms for political campaigning: I know of no one who changed parties based on a FB ad but plenty who flat-out ignore anything they see that contradicts the beliefs they already hold.

    8. Re:Great idea but won't change a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At one point it was noted that Trump had $1.2 million on hand vs Hillary Clinton's had $42.4 million.

      I had a Republican family member tell me Trump's election was proof money doesn't matter in politics. I'm pretty sure Trump is a billionaire and he would have disappeared without using his own money.

    9. Re:Great idea but won't change a thing by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      One marketing research firm estimates that Trump benefited from $4.96 billion in free advertising while Clinton benefited from $3.24 billion.

      It is fascinating to read that linked material. If you do, you will see that it is very biased against Trump. They refer to him "bask[ing] in the attention and validation" but don't say the same for Clinton.

      What I wanted to see was whether they differentiated between positive and negative "free advertising", and they did not. They counted all coverage as positive "dollars", even though they acknowledged that the media coverage was "23%" towards the negative for Trump, but close to even for Clinton.

      They excuse this mistake by dragging out the old canard ("PR adage") that "any news is good news". Please tell that to Monsanto who is currently getting "good news" coverage about a court settlement over a lost lawsuit from a gardener who got cancer from their herbicide glyphosphate. This tidbit is attached to a "news story" from a "research study" that found "hefty doses" of glyphosphate in all kinds of stuff made from oats and other grains. If you listen closely, you'll learn that those "hefty doses" are at a level that the authors of the press release think are too high, but are actually a tiny fraction of the EPA standards. Monsanto's name is being dragged into this because of the court loss, over a case that has nothing at all to do with herbicide levels in food or violation of any law or standards. "Any news is good news"?

      And when added together Trump received nearly $1.2 billion more pro-Trump advertising than Clinton did.

      You, too, are assuming that any "news coverage" is "good" for a candidate, when the truth is much different. Trump got a lot of coverage not because of pro-Trump feelings on the part of the media, he got coverage because he gave the news the sound bites that they could use to drag in viewers. And the opponents to Trump (candidates and commentators) were able to feed in more sound bites. To call the anti-Trump coverage in the news "pro-Trump advertising" is lunacy, and to count it in a dollar amount for "free advertising" is just as looney.

      If you consider positive vs. negative "free advertising", then Trump's $4.69 billion drops to $2.67 billion, while Clinton's $3.24 billion drops to $2.5 billion -- almost dead even, and when adding in the actual candidate spending you get $3.3 billion for Trump and $3.7 billion for Clinton.

  5. trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    need i write more? no!

  6. Command in Tweet Just Did It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Again!

      Oops!

  7. money by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

    If mere money had the political power that we attribute to it, we'd be discussing the legacy of President Forbes.

    1. Re:money by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      If mere money had the political power that we attribute to it, we'd be discussing the legacy of President Soros.

      FTFY.

    2. Re:money by MatthiasF · · Score: 1

      Steve Forbes is worth a little over $500 million.
      George Soros, favorite whipping boy of Alt-right wackos, is worth a little over $8 Billion.

      Michael Bloomberg, three term mayor of New York City after 9/11 who swapped political parties to win the election, is worth over $50 billion.

  8. Power by JBMcB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And who will decide what the restrictions on political ad spending will be? The current president and legislature of the federal US government? You think that's a good idea?

    It's great that you are thinking in terms of money. You also need to think in terms of power. If you give "the good guys" the power to do something, you're also giving "the bad guys" the power to do the exact same thing.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to give power to the bad guys -- they just take it. You need to give power to the good guys to fight back.

      In fact -- that's probably the best way to tell them apart.

    2. Re:Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who will decide what the restrictions on political ad spending will be? The current president and legislature of the federal US government? You think that's a good idea?

      It's great that you are thinking in terms of money. You also need to think in terms of power. If you give "the good guys" the power to do something, you're also giving "the bad guys" the power to do the exact same thing.

      By that argument we should have no police force, or if we do they will do just as much harm as good. If you're crazy maybe that sounds like reality, but to anyone else it's just plain dumb. The foundation of our civilization is that it is governed by the rule of LAW, not MEN.

  9. Does this site only include US advertising? by slashcross · · Score: 1

    I tried a couple of searches for Canadian political parties and it didn't turn up anything at all. Is this completely US-centric?

    --
    Slashdot your i and slashcross your t.
    1. Re:Does this site only include US advertising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does America's largest national park have political parties?

      Google doesn't care about Canadian politics. Google wants to virtue-signal its willingness to battle the "Russian hackers" and "outside interference" that Democrats blame for their candidate's failure to appeal to enough voters, while at the same time creating a gallery of the kinds of ads your campaign should be running and the kind of money you should be spending on Google. It's literally an ad showcase, a portfolio for Google to show off what a good investment it is, while at the same time a symbol of "transparency" or "corporate responsibility" or whatever placates the masses. Google did a good job with the paradox inherent in being a propaganda machine and denying being a propaganda machine; Facebook's blundered about much less successfully trying to tell people it both does and doesn't influence politics.

  10. Only one question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do I block them all? Do I need to use an APK or a HOSTS file? Seriously, 9 out of 10 political ads I see make me want to vote to have the responsible party executed.

    Either that, or lament the quality of thinking that makes them effective.

  11. Re:planned parenthood by Comboman · · Score: 2

    What dates did you use? The site defaults to the most recent month and given the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the SCOTUS, I don't doubt that Planned Parenthood has been buying ads lately. However, if you look at other time periods (like prior to the election), you will find others spending much more.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
  12. Transparency isn't enough by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Yeah but I think transparency is really all that is needed.

    I disagree. There has to be legal consequences or else nothing will change. I don't think any amount of transparency will matter unless it either results in legal consequences or actually affects election outcomes. Currently neither of those occur as far as I can tell because we have a delusional Supreme Court which seems to be hallucinating that having more money should entitle one to more free speech and a proportionately bigger voice in elections.

    If there is anything the 2016 election in the US taught us it is that political ads... aren't all that relevant.

    I presume you are talking about the presidential race. That was a highly unusual election with two highly unusual candidates - both extremely well known and polarizing. Political ads very much matter in most elections. If they didn't have a measurable effect then they would be doing something else. Political ads have been proven to work (including social media ads), particularly attack ads.

    We live in a networked society now and it is our circles of peers and the information we share between us that influences us most.

    That has always been the case but it's demonstrably a fact that political ads do influence elections at the margins. A lot of elections are fights for just a few percent of the voters who haven't already been swayed one way or the other. A card carrying democrat or republican probably isn't going to vote for the other guy so the ads aren't really for them.

    1. Re: Transparency isn't enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has to be legal consequences or else nothing will change.

      What crime, exactly, are you suggesting needs to be punished here? Nowhere in your post do you explain for what, exactly, kegal consequences should follow. Is it a crime to hold and promote an opinion different from yours?

    2. Re: Transparency isn't enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What crime, exactly, are you suggesting needs to be punished here?

      Murder of Truth, Arson of Integrity, Theft of Reason.

      Is it a crime to hold and promote an opinion different from yours?

      Nope, it's a crime to spread lies, deceits, and frauds.

    3. Re: Transparency isn't enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, it should be a crime to spread lies, deceits, and frauds.

      FTFY

    4. Re:Transparency isn't enough by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree. There has to be legal consequences or else nothing will change.

      Legal consequences for the exercise of first amendment rights. An interesting concept. Which part of "congress shall make no laws" is confusing? Or is it the part of "free speech" where someone saying "I support John Doe for Congress" is covered by the first amendment?

      we have a delusional Supreme Court which seems to be hallucinating that having more money should entitle one to more free speech and a proportionately bigger voice in elections.

      Ahhh, now I get it. You think "free speech" means "free as in beer". It doesn't make sense to you that exercising the right to free speech might cost money, and that telling someone they can't spend their money is essentially telling them they can't participate in "free speech". "Free speech" is apparently supposed to mean whatever can be said without having to pay for it to be disseminated.

      and a proportionately bigger voice in elections.

      "Voice" in an election is called a "ballot". More money does not mean more ballots. "Voice" in the arena of political speech costs money -- so yes, the more money you have the more you can disseminate your ideas. How terrible! But then, that's why there are things called "donations", so like-minded people (or all union employees) can pool their money and improve the dissemination of their speech. How wonderful! The natural outcome of that is that people with unpopular ideas don't get donations. How terrible!

    5. Re: Transparency isn't enough by barbariccow · · Score: 1

      Whom is the official keeper of the truth?

    6. Re: Transparency isn't enough by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Whom is the official keeper of the truth?

      It's "who", and you're talking to him. What did you want to know?

  13. Pity so much dodgy shit was on Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take a look at the DNS transfer history, Alexa webstats, and the internet archive copies for News sites that got 'trended' on Facebook.

    There was some seriously dodgy shit going on through facebook trending during the last US election.

    The process of bullshitting us will be refined to the point where we can't determine who's been lying via technical means.

  14. Spend vs. Content by Scroatzilla · · Score: 1

    I think the really interesting data would be the content, especially in state/local politics. You could do a breakdown of "main issues"
    - by region to zero in on what the politicians *believe* are the issues, then cross-reference that with issue polls
    - by party, to determine whether parties are more interested in presenting a monolithic agenda or an agenda based on constituents
    - by key words used in ad, to get a big picture of the political zeitgeist. (Looks like you can only for specific candidates and advertisers.) ....

    If you can only search for candidates and advertisers, it seems like this would only be useful for activists with axes to grind. Aren't there a million interesting things this could be used for?

  15. Change is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must admit with the election of trump media has gotten more open about what's going on. Ultimately it may be to the detriment of the Democrats in the future but a citizen getting the good end this time

    1. Re:Change is good by Archtech · · Score: 1

      Anyone who expresses the belief that the Democrats are any better than the Republicans - or vice versa - is living in cloud cuckoo land. And wasting their time, thought and emotions.

      https://i0.wp.com/www.johnccar...

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  16. You gotta hand it to them... by Archtech · · Score: 1

    ... the lengths they will go to in trying to make *someone* read their ads.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  17. Nice, but we really need.... by bobbied · · Score: 1

    This is great, but not what we really need. We really need to have a "follow the money" tool from Google.

    We need two things for politicians. 1. Who gave or loaned them what and when. Every penny they received or was spent on their behalf needs to be traceable to *exactly* who gave it. 2. What did the candidate *spend* this money on? Every penny they spend needs to be traceable to it's destination, all the way down to who catered the buffet at the election night party.

    IF we had this, it would immediately become really clear who's really in control.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  18. "We'll take anyone's money!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We'll take anyone's money!"