Online ads offer legal option for U.S. election meddling

[webfact]

Online ads offer legal option for U.S. election meddling

By David Ingram

 

FILE PHOTO: Facebook logo is seen at a start-up companies gathering at Paris' Station F in Paris, France, January 17, 2017. REUTERS/Philippe Wojazer/File Photo

 

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The laws that prohibit foreign nationals from spending money to influence U.S. elections do not prevent them from lawfully buying some kinds of political ads on Facebook and other online networks, campaign finance lawyers said.

 

The omission of online ads could be a potential hurdle for those investigating alleged Russian meddling in last year's U.S. presidential election, according to the campaign finance lawyers, who are not involved in the probes.

 

Since 1974, the United States has barred foreign nationals from giving money to campaigns and it later barred them from donating to political parties. The laws also prohibit foreign nationals from coordinating with a campaign and from buying an ad that explicitly calls for the election or defeat of a candidate.

 

At issue are laws concerning a category of ads known as "electioneering communications" that address where a candidate stands on an issue, that spread news stories about a candidate or that attack a candidate without directly calling for his or her defeat.

 

Foreign nationals cannot spend money on electioneering communications but the term under U.S. law applies only to communications made by broadcast, cable or satellite - with no mention of the internet.

 

A related law does bar foreign nationals from expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate in any advertising medium. But as long as online ads do not call on people to vote for a specific candidate, "they are not prohibited as a campaign finance matter," said Jan Baran, a Washington lawyer who frequently represents Republican candidates.

 

U.S. Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed in May to investigate alleged Russian interference as well as potential collusion between Moscow and associates of President Donald Trump. The Russian government says it did not meddle and Trump has denied collusion.

 

Facebook <FB.O>, which has become a leading platform for online political ads, has said that it has not found any evidence that Russian agents were buying ads.

 

Facebook said in April, however, that it had become a battleground for governments seeking to manipulate public opinion in other countries and outlined new measures to combat what it called "information operations." [nL1N1HZ1MN]

 

Trump's election campaign spent some $70 million on highly targeted Facebook advertising last year, Brad Parscale, the digital director of the campaign, told Reuters this year.

 

The absence of rules governing online advertising ties the hands of the U.S. Federal Election Commission, said Ann Ravel, a former Democratic appointee to the commission.

 

"The law seems to totally exempt it and therefore it is not possible either to reasonably determine who is behind those ads, do an investigation to find out or penalise for that activity," Ravel said.

 

Other laws could come into play in an investigation. The U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act restricts publicity paid for by a foreign government such as Russia.

 

(Reporting by David Ingram; Editing by Jonathan Weber and Bill Trott)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-07-13

[zaphod reborn]

More nonsense from Reuters which seems to be covering up for Trump.  The Russian scheme involved obtaining email addresses from voter registration roles which were sent from a server in Trump Tower to Alfa Bank in Russia.  http://www.france24.com/en/20170310-fbi-probes-odd-link-hookups-trump-tower-server-russia-alfa-bank

 

Fake news about Hillary Clinton was broadcast by Russian and Eastern European webhosts via email to the electorate in various key states with the intent to tip the electoral vote in those states.  Reuters took no steps to determine from legal experts whether emails are considered electioneering communications under the statute.  Instead, they sidestep the key issue by focusing on social media posts.  While the emails usually link to the social media posts, its the emails that are the communications which would come under the statute, and not the social media posts themselves.

[Trouble]

9 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

More nonsense from Reuters which seems to be covering up for Trump.  The Russian scheme involved obtaining email addresses from voter registration roles which were sent from a server in Trump Tower to Alfa Bank in Russia.  http://www.france24.com/en/20170310-fbi-probes-odd-link-hookups-trump-tower-server-russia-alfa-bank

 

Fake news about Hillary Clinton was broadcast by Russian and Eastern European webhosts via email to the electorate in various key states with the intent to tip the electoral vote in those states.  Reuters took no steps to determine from legal experts whether emails are considered electioneering communications under the statute.  Instead, they sidestep the key issue by focusing on social media posts.  While the emails usually link to the social media posts, its the emails that are the communications which would come under the statute, and not the social media posts themselves.

Can't quite figure out how you got to the conclusion that "The Russian scheme involved obtaining email addresses from voter registration roles which were sent from a server in Trump Tower to Alfa Bank in Russia."   from the article you quoted when the article mostly questions the seemingly odd number of lookups rather than actual communication.