Nonproperty that focuses on creating a bipartisan effort to fix our democratic dysfunction. What does that mean in your day to day workings . We are talking to republicans, democrats, independents, trying to find Common Ground on where you can start to make changes in everything from ethics to accountability to the way our campaigns are finance. Its a really broad range. Its really trying to make your democracy work better for the American People. One of the things you have been talking about recently going back to last years election is what happened on facebook and twitter when it came to ads. What are you talking about . Especially this legislative proposal in congress. Well there came a time when information came out about the on line political advertising that was being funded flew russian troll farm. Reports were there was 100,000 being spent the minimum we know about to place these political ads on google, facebook, twitter, et cetera. There has been long standing law designed to prescribe foreign entities from interfering in governmental elections local state and federal. That has been the law of the land for many years. We had russian troll farms successfully placing these ads that were specifically targeted. The question that arose was was is the appropriate step to be taken to deal with this foreign influence in american politics . We took a look at this and tried to be narrowly drawn carefully crafted approach that provides americans with the information they need to be informed voters but not to go down a path that was trying to solve every problemer be too broad. And i think the legislation, the Bipartisan Legislation that was introduced in Congress Takes that first step in a very carefully crafted way. Its known as the honest ads act, sponsored by Senators Amy Klobuchar of minnesota, john mccain, and mark warner of virginia. When it comes to the principles of the act, they are it would require digital platforms with more than 50 million monthly viewers to create a monthly database of political ads purchased by a person or group who spends more than 500. It will also create a public file of the targeted audience, the number of views it generated, the date and time it ran, the price, and contract informing of the purchasers. If these things are set up, what would it do, accomplish . The whole goal is to provide for our National Security a tool using disclosure to protect your National Security. That was the frame of all the discussions when this bill was being crafted. That was the goal that the sponsors set up. I would note there is a house version as well thats bipartisan introduced by derek killner from washington and mike kaufman from colorado. The whole conversation was how do we protect our National Security . What are the tools that we can use that we already have in law . There are long standing laws on political advertising for television and radio, there are long standing laws in federal election law that deal with disclosure by candidates and outside groups. The goal was simply to say lets take a modest step forward and include social media as appropriate and as fits that particular platform. And that was really the goal here. And i think the disclosure tool is probably the best tool. Its not seeking to ban anything other than provide disclosure. The ban has existed in long standing law. And thats on foreign interference. Our guest is with us. If you want to ask her questions about this legislative proposal her thinking on it, 2022 202248 one of the criticisms that came out of this legislation came from bloomberg. A gentlemen named leonid better sin ski writes, under the act a troll cleverly disguised as jane doe or john smith would till be able to buy an ad. It would be recorded under a fake name and stored in a vast archive where no one will be able to find anything of value. I think you could criticize the way political advertising can be conducted anywhere. If people worked hard to mask their identities in any of these media they can do. We have seen that evident to try to mask where the money is coming from. There is communication in fcc regulations that talks about getting to the true identity of the source of funding for ads. That applies for television and radio. We wanted to ensure that that applies in case of these on line paid political ads. Let me just emphasize this once again. The legislation is not trying to solve all the problems of troll farms, all the problems of people expressing views on internet. There is no intent to reach at that really its very narrowly tailored to look at on line paid political advertising. And there is language in this bill in the honest ads act that does put some obligations on the platforms to do their best effort to ensure that foreign money does not come into the election. At the ends of the day it would mean extra work for these platforms to compile these databases. They have so much information already. I think most americans would be shocked at the level of granularity of the details they already have. In this case when it comes to the on line paid political advertising, we are not talking about anyone blogging on their own or sharing their views. We are just talking about paid political advertising. They are make money hand over fist in this area. And so i think this is a burden that television and radio stations considerly have. It is not a big ask to ensure that the on line platforms have the same kind of obligations but tailored for the nature of an on line platform. Is it significant that senator mccain signed onto this . Its absolutely significant that senator mccain signed on. First of all hes chair of the Armed Services committee. I would note that mr. Warn servais chair of the intelligence committee. And what really is the point here is to say, why did our government not have the tools to protect against foreign interference . How can we create these tools . And i think the fact that you have the vice chair of intelligence and the chair of the Armed Services committee shows how important these tools are for protecting our National Security. Are there free speech concerns as far as political speech is concerned about having this type of database or this type of layer on the internet. No this instance im actually a fan of former Supreme Court justice scalia. Who when faced with questions about disclosure on campaigns talked about the home of the brave. In this case, this is not any kind of restriction in terms of extra layers. Its simply a disclosure. And the federal Communications Commission, many years ago, back in the 50s and 60s wrote about that listeners are entitled to know by whom they are being persuaded. This is simply a tool for the government to ensure that foreign entities are not coming in. And most importantly, for citizens to have information so they can make up their own mind. Disclosure hare upheld by the Supreme Court repeatedly. I know many people forget in the Citizens United decision by an 81 vote actually the Supreme Court upheld disclosure. They have done that repeatedly in terms of political campaigns and elections. In that area, not in all of politics but when it comes to campaigns and elections they have really bought the notion that sunlight is the best disinfect ant and we need to arm both, you know, our citizens most importantly, to be able to have this information. And then we can really start to have a good robust discussion. But know who the speaker is. First call for you comes this orange from david in clinton township, michigan. Democrats line. You are on with Meredith Mcgehee with issue one. Go ahead. Caller thank you. I have just one question. I was wondering could the twitter site real donald trump be a russian troll site . Well, the honest answer to that is that really relies on twitter to determine whether they how they verify where these sites are. But i think in this case the tweets seem to be coming from the president , who confirms that he is tweeting. So you know, i think, again, this legislation that we are talking about here doesnt get into what these individual online private companies do. This is about paid political advertising on social media. And that really is the lane this bill is staying in. New york, democrats line. Rob is next. Hello. Caller thank you for cspan. Why doesnt the government have to toolgs to combat this problem . Follow the money. Remember the old phrase, follow the money. Follow the Campaign Finance money, the Campaign Money is the root of all evil in american politics. And unfortunately, i love this woman and what she does and how she speaks and what shes saying. But many are going to write her off and the research that shes done as fake news. You know, perhaps the president should show us his feet, show us his bone spurs because lets get to the bottom of that real news that he was he had these privileged draft deferments. Thank you rob. Sorry about that, but thank you. Go ahead. I think the most important thing to note note here is that the legislation that we are talking about does in fact have bipartisan support. And these were efforts that reached out to a number of members. Mr. Kaufman at colorado i think deserves great credit for coming on this bill. Derek killner really tried very hard to ensure that this was a bipartisan effort on the house side. And i would note that klobuchar and warner did the same on the senate side. There are other senators who said they are really interested in this legislation and simply want to have some hearings first. So i think im hopeful that the senate will in fact will hold hearings and that the honest ads act will be the basis for those hearings to explore some of these issues like how do you find an Online Platform that should be covered in this instance . What kind of money i saw a story from a magazine which reported that 50 of these ads that were run by the russian troll farm cost 3 or less. And that 99 of those ads cost under 1,000. 1,000. Yet they were very effectively targeted and in many cases, i think, really sought to find the persuadables they felt could be most influential. These are some of the issues that serious hearings should look at and the honest ads act should be the starting point. One of the reactions came from an organization, they put out a statement. It reads this from the president david keating, who said the foreseeable effect of the recordkeeping burdens. It would shut off an outlet for somewhat gro small groups to get their message out. Direct mail are not regulated in the same way. Theyre not regulated in exactly the same way. And thats why i say these are similar standards. I would note a couple of things. First of all, there is a floor built into this legislation. If youre on one of these huge Online Platforms and the current definition is 50 million unique visits in the month, then to actually be covered by some of this disclosure you would have to aggregate to at least 500 to be covered. And anything under that, if youre not on one of these giant Online Platforms you wouldnt be covered. The center for competitive politics opposes disclosure. That puts them on a far extreme to where most americans are. Were trying to set similar standards. Thats where there was an effort not to simply say were going to treat Online Advertising exactly the same as television and radio because they are different. What this bill does do in a very carefully considered way, is say what is a reasonable expectation to be able to get the information we need to fight this foreign interference, not be too burdensome and at the same time insure that we have this information available. And that really was the balance that was part of the discussion. I think this bill did a good job of achieving that balance. On our independent line, perry from maryland. Caller i wanted to thank your organization and yourself for being on the job here and looking into this. I did have three really quick things. One is, i understand that facebook scrubbed the 2016 records that they concerning their business with the different people. That was in the newspaper. Number two, the tennessee situation in which the Republican Organization in tennessee was used as a front for with some celebrities for some very bad stuff. That was in the newspaper, also. Then the most important question, for the virginia race and the 2018 races, do you expect that the russians and other Foreign Countries might be involved in those . Again, thank you for your service. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the questions. I would note that many questions about what facebook or twitter or google or the other entities that may be covered an obligation here on their themselves to insure that foreign entities are not in the business of influencing u. S. Elections. That would be the case for almost any private entity. There has to be some level of Due Diligence. I would note that this Due Diligence applies to other private Companies Like banks who have some level of responsibility when they are trying to fight against drug traffickers laundering money. Theres no doubt there is going to be efforts, not only by russian troll farms but others who may not have the best interest of the United States at heart to try and influence our politics. This kind of propaganda and disinformation has been around for years. The difference here is that the tools have changed. The ability before when you might see someone at the mimeograph machine churning out flyers is quaint. Now you think you could spend 1,000 and reach thousands of people. Its very important that our laws change. We have 20th century laws trying to deal with 21st century reality. That is really what were trying to get at here. I would note again that this legislation is simply aimed at online paid political advertising. It does not try and solve the problem of the troll farms generally or people sitting in macedonia or some country where they have hundreds of people liking things, posting things, doing that kind of activity. This legislation does not attempt to solve that problem. I think largely because we dont know enough yet about the best means to address that. Rather than overreach, the choice was made to be fairly conservative here to go at the online paid advertising. I would note that when you have paid advertising, even in newspapers, if its paid for by a political committee, they, too, have disclaimer responsibilities. So this disclaimer responsibility has been in u. S. Election law for many years, and worked well. The notion here is that americans should have the information so they can make up their own mind. Its not the government telling you what to think, its not them saying anyone cant say. Its simply saying here is who is speaking, if its a foreign entity thats not allowed under lawstanding law, if its a regular domestic entity, you can make up your own mind. Lets here from guy in fall city, washington. Caller yes, i watched the panel on cspan about this fcc. I would like you to sort of give the folks a little bit of history on how when they repealed the fairness doctrine, how that affected the not only the public, but the purpose of the fcc was pretty much eliminated back in the 80s. Well, i would note that the fairness doctrine is a very controversial issue that has divided republicans and democrats, conservatives and progressives since its inception and since it was put into place and was fought hard by many folks, particularly during the reagan administration, who wanted to have the fairness doctrine eliminated. Let me very quickly explain what that is. I want to move forward quickly as well, because thats not what were talking about today. The fairness doctrine was put in place to insure that broadcasters in television and radio had to present both sides of an issue as public trustees. And so that raised a lot of concerns by folks who felt like it was not going to be an appropriate obligation for broadcasters. It was set aside back in the 80s and this is really some people think that eliminating it gave rise to conservative radio, et cetera. But i would note here that the federal Communications Commission still has enormous amounts of ability to insure that the kinds of disclosure that have been in longstanding law, back to the days of piola, this was not even from the days of political campaigns, to insure appropriate sponsorship i identification. Thats the issue here which is not the issue of the fairness doctrine. When you look at sponsorship identification, this has been at the heart of our communications act, even back to the radio days. And somewhat by the cacophony that was caused when the titanic sank. I hope folk whose are listening will focus on the notion that the tools to best protect our National Security are what were trying to put in place here for online paid advertising. And have a robust discussion. Have as many sides to an issue, lets not have the russians or other hostile foreign powers be a part of that discussion. It may not surprise you that Online Platforms pay a lot for lobbying. Theres a story in the new york post. The story is saying part of the amount was used in Online Advertising, how much voice do they have and potentially not keep this legislation from happening . I think they have enormous amounts of power, partly because theyre a total immersion into our culture and into our new town meeting space. It used to be you went down to the town hall, now much of it is online. They have enormous amounts of sway on the hill. They, obviously, are going to spend a lot of money and a lot of time lobbying. But im hopeful that even with that effort they realize here that its not in their interest to be used by foreign powers, particularly hostile foreign powers. The effort here is to achieve that balance. Everyone has a First Amendment right to lobby. Lobbying is great thing. It often gets a bad name. The question here is how do you insure that the lobbying is arriving into the offices and at the ears of these political officials so that they have a full and robust picture of what all the issues are. And im hopeful that the sponsors, both on the house and the senate side, are trying to listen to all sides. That the hearings will provide an avenue for many of these companies to speak out, but also for others to be heard. So i say bring on the lobbying. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. More information is a good thing. But lets also make sure that the Public Interest and the policy decisions are first and foremost in our Public Officials minds. Meredith mcgee hee is talkin about this effort, debbie in albuquerque, new mexico, hi there. Caller i havent called in in a long time but the idea was everybody stood back and make z zukerburg, now you come along and say, well, anybody can post on it. Anything they want, and youre mad because uneducated people believe this. So youre going to regulate facebook because people arent educated enough to say, gee, maybe this isnt true . Thats your logic behind this instead of bolstering education so people look at other sources, im on facebook. The idea that i would get my news on facebook, i find hysterical. I see people post all sorts of stuff and i get a kick out of it. But the idea that youre upset because america isnt smart enough to figure out maybe this isnt real so youre going to regulate a public slam book called facebook because you dont like the way things turned out because basically as a country were not that smart anymore. Got you, debbie. Well let our guest respond. First of all, i want to say hello because i went to high school in albuquerque. My folks are still there. I have great fondness for the state of new mexico. Land of enchantment. I want to note again for this caller, that what were talking about here is not the posting or any of the interactions on facebook or any of the intelligence level of the American People. What were talking about is saying we have online paid political advertising, how do you set up appropriate standards at the federal level so that that paid political advertising is treated in a very similar way to the way paid political advertising is treated on television and radio and to some degree, in other public media. That really is a fairly narrow question. I would say to the caller its somewhat the opposite of what youre saying. Were saying if you have disclosure and you the information as an american, the American Public are smart enough to make up their own minds when they have the information. This is a tool to provide the information. Its a tool to insure that foreign entities are not paying for the ads. Ive heard several people talk about up on the hill that the 100,000 that was spent on the ads in facebook was paid in rubles. That should are be a tell tale sign. In fact, caller, im agreeing with you in that give the American People the information, make sure its as accurate as you can, then i trust the American People to make up their own minds based on that information. Woodbridge, virginia, brian go ahead. Caller i want you to commend yall bringing legislation, its going to be legislation proposed to congress . Yes, its been introduced. Caller great. I really hope the congressmen pay attention. In a age of information you cant have any intelligent Decision Making when the facts are confused. Like yelling fire in a crowded theater or bomb on an airplane, you know, the former caller had a point, debbie. But when you get so sometimes you dont have the tools to become a private investigator to say where is the smoke. You either got to figure out is this true, do i run for it for the nearest exit. In the age of information, sometimes its being classified as confidential you have to be your own private investigator and figure out which is right. Even as a very educated person with a lot of commonsense, when you have so much misinformation out there. Thanks, brian. Actually, i think the commonsense that the caller talked about is what this legislation actually recognizes. Its commonsense to say that paid political ads that are being run on social media should be treated to the paid little ads that are in other media. Thats to me a pretty commonsense approach here. The legislation, the Bipartisan Legislation bicameral legislation tries to take that commonsense approach. Doesnt solve every problem. It doesnt try to overreach. But if you dont give either the if you dont put in place the tools here in this case disclosure, then youre never going to have the ability to go and find out if foreign entities are in fact making this effort. I think the caller hit the nail on the head about being commonsense here. Absolutely no reason for us not to have 21st century laws to cover the eareality. Republican line, susan in skylar, virginia. Good morning, i think what youre doing is a wonderful thing. The reason i think that is i dont know how many times ive seen people take for granted things that are posted on facebook are true. Its so easy to research and you find out that these things are completely taken out of context or really just downright lies. So i think if you can do this and we can see who really is backing these things it would be very good. If you think back, president obama had said to President Trump that he was foolish to believe that the russians were influencing the election. And so it seems to me that if former president obama really believed that that we really truly need factual information from people who can support what theyre saying. Thank you very much. I think the caller talked about the importance of facts. This legislation is actually trying to seek those facts and disclose them. Disclosure, i think, is the important part here. There are those who have said that disclosure is really an effort to squelch speech. Subcommittee on Information Technology will come to order. Without objection. The chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Good afternoon. Todays hearing is part of a series of hearings, the i. T