Washington Sues Facebook, Google For Failure To Disclose Political Ad Spending (techcrunch.com) 97
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.
Re:Oh look, Bob Ferguson is campaigning again (Score:5, Insightful)
What bearing has this on the veracity of the allegations made in the lawsuit? None whatsoever? Thanks for playing!
Re: (Score:3)
You could complain that the law shouldn't exist or that it's a bogus prosecution. The gibberish you just posted is completely worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
There's something new to learn every day, I guess [wikipedia.org].
Still pretty damn obscure, if you ask me.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, can you try that again in English? Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Lawful + welfare = ...lawfare??
You're Russian, aren't you?
Re: (Score:2)
No, law + warfare. See the Wikipedia entry.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 befor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have to keep track of who pays for ads? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:1)
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 con
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re: (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. [ushistory.org]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Of course, your example fails when everyone is heads down in their smart phones. No, you really want to censor dissenting views.
Which Washington? (Score:1)
Washington state, or the Washington that matters?
Re: Which Washington? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Paid political ads should NEVER be anonymous (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are not at all clever.
Re: Paid political ads should NEVER be anonymous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
False equivalences all the way down.
Just sad that Obama didn't do that (Score:1, Offtopic)
Trump is trying to reduce foreign influence to our elections which was one of his campaign promises.
Re: Just sad that Obama didn't do that (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really saying that you're not responsible for everything your attorney does? And how about your manicurist?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Just sad that Obama didn't do that (Score:1)
Wrong. Try again some time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [cornell.edu] and Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue [justia.com]
Washington does not want (Score:3)
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:2)
your corporations in the state I'd start to move everything out to a friendlier place.
By friendlier do you mean more corrupt?
Russian Ads? (Score:1)
Let's clean up that headline (Score:4, Interesting)
Translation. "Washington State Sues Business Rivals of Microsoft"
Now it makes sense.
USPS is a "common carrier" (Score:2)
> 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 lawsuit