PREVIEW: NOV.

1 HOUSE AND SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS ON SOCIAL

MEDIA INFLUENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION

On Wednesday, social media executives will face public questioning about Russias online meddling
in the 2016 election when representatives from Facebook, Google, and Twitter testify at hearings
devoted to the topic before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. The issue may also be
raised in a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on Tuesday.

These witnesses will likely be grilled about how they were caught off guard by Russian activity on
their companies platforms, why it took so long to identify ads bought by Russia-linked accounts,
whether their ad reviews are completed, and what theyre doing to stop the next attack. The scope
of the questioning will likely go beyond paid ads to organic content posted for free and shared by
many users.

Among the most important questions we hope they will answer are:
Who was targeted by Russia-linked ads, posts and other messages, and will the platforms
notify the users that saw them?
Will the platforms share important information with researchers, who have expressed a
need for more data to study how foreign governments use social media to influence public
opinion in the U.S., so they can help craft defenses?
What steps will the platforms take, beyond what has been announced, to address the
practice of foreigners pretending to be American while discussing U.S. politics? For example,
will the platforms begin verifying a domestic source of funds for ad buys concerning
politics?

Here are the new policies the companies have announced so far to prevent future attacks:
Facebook has said that when users see an ad, they will also be able to learn what other ads
that advertiser has run. And the company is building an ad transparency tool that will
require additional human review and approval of ads that are targeted with reference to
politics or social issues.
Last week, Twitter announced that it would disclose who paid for ads and how they are
targeted. Those who buy ads mentioning candidates will face added transparency, including
information about all the other ads they paid for. Twitter also decided to stop allowing
Russian state outlets RT and Sputnik to advertise, although they will still be able to place
organic content.
Google has not announced responses to foreign meddling per se, but the company did
change its search engine to try to make false content less prominent.

The platforms leadership on this issue is clearly needed. Yet these new voluntary policies, no
matter how well intentioned, do not go nearly far enough. Congress must act.
The last time Congress passed any political advertising rules was in 2002. Facebooks debut as a
website for Harvard students was still two years away. YouTube would not appear for another
three years, and Twitter was still four years off. The first iPhone would not be released for another
five years.

Campaign finance rules are long overdue for an upgrade to the social media era. Today, 52 percent
of the adult U.S. population visits Facebook every day. And the $1.4 billion spent on political ads
online in 2016 was almost eight times higher than in 2012.

Congress can and should do more, starting with the Honest Ads Act: Last week, in testimony
before the House Information Technology Subcommittee, the Brennan Center testified in favor of a
commonsense proposal that would bring online political ads into the campaign finance framework
that already applies to other mass media. The bill, called the Honest Ads Act, was introduced in the
Senate by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Mark Warner (D-Va.). The key
elements of the plan would:
Require disclosure of who paid for online ads that mention candidates shortly before an
election should be required.
Require platforms to maintain a public database of ads that discuss elections or legislative
issues, including the ad itself and the demographic targeting used.
Require online platforms and broadcasters to try to prevent foreign interests from placing
political ads.

Congress should also close other loopholes that can allow foreign spending on elections.
Dark money organizations that arent required to report their donors can mask foreign
spending. The DISCLOSE Act would require these organizations to report their major
sources of funds.
U.S.-based corporations are free to spend money on politics. Yet many of these firms are
controlled by foreign entities. Congress should extend the ban on foreign spending to
companies substantially owned or controlled by foreign nationals.
The Federal Election Commission should be overhauled and revitalized so that it can
conduct vigorous nonpartisan enforcement of political advertising rules.

For more information on this topic, visit our Foreign Interference resource page.

To schedule an interview with our experts, contact Beatriz Aldereguia at (646) 292-8369
or beatriz.aldereguia@nyu.edu.