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