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.

26 of 46 comments (clear)

  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. 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.

  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 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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 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!

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

      Whom is the official keeper of the truth?

    3. 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?

  10. 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?

  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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