Democrats Ask FEC To Create New Rules To Keep Foreign Influence Off Social Media Ads (thehill.com) 195
Cristina Marcos reports via The Hill: Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday asked the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to establish new guidelines for online advertising platforms that would prevent foreign spending to influence U.S. elections. The move comes after Facebook provided information to Congress and special counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the FBI's investigation into Russia's election interference, about Russian ad purchases during the 2016 campaign.
"The recent revelations that foreign nationals with suspected ties to the Russian government sought to influence the 2016 election through social media advertisements are deeply concerning and demand a response," 20 House and Senate Democrats wrote in the letter. "We are fast approaching the 2018 election cycle. As such, it is imperative the Federal Election Commission begin this effort in earnest," they wrote. CNN, which first reported on the Democrats' letter, cited Facebook sources saying they expect Congress may try to require disclaimers on online political ads in the future, similar to political television ads. The Democratic lawmakers suggested that any FEC guidance address how foreign actors can use corporate or nonprofit designations to avoid disclosing political spending; what advertisement platforms can do to prevent foreign campaign activity; and possible changes to disclosure standards for political advertisements.
"The recent revelations that foreign nationals with suspected ties to the Russian government sought to influence the 2016 election through social media advertisements are deeply concerning and demand a response," 20 House and Senate Democrats wrote in the letter. "We are fast approaching the 2018 election cycle. As such, it is imperative the Federal Election Commission begin this effort in earnest," they wrote. CNN, which first reported on the Democrats' letter, cited Facebook sources saying they expect Congress may try to require disclaimers on online political ads in the future, similar to political television ads. The Democratic lawmakers suggested that any FEC guidance address how foreign actors can use corporate or nonprofit designations to avoid disclosing political spending; what advertisement platforms can do to prevent foreign campaign activity; and possible changes to disclosure standards for political advertisements.
Too bad.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Too bad.... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're happy to invite in any immigrant who they think will vote Democrat. But heaven forbid a Russian conservative buy an ad.
Re:Too bad.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Democrats don't seem to have a problem with the millions of dollars Hillary Clinton took from foreign governments.
Re: Too bad.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just as they have no problem with the 'hate speech' or violence from their own supporters.
Re: Too bad.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You still don't get why Trump won. The sheer level of insufferable arrogance from upper-middle class liberals that dominate internet discussion is a massive reason why. A huge part of why nationalism (whether it's Trump or Brexit or populist parties Swedish Democrats in Sweden, Front Nationale in France, and others throughout Europe) is seeing such a surge in support is in opposition to the CONSTANT liberal circlejerking in the media and refusal to even consider that the working class isn't a bunch of idiotic, evil racists, but bases its vote on real world experiences that they go through and rational self interest.
They are sick and tired of sneering upper middle class liberals scaremongering about anybody who isn't part of the political establishment and being called racists for wanting to maintain a national sovereignty and set of values.People are sick and tired of ad hominems being the dominant form of discourse from the left whenever issues relating to protecting our national borders and culture come up. They are sick and tired of their acquaintances screaming on Facebook UNFRIEND ME IF YOU SUPPORT TRUMP YOU RACIST BIGOT.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Trump won because of the standard populist tactic of telling people that they are being attacked, and offering simplistic solutions. Mexicans are stealing your jobs, so I'll build a wall to keep Mexicans out. Liberals and the political elite are corrupt and make you feel uncomfortable, so I'll throw her in jail and repeal everything Obama ever did.
On top of that, Trump went full post-truth. He didn't even try to really hide the fact that he was lying, he just went with the idea that all politicians lie so y
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump won because of the standard populist tactic of telling people that they are being attacked, and offering simplistic solutions.
You mean lack of complex solutions like "tax the rich more"?
As for the tactic of telling people they are being attacked....women, minorities, LGBT?
Re: Too bad.... (Score:4, Informative)
No, it's because GP is correct. Hillary's campaign mostly catered to upper spectrum socioeconomic democrats, while ignoring the wants of practically all of the states that she lost, while at the same time referring to them as "deplorables" and "angry white men", with the media (especially pop-culture talk shows like the view, the daily show, etc) and the democratic political elite doing the same. I see the democrats talk about how we need to protect marginalized groups all the time, and it seems that their solution to protecting them is by marginalizing another group. (European politicians are doing the same thing on a large scale lately, by the way, and they wonder why there's a sudden dramatic rise in the number of people voting for far, far right parties.)
You yourself are beholden to this exact same hypocrisy.
Hillary's loss was well deserved. Besides, I distinctly recall during the 2004 election when the Democrats were praising foreign intervention:
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
Not that I support Russian intervention, mind you, nor do I support Trump, nor am I a conservative.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's because GP is correct.
Nope, can't be. If it was merely incorrect the the correct thing to do is post a reply, as you did. What actually happened is people stared bombing with -1 Troll mods.
-1 Troll is not a substitute for -1 Disagree or -1 Wrong. Neither is -1 Overrated or -1 Flamebait.
I'd argue that +1 Interesting is more than justified, even if you think I am wrong, as it provides a counter argument and moves the debate forward. All -1 Troll does is re-enforce the Slashdot echo chamber. It is in itself a form of trolling.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
People expressing their opinions as foreign nationals, and specifically stating that they are from another country, is not even in the same ballpark as: the son of a presidential candidate having clandestine meetings with Russian spies, or a campaign manager taking millions of dollars in Russian mob money, or the National Security Advisor having to literally register as a foreign agent; or Russian agents making bot accounts to leave thousands of pro-Trump messages on various forums pretending to be American
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
People expressing their opinions as foreign nationals, and specifically stating that they are from another country, is not even in the same ballpark as: the son of a presidential candidate having clandestine meetings with Russian spies, or a campaign manager taking millions of dollars in Russian mob money, or the National Security Advisor having to literally register as a foreign agent; or Russian agents making bot accounts to leave thousands of pro-Trump messages on various forums pretending to be Americans. Take your false equivalence elsewhere.
Foreign influence is foreign influence, no matter the circumstances. If you want to go about it your way, then you can argue that a private citizen in another country can just go ahead and buy ads for political messages, which will be legal even if this person was bankrolled by a government entity.
While I am no fan of HRC, to say that she ignored the wants of the states that she lost dismisses the fact that she had a lot of plans in place, and that she communicated those plans quite well time and time again. The problem was that she was perceived as having no empathy for the plight of these people. It's the same problem I have with my wife sometimes. If she tells me about a problem she is having, I always jump to, "here is how we can solve this." All she wants to hear is, "I understand what you are saying, and that this problem is important to you." Although I'm sure that if Hillary tried her husband's "I feel your pain" shtick, she would have been lampooned for that as well. She was just an atrocious candidate.
If somebody repeatedly refers to you with terms like 'a deplorable', you won't give a flying fuck what their plans are for you. Besides, during her campaign, Hillary didn't bother visiting these states, instead ho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
BS. Trump won because without Obama or Sanders, many Democrats stayed home. In addition, Republicans have been in Science denial for years and Trump spoke their language because he comes across just as ignorant about Science and just as irritated have having his lifestyle altered because of things he doesn't like hearing from Science. Add a bit of jingoistic rhetoric and white angst over "losing" America and wishful thinking it could be turned back to the 1950s when lynchings were tolerated, and a bit of fa
Re: Too bad.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Too bad.... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the blatant dishonesty combined with the hubris. The left basically says we are going to lie to you because we don't trust you to make the "correct" decision if you are fully informed. To wit, in Germany, they claim importing over a million Syrian refugees is vital to the economy, despite the fact that most of them are illiterate in their own language (much less German), and the vast majority are simply unemployable and so will be huge net drains on the economy. So the economic argument is bullshit, but clearly they are serving some other purpose which the left is not being honest about. Same thing with the Affordable Care Act. Remember how it was going to lower prices for most Americans? Remember how it was going to increase access to care? Compare the promises with the actual outcome. The left is pathologically unable to tell the truth about their agenda or their tactics, because the vast majority of people would recoil in horror if they were honest. So they cloak it in terms like fairness, affordable, economic vitality, humanitarianism, etc, while the real goal is enervating the populace and taking ever more control over everyone's lives.
Re: (Score:1)
the Affordable Care Act. Remember how it was going to lower prices for most Americans?
Depends on whether you live in a red state or a blue state. Or (and it's interesting how this works out) whether your state decided to participate in the exchange and take advantage of the subsidies or not. It's the same map.
Strange how that lines up.
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny, because I didn't mention liberals or their motives at all.
I said the left, which maybe you conflate to be the same thing as liberals, but they aren't. Not at all.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Says Germany's official tally for net new refugees in 2016 was 890,000. The article was written in September of 2016. It's now September of 2017. I would say a million+ refugees is probably a fairly safe extrapolation.
>Second, nobody in Germany ever claimed that they were "vital to the economy". You just made that up out o
Re: (Score:2)
Unfriend
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It was clear since June of 2016 that the news media were trying to elect Hillary President all by themselves while trying to bury Trump in fake news. Rather than speak with college kids that don't bother going to the polls I spent my time speaking with senior citizens. They all saw the circus going on with the news and decided they were going to vote for Trump just to spite the bullshit taking place. I personally voted for Trump to get rid of ObamaCare which penalizes people that cannot afford healthcare wi
Re: (Score:2)
bases its vote on real world experiences that they go through and rational self interest.
ROFLMA! It's in the interest of middle to lower class Americans to lower taxes on the rich and corporations, gut social and medical assistance programs, and nearly double spending on imperial militarism?
I get that part about being tired of politics as usual, but anyone that thought Trump was going to actually do something about it wasn't paying attention. There seems to be some expectation of going back to the good parts of 1950s America, without getting the parts they consider undesirable. Manufacturin
Re: (Score:2)
I think Trump won because most Americans are Idiots. You know, those kind of idiots full of incompetence, lazyness and envy. Those kinds which are considering being laught upon is a violation of free speech. Those who think partying through childhood is ok, never safing money is ok, doing life decisions on gut feelings is ok, living a glamoros life from depts and after that everyone is guilty but not the idiot.
Nothing wrong about that, most people on earth are born, idiots, some get a bit smarter in school
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You still don't get why Trump won. The sheer level of insufferable arrogance from upper-middle class liberals that dominate internet discussion is a massive reason why.
Oh, I think we get it, but you have left out the other, big factor: the massive, largely self-inflicted ignorance of those that fell for the populist scams. And funnily enough, you also left out one remarkable election result that can be attributed to the disillusion with the well-fed middle class: Corbyn's support in UK, which nobody - not even Corbyn's supporters - had expected.
People are sick and tired of ad hominems being the dominant form of discourse from the left ...
So, why don't you go in front and show us the kind of well-balanced, fact based kind of discourse that we are all longing for? St
Re: (Score:2)
Man, I wish I got paid for this shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Proof that it had any impact on the election?
You can usually tell what a leftist is guilty of by what they accuse their opponents of doing. AFAIK, there is no right wing counterpart to Shareblue.
Re: (Score:1)
So it was nothing to do with the millions of posts made by paid Russian trolls such as yourself? Was all that effort and money wasted?
If your post has any basis in reality we're all doomed -- the user you're responding to has a 400k slashdot ID. So Russian trolls in 2017 hopped in their time machine and zipped back 18 years to register accounts on a very influential nerd website, knowing full well that by the time 2016 comes around that website will have become overwhelmed by the increasingly fractured nature of internet communication and won't be nearly as influential as it was originally.
So, the Russian hackers have a time machine, you
Re: Too bad.... (Score:2)
Now the baizou even openly express their lust for genocide. I hope trolls like this are merely (Chinese-bankrolled?) social destabilization agitprop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Too bad.... (Score:2)
How long have you been on crack?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too bad.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they are overspending on this thread. There's like 5 putin rogonosets to every one actual slashdotter who even bothered to open the thread.
Re: (Score:1)
The hilarious part is you think Slashdot has enough influence to bother spending on. It doesn't. Comments barely reach into the triple digits any more, and single digits aren't uncommon.
The real tragedy is that by Podesta creating the dolchstoss-legende blaming the foreigners, now any contradictory opinions look like propaganda. Considering we have hard proof that Share Blue did in fact astroturf a bunch of websites with paid commenters, that just makes it worse as far as confirmation bias goes. The l
Re: Too bad.... (Score:2)
I notice the posters who loudly denounce supposed Russian trolls, are the same folks who like throwing around obscure Russian slang terms. Coincidence?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, just retaliation. The altright decided to call everyone who doesn't adhere to their xenophobia "cuckolds" while meanwhile acting as cuckolds for Russian interests themselves. So I looked up "cuckold" in Russian and now use it as a fitting term for our new domestic population of foreign-led dissidents.
Re: Too bad.... (Score:2)
Sure, sure, I believe you. How's the weather in Moscow today?
Re:Too bad.... (Score:5, Informative)
You know it's illegal for a foreign national to buy campaign ads in the US, right? Has been for a while now. For 45 years, to be exact. FECA was signed into law in 1972, by Richard M. Nixon.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Too bad.... (Score:4, Informative)
No, it's against the law. Unfortunately, Congress has never implemented the disclosure laws that the Supreme Court insisted upon with their Citizens United decision. It's a fucked up situation all around, and there's been zero will from the Republican-controlled Congress to do anything about how easy it is to game our elections with money.
Re: (Score:3)
1 year. The ruling was in 2010 and Republicans took the congress in 2011.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
When Obama was president, there was a law in place to cover disclosure of campaign money. It was called McCain-Finegold and got overturned the by the Supreme Court, after which the Republicans took over the House and as I said, then there was no will to pass any laws requiring disclosure of campaign funding.
Re: Too bad.... (Score:1)
Here's a piece by the former vice-chair of the FEC: How the FEC Turned a Blind Eye to Foreign Meddling [politico.com]
PopeRatzo is peak stupidity. (Score:3, Insightful)
Here we have Clinton, who asked the Ukraine for dirt on Trump during the election.
Clinton who lied under oath 7 times provably, and had her husband interfere with an investigation.
Clinton took on the order of $150 million in bribes from Russia while running the state department.
Clinton who literally rigged a national primary for the DNC to win it because she couldn't beat Sanders.
And you complain about Republicans and elections? You are quite possibly the dumbest person on /. these days, and that is includ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am actually open to the suggestion that foreigners should be able to influence US elections; but only provided that it is done transparently. If Russia wants to make an argument that America should vote for candidate X, fine by me, as long as the message prominently informs readers of its source, e.g. "This message was funded in part by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation."
In fact I think this is a good idea all around. In an era where so much information is being delivered by the we
Re: (Score:2)
That's worthy of discussion. As long as every dollar that goes into American politics is directly attributable to a human being (not a corporation!). And I mean every dollar. No more pretending that there is some difference between ads that talk about issues with ads that talk about candidates. There should be disclosure of all political money, period. Give me t
Re: (Score:2)
Because Facebook is an American company, they are subject to the laws of the United States. At least in theory. Do you think the Trump DOJ has any appetite for enforcing this particular law? I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
SEIU headquarters is in Washington DC. Its highest offices are not, well, INTERNATIONAL, silly. It has one (1) local in Canada (affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress). It is registered as a non-profit corporation in the United States.
Datchu? (Score:2)
The game designer I knew (not that well) back in Austin?
Hahaha (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck you all. Fuck. Go head, mod me down. Social media is a scourge on society. FUCK YOU!
Please, there's no need to hold back on slashdot. Tell us how you really feel. ;)
Re:First amendment (Score:4, Informative)
There are already restrictions on campaign advertising. No one claims they violate the first amendment
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This is a clear violation of the first amendment.
I wish the Supreme Court saw it this way, but they have already considered this matter in refusing to hear a case from a lower court which had decided that restrictions of foreign nationals' contributions or attempts to influence U.S. elections is not unconstitutional. (See Bluman vs. FEC [scotusblog.com].)
Re: (Score:1)
It’s not the first time incompetent judges appointed by the left failed to do their job.
And foreign owned corporations? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And foreign owned corporations? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever notice.... (Score:5, Informative)
...how these discussions and articles and pundents never mention... China... in the list of foreign influences on the USA?
It's not like China has ever directly involved themselves in our elections before...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ... shit.
Re: (Score:1)
Or Israel.
Re: (Score:1)
Brexit too.
I read a story in USA today just this morning about how the right wing in the US is "meddling" in German elections by making comments on message boards. Seriously.
"Instead, they say, right-wing groups in the United States are behind materials popping up on YouTube, messaging board sites like 4chan and reddit and texting service Gab.ai. The evidence comes less than a week before Sunday's vote that is likely to hand German Chancellor Angela Merkel a fourth term. "
Obama goes and campaigns against
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Ever notice.... (Score:2)
That's 'cuz most of the outrage trolls posting here are funded by China. Probably a lot of the more extreme "social justice" hypocrites are Chinese backed as well. I quite admire it really - it's excellent social destabilization propaganda.
Muh Rusha (Score:1)
Of course, nobody gives a shit about AIPAC or Saudi Arabia.
Dems are behind the curve again (Score:5, Informative)
It's been illegal for foreign nationals to purchase campaign ads for US elections since 1972. It's even illegal to sell campaign ads to foreign nationals (putting Facebook in some jeopardy in the event the Justice Department decides to enforce the law).
The letter from Dems to the FEC is a request for information from the commission explaining how they're going to meet this legal obligation in regard to social media advertising.
Re:Dems are behind the curve again (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet George Soros has done it for the past 12 years. But that's ok because the money is laundered through the political committees.
Let's not even get into the Clinton foundation that essentially took international bribes for US policy in all but name.
And, I can't help but point out, once again you're just spewing DNC talking points. It's illegal for foreign nationals to advertise for political candidates. It is NOT illegal for foreign nationals to advertise for issues. Otherwise CAIR and the ADL leaders would have to be thrown in prison.
Facebook advertised for the Russians - WHAT advertising remains to be revealed.
Damn that pesky first amendment that you now loathe so much.
And Hillary would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for those pesky Russians.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you advocating for civil rights for foreign nationals? Does that extend to illegal immigrants?
Re: (Score:2)
They both have rights: the extent to which these rights are recognized depends on many factors, especially treaties with their nations of origin. They may not include all the rights of the Constitution, but even in military involvement they are covered by the "Code of the US Fighting Force". There are violations of these laws, these treaties, and these laws. The prison for untried and unconvicted "illegal enemy combatants" in the US base at Guantanamo Bay is an example of such violations of civil rights and
Re: (Score:2)
If they bought campaign ads, they broke the law.
Re: (Score:2)
But not all of them, right?
Re: (Score:2)
George Soros is a US citizen
Re:Dems are behind the curve again (Score:4, Insightful)
Foreign election interference has gone both ways, on several axes. The USA has certainly intervened in many foreign elections, as they have in ours, since the founding of the USA. Public statements of concern about or support for one candidate or another have been traditional, at many levels of public and private announcement. So has foreign support of election monitoring, to help ensure a fair election, both by the US and on several occasions of USA elections.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Dems are behind the curve again (Score:1)
I understand that you people are pissed that you spent hundreds of millions on a losing candidate. If you did not live in a bubble, sheltered from the rest of the country, maybe you could have made more intelligent investments.
Re: (Score:1)
Haha, first, the majority of voters voted for the Democrat.
Second, the "bubble" exists in deep red states in the South and midwest. Have YOU ever tried to step out of your bubble? And maybe understand why most of the country voted against Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
It is significantly different. In 2000 we had campaign finance laws.
So, some sort of barrier for the foreign? (Score:2)
Like some sort of "Cyber wall"?
Pelosi all over again (Score:1)
Remember when Nancy Pelosi tried to control talk radio [infowars.com] because it wasn't delivering the message she wanted?
This is the same thing - Democrats whining about media they don't control
If only the US would do the same (Score:2, Informative)
The US has been interfering with foreign elections for over 60 years. Even a Liberal rag admits it: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html
Democrats are pissed for having their dirty laundry aired, as if they felt that only Republicans should have their's aired. The facts remain that all of the leaked emails and social ads were merely revealing the truth about how crooked the DNC had become.
Foreign Influences in Elections Must be Good (Score:2)
If it wasn't good then the US wouldn't be interfering in the elections of other countries so often.
if only... (Score:2)
I will support this... (Score:2)
Just as soon as they also outlaw out-of-state contributions to local elections. National parties like the DNC and GOP shouldn't be allowed to contribute to local elections at all. Someone from a neighbouring city shouldn't be allowed to contribute to my local mayoral election. Where does it end?
Re: Ban all advertisements as malware (Score:2)
The first decent proposal in this whole thread!
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine the Russians fomenting a coup in Mexico that put into power fervently anti-US groups willing to go to war
That already happened, albeit a while ago (early in the Mexican Revolution). Better examples would be Cuba and Nicaragua.