“What Law?” Political Spending on the Internet in the US ...€¦ · •Spending of more than...
Transcript of “What Law?” Political Spending on the Internet in the US ...€¦ · •Spending of more than...
“What Law?”Political Spending on the
Internet in the US and UK
Lori A. RinghandFulbright Scotland Visiting Professor &
J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law
• Spending of more than $1 million per month
• Fake social media accounts ran by trained impersonators
• Fed into 30 million Facebook News Feeds
• Liked and shared to millions more
• 34 indictments (13 Russian nationals); 7 guilty pleas; 17investigations
2016 US Election
• Government: no evidence of “successful” efforts
• Maximum fine imposed on FB by Information Commission
• “Brexit botnet”
• 419 now-suspended accounts had been active
• Two criminal investigation referrals
• Parties and groups fined for financing and data violations
• 4 Parliamentary investigations
Brexit Referendum
What Law?
US
Unlimited spendingLimited contributions to parties, candidates and some groups
Unlimited (and often undisclosed) contributions to other groups
UKLimited spending by parties and most groupsUnlimited contributions to parties and groups
Contributions disclosed after election
No laws
Anonymous online electioneering
Use of imposter accounts and botnets
Undisclosed funding sources of online efforts
Foreign spending on amplification
Online?No comprehensive imprint rules
US: Only “express” & “paid to place” on websiteUK: None
No comprehensive disclose rulesUS: Social welfare groups excluded; “earmarks”UK: After election, aggregated
Unclear foreign spending rulesUS: Citizen’s United but BlumanUK: Not clearly captured by current regulations if <trigger
Reform Proposals?
Transparency
Protects against corruption through vigilanceContextualizes the messages we see
Transparency Source Exclusions
Transparency: Defining the Scope
Law Professors are Awesome!
ElectLori Ringhand!
We need more Law Professors
in the Senate
Content Speaker Time
US“Magic Words”Express v Issue
Time + ID
Primary Purpose test
within 30 days of Primary
or 60 days of election
UKInfluencing Elections
or Political Ends
Purpose “wholly or mainly” political
During Election Period
Internet Effect Transitory
Can test and delete thousands of ads avoiding magic words
OrganicTough to tie to identity of speaker because messages gain power
through likes and shares
Cheap A little spend goes a long way; cost is in production not placement
Ubiquitous We are all talking all the time, diluting effect of time bound
regulations
Reform Proposals?
Source Exclusions
Prohibit certain entities from participating in the conversation even when fully disclosed
Transparency Source Exclusions
Dear Ohio Voter ... Don’t be so ashamed of your
president: the majority of you didn’t vote for him. If Bush is finally
elected properly, that will be the time for Americans traveling abroad
to simulate a Canadian accent. Please don’t let it come to that. Vote against Bin Laden’s dream candidate. Vote to send Bush
packing.
Source Exclusions: Who and Why?
No “corruption” of public officials
Mediated through minds of voters
US: “Narrowly tailored” to meet state interest
UK: Proportionate to need or necessary in a democracy
Legally relevant Normatively complex
If fully transparent, why prevent a voter from hearing the perspective of outsiders?
Citizens United barred speaker distinctions for contributions
But foreign express spending ban upheld in name of democratic self-determination
Foreign donations prohibited
But status of foreign sourced spending is unclear
Internet Effect
Rapidity
Confirmation Bias
Emotionality
Distortion
Normalization
Do now
1. Online imprints• Require online imprints for communications
already requiring them offline2. Disclosure
• Eliminate exemptions (US) and expedite reporting (UK)
3. Clarify foreign source exclusion rules4. Learn from each other
“What Law?”Political Spending on the
Internet in the US and UK
Lori A. RinghandFulbright Scotland Visiting Professor &
J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law