mr. rothenberg is suggesting, well, we've learned our lesson from now 2016, and now the public is going to be much more wary or should be, and media and internet companies themselves should try to be on top of this problem? >> right. i mean, i think as you noted we should close the doors that we know we can close. i don't think that's all that can be done. for example, the political ad database encompassed in the honest ads act actually goes beyond electioneering and communications because it involves issues of legislative importance so would create a publicly-available record that researchers could use to try to piece together what's coming from where, who's being targeted and what are the messages. that could be, i think, extremely valuable in understanding what the sort of next attacks are and how to respond. and then i think there are more things to be done sort of outside the realm of campaign

finance, and that's going to require industry and congress working together in the ways that mr. rothenberg has proposed and really figuring out how to get on top of this thing. >> let me ask you another question. the supreme court upheld our traditional ban on foreign nationals spending money in u.s. elections. that's not covered by citizens united if they are not a u.s. individual or a corporation. however, foreign money could take over domestic corporations, as you were suggesting before, and then money could be channeled through this citizens united loophole directly into the political system. is that something that you think we can tighten up as well? >> yes. definitely, you know, regulation has in many ways not caught up with citizens united even though it was several years ago now. a corporation's ability to spend unlimited amounts on politics either directly or through superpacs requires dealing with the problem that even a

domestic corporation which can wholly owned or controlled by foreign powers. and that should be tightened up. one of the ways would be to, as proposed, set some kind of percentage, ownership percentage by foreign nationals or foreign governments and say above this even a domestically cite corporation can't spend on politics. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i yield back. >> i recognize myself for five minutes. this question is to everybody on the panel. you can say yes/no, you can elaborate, just don't take too long if you're going to elaborate. and we'll go your left to y'all's right. laws like the federal election campaign act, the mccain-feingold, supreme court cases like citizens united, do those refer to and should those cover all political advertisements whether express

advocacy or issue advocacy despite the platform? mr. vandewalker? >> yes. i think our campaign finance regime at its heart is about transfers of money designed to influence politics. whether that means buying a political ad, writing a check directly to a candidate, there are different ways that that can play out in detail. but, yes, i think -- >> mr. rothenberg? >> no. opinion is protected. issues are protected. that is not just a slippery slope, you're already three-quarters of the way down that slope. when it's about candidates and about actual advocacy for or against the candidate, then clearly that falls within the scope of -- >> yeah, that's what i asked. i asked specifically for express advocacy you should vote for this guy or don't vote for that guy or the issue call your congressman if this, any of

those types of political speech, should that fall under these laws and supreme court cases despite the medium? whether it's -- >> yeah. >> -- whether you're sending a peat of mail in the -- a piece of mail in the mailbox or it's a digital ad? >> yes, they absolutely can. you've got to make certain adjustments for the differences among the media. you can't have video rules applying to audio and vice versa. >> gotcha. >> yeah, sure. >> mr. goodman. >> i agree it doesn't matter the medium under the court's precedents. to the extent speech can be regulate 3 under those -- regulated under those case, it doesn't matter how you say it. >> yes as to free advocacy. >> my first amendment expert, mr. dickerson. >> [inaudible] >> microphone, please, mr. dickerson? >> i'll learn that eventually. yes as regards, as it involves platforms with a caveat which is that, you know, the amount of money that is being regulated is important.

the fact that it is cheaper to run an ad in some media versus another doesn't change the burdens on the speaker and their resources in complying with the regulatory regime. so if we're talking apples to apples, certainly. >> so if somebody, you know, coming from the great state of texas where i'm in the only competitive district in the state, i'm very familiar with all of the political advertisements that may or may not be run against me. if somebody's running ads against me, there's a public file. is that correct? or, i guess, mr. goodman. let's say if they were doing it on television -- >> if they were doing it on radio, television, there's a public file. and depending on whether they are your opposing candidate or an independent group, different information would be in that file. >> and what law governs that?

>> it's largely the communications act, and there were amendments to that act by the mccain-feingold act in 2002. >> is that the same for print? >> in terms of the -- >> a public file. like, do i know -- >> no, there's not a public file requirement. as a matter of fact, i would take this opportunity, i think this is a time where congress can look and see what requirements are need for across the platforms. i think looking forward you have to say what's rational and required and, for example, do you need a public repository when you have the internet. currently -- >> or should it be available on the internet. >> right. >> mr. rothenberg, you obviously know you're next. >> well, on that one -- >> when it comes to, specifically, digital platforms. >> you're talking about the public file? >> public file, yeah. >> yeah. i think that it's hard under the law and under first amendment history to require the public file to reside with different

media. it's hard to take something that was based on the stewardship of the airwaves and import it over to something as open and diverse as the internet. but what i don't understand is why you can't place those requirements on the campaigns themselves. they know what they're spending. they know where they're spending it. they can create public file, and that would be available across all media. rather than burdening the end nodes, the edge providers. >> so my first question to all of y'all were the rules that govern express advocacy should apply to all mediums. but we're saying when it comes to the public file and making sure that what advertisements are and timing and amounts, that should only apply to broadcasters? is that what i just heard? >> interesting. what i would say is you can apply it, but you should place

the burden on the campaigns, not on the media that are not responsible for selling the ads. >> mr. dickerson, can you help me understand any first amendment issues with this notion of a public file? >> well, i mean, the most basic is that it's not costless. >> it's not? >> it's not costless. i mean, it's necessarily burdening speech in the sense that certain types of advertisers have to do things that others don't. we've largely lived with that because, you know, as i explained in my written testimony, the sort of speech that's being done on broadcast tends to be larger amounts of money, there are human beings who are making determinations as to express advocacy. >> so are you saying that i should have to do it on television, but somebody else shouldn't have to do it in another medium?

if somebody's running against me and they shouldn't have the same -- >> i mean, i personally would question the utility of a lot of the exercise in the sense that i'm not sure this information's actually used in ways that are useful from a first amendment standpoint. but if we were going to have them, we need to be careful to insure that only the sort of sophisticated actors like political campaigns and that only the sort of speech that is clearly about elections -- >> yeah. and i want to make sure i'm clear. when i ask questions, it's narrow, express advocacy. mr. dickerson, i appreciate that. now i would like to recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i want the take a special moment just to thank you and to thank ranking member kelly for holding this hearing. this is incredibly important. i want to thank the panel members as well. and although ranking member kelly mentioned that it's only been a month since facebook came out and said, yes, the russians did purchase $100,000 on

facebook to influence the election, it has been a very long time since members of congress have been asking to have an investigation on the interference of a foreign government -- in this case russia -- with our democratic elections. it goes back a long way. and this is the first time, mr. chairman, you are the first, you are the first to hold a public hearing on the hacking of our election. and i want to thank you for that. i mean, we go all the way back to september 2015 when the fbi actually contacted the dnc to say the russians are hacking your web site. and the democratic national committee did not act promptly on that warning. and so the hacking continued. and then in june 2016, it became public of the russian hacking,

widely reported. in december 2016, every tsenging one of -- single one of the u.s. intelligence agency heads went public and said that with high confidence -- this is december of 2016 -- with high confidence they could say that the russians were hacking our election. in september of 2016, senator feinstein and representative adam schiff came forward, and they said based on their positions as ranking members of the intelligence committee they had information from their hearings that the russians were hacking our elections. and, yes, again last month facebook came out and said, yeah, the russians purchased -- with rubleds -- $100,000 in ads and interfered with our elections. so all that happened, and today's the fist day of the hearing. today's the first public hearing that we're having on the infringements made by a foreign government on the united states

elections. that's shameful that it took so long. so i'm going to -- you know, we're talking about campaigns in general and limitations on campaign advertising. but again, i'm going to repeat my request, and when i say "repeat," back in december 2016, december 14th, i submitted this letter to the chairman of our committee at that time, mr. chaffetz, asking him for a hearing on the russian interference with our election. no response. on april 3, 2017, i repeated the effort again. i wrote a letter to this committee saying, look, this is the oversight committee. this is our national election. can we, please, have a hearing on the russian interference with our election. no response. again, i join -- this time i thought maybe it was just me, to i asked all my colleagues to join with me to a letter to jason chaffetz and also the honorable bob goodlatte, on may

16, 2017, could we, please, could we please have a hearing on russian interference in our election. it's very, very important to our democracy. they hacked the rnc and the dnc. both parties. we should be bipartisan about the integrity of our elections. and, again, up til today no action. and we're having a a hearing today on political advertising, but we still haven't had a single hearing, single public hearing on the russian interference in our election. ironically today i did learn in politico that mr. goodlatte has announced the 11th hearing on the clinton investigation, on the hillary clinton investigation. the department of justice investigation of secretary clinton. so it's, you know, we've got to get together on this stuff, and i know it might be painful for everyone. i actually asked ms. wasserman schultz would she come and

testify. yes, she said, she would. it would be difficult, but she would. she would come and help us delve into what actually happened. so let me ask you with my remaining 30 seconds, mr. vandewalker, you're familiar with the honest ads act that my friend mr. killer in and senator mccain have put out there. seems straightforward. give me your opinion on that, please. >> we think it's -- we take the position that it is an excellent framework to apply to, to address the problem of political spending which to close tours on foreign spending that can come in and affect elections by bringing the internet into an established framework that exists for political spending in other mass media. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i thank you for your indulgence, and i yield back balance of my time. >> mr. lynch, thank you. and i can't -- i appreciate the kind words, but i also want to highlight that there have been a number of hearings open and closed on the house permanent

select committee on intelligence -- >> i haven't, i haven't seen them. >> on the issue of this. but this, again, making sure that we're -- i'm glad we have, we're doing this in a bipartisan way. with that, it's now a pleasure to recognize the gentleman from the commonwealth of virginia, mr. connolly, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for having this hearing. i find it a remarkable moment in our democracy when so many up here apparently can see and hear no evil when it comes to russian interference with the american election process. irrespective of who benefited. but can beat a dead horse when it comes to what kind of server was used to somebody's e-mails. i think, i think that's an indictment of the enabling and complicit behavior we have seen

all too much of since mr. trump was signed in as president of the united states. what could be more sacred than protecting everyone's franchise and the integrity of that process in a democracy? when it is interfered with, deliberately, strategically targeted by a foreign adversary -- not an ally, an adversary -- why wouldn't we be doing everything in our power on a bipartisan basis to make sure that can never happen again? and that's really the context of this hearing. mr. goodman, from a legal point of view, in my state -- the great commonwealth of virginia -- when i do a campaign ad, if i do one, i'm required by law at the enof it to have a trailer -- end of it to have a trailer saying i paid for this,

this is my campaign ad. it's a stand by your ad kind of requirement, law. in a sense, that's sir kick scribing -- circumscribing my free speech, is it not? >> to some extent. the courts so far have never questioned the ability of the government to require disclosure. and with respect to one part of that which is the i'm gerald connolly and i paid for this ad, that at least with respect to the fcc is something you can choose to do or not do, but if you don't do it, you are not entitled to the candidate discount rate. >> right. >> so it's your choice. >> but the point here is there's precedent for circumscribing alternative -- certain forms of political advertisement. >> no one has ever questioned those particular requirements, to my knowledge, in court. but the supreme court has in all of its cases said disclosure is largely the remedy, and i would think this would be within the scope of disclosure. >> uh-huh. so, mr. vandewalker, given the

fact that there is precedent -- that's one example, there are lots of other examples -- of circumscribing what otherwise would be free speech. tobacco advertising, example. the government makes a producer of a certain product actually add words to its packaging it does not want to add but that are required by law. so there's precedent. no one wants to infringe the first amendment, but one of our friends on the other side of the aisle earlier made it seem as if the choice were, you know, gut the first amendment or deal with this problem. and it seems to me those are not the only two options in front of us. your comment. >> that's right. there are sort of limits on the amount of speech in various ways, and it's important to recognize there are first amendment interests on both sides; that is, the listener has

an interest in knowing who is speaking to them so that they can evaluate that message. the sort of democratic interests in voters knowing who's piping up for a candidate, that tells you something about what that candidate stands for. holding candidates accountable for the financial support that they get. as well as being able to evaluate is this message, you know, about some political issue coming to me from an environmentalist group or an oil industry, and do i trust which one of those and taking those sorts of things -- >> i'm going to run out of time, so let me just, you know, do boris and natasha operating from the dasha in the outskirts of moscow trying to corrupt american democracy through multiple social media and digital ads, do they have the same unfetteredded first amendment rights that anybody else does in the united states? >> no. >> they don't? why not?

>> well, for a number of reasons. you know, constitutional rights in general are diminished at most -- at the very least for foreign nationals not within the united states. but also it's important to note that in the democracy sphere as noted in the blumen opinion that was referenced earlier, we have this self-governing community. we are governing ourselves, and that is why we have a democracy and a first amendment, and others do not necessarily -- >> and, therefore, we have a right to protect ourselves from boris and natasha. >> right. >> thank you. >> mr. murphy, you're now recognized for your five minutes of questions. >> thank you, chairman hurd and ranking member kelly, for holding this important hearing on our political advertisement disclosure laws. you know, regardless of our political affiliations, we all agree that our elections are the cornerstone of our democracy. and transparency and the

security of elections must be protected at all costs. foreign efforts to undermine both our elections and the elections of other western democracies must be taken seriously. this congress has a responsibility to insure that all future elections are protected against foreign meddling. mr. vandewalker, we've heard today the suggestion and we've seen in at least written testimony that russian internet ad buys were just simply too small to be considered a nefarious foreign influence given the actual amount of money spent on electioneering ads versus other means of russian propaganda. would you agree with the idea that any effort by a foreign adversary to sway our elections regardless, regardless of whether or not those efforts have a significant impact on the outcome of an election are troubling?

>> yes. i mean, first of all, we don't know the extent. so we haven't seen the maximum figure. but, yes, any amount of, again, trying to influence american elections contrary to our self-sovereignty is problematic. >> you know, mr. vandewalker, earlier this month facebook stated that about ten million people -- ten million people had seen these ads. how concerning would you say those estimates are? and how does that impact the public's trust of our news media and our democratic institutions? >> right. i mean, i think it's very troubling. and, again, that should not be considered an upper bound. facebook said that was the awed cents that the paid ads reached. those same profiles produced unpaid content that reached probably, potentially, tens of millions more. therewe don't yet know. and that's one of the problems with not having very much disclosure in this area, we

actually still don't know the extent of the reach. and we need more information about who's trying to sway our political opinions. >> so it may have reached tens of millions of people, not just ten million. through the purchase of thousands of ads and the use of russian-linked accounts or bots on various social media platforms, russia's government was able to manipulate the internet's open access to information to spread lies, inflammatory rhetoric and other propaganda in the hopes of swaying voters both in the united states and france. among other places. multiple news reports found that on facebook alone there were hundreds of profiles linked to russian agents that spread false information regarding one of the presidential candidates as well as issues like immigration, guns and other divisive topics. during the french elections, there were similar efforts to spread false information regarding one of their presidential candidates.

mr. vandewalker, one final question. in your opinion, are we taking as a body in congress the issue of foreign infiltration of our internet sites seriously enough? [laughter] >> i think there's been a lot of discussion from, you know, our perspective at the brennan certain, we value transparency which is crucial in elections always and is especially crucial now to address this foreign influence. we certainly think more action could be taken. there are bills that have been introduced that would help address this problem. >> do you anticipate that the russians and others are going to continue these efforts in the ramp-up to 2018? >> everything i've seen from the intelligence community indicates that, yes, they are. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from the great state of washington and a friend, welcome to the oversight

committee. you're always, you're always welcome. love to see you at future hearings. mr. kilmer is now recognized for five minutes. >> thanks, chairman hurd and ranking member kelly both for overseeing this important hearing and for letting me sit in with your subcommittee. the our democratic republic, that system in which we, the people, are the boss has become vulnerable to foreign actors that want to disrupt our system of government to influence electoral outcomes. and from the reports that we've read so far, foreign actors targeted american voters to have the maximum impact on our elections. and that's unacceptable, and that's something, thankfully, that both democrats and republicans have agreed needs to be stopped. that's why we introduced the honest ads act, myself and congressman coffman with input from my good colleague, representative sarbanes and senators klobuchar, mccain and warner. and our bill would have the

federal election commission rules for online advertisements similar to what's already in place for tv, radio and satellite as. those rules require disclosure of who's buying what ads where. and that's vital if we're going to insure transparency to affirm the public's right to know. and it's important that if we're going to -- that's increasingly important if we're going to keep foreign money out of our politics. just based on some of the comments that have been made, i think it's important to acknowledge requiring disclosure when someone purchases a radio or tv ad does not prohibit or inhibit free speech, nor does holding those purchases in a public file. the supreme court has long recognized that commercial speech such as political advertisements is not subject to the same protections as a citizen's comment to speak up in the public square. i appreciate mr. chavren's

comment that applying those disclosure requirements to internet-based advertisements should be no different than what happens with radio and tv media, and i also appreciate congressman raskin's comment that, certainly, this bill doesn't solve all of the problem that is we saw in this last election cycle. but this would at least solve the discreet issue of the public's right to know whether a foreign actor is trying to purchase an ad on the internet. i have a bunch of questions, but i'm going to try to limit them. first, mr. rothenberg, could you speak to the challenges of perhaps the burden of keeping the file. if the public file requirement were on the purchaser of the ad or on the campaign, i guess my question is how, how could the government insure compliance by foreign actors if we went in the direction that you suggested previously? >> well, i'm not sure that you could assure that no matter whom you put the burden on. it will always be difficult if

front groups and then front groups beyond front groups can actually take out the ads. doesn't matter where the burden is placed in that regard. but i would say that one of the problems that i have with the honest ads act is it's placing the burden in no small part on smaller publishers that don't have the financial wherewithal to shoulder that burden. and when they're not the ones that are actually responsible for placing most of those ads. >> so let me dive into the detail of that with mr. chavren. the honest ads act would apply an fcc-style political file requirement to the largest platforms that sell paid online political ads. it currently defines a large online platform as those with 50 million unique u.s. visitors per month, so i guess i might suggest that that might

differentiate from the concern that you just raised. i guess my question is what's your view on that figure? do you have a sense of what types of platforms would be captured at that level? >> off the top of my head, it's hard for me to deal with specific metrics other than clearly at this point in time there are two large social media platforms that get the bulk of people's attention and ad revenue. that may change over time, by the way, so we will need some metric of size. i would come back to one thing mr. rothenberg stated that i certainly agree with, with regard to the honest ads act, with regard to the stated purpose of equal treatment, i think we've talked a lot about that today and how there may be value in that. we're still studying the implications of all the components of it. in particular, the repository and database and, you know, what kind of database for any platform, by the way, is

required in this new kind of converged digital age. so, but fundamentally to answer your question there's two clear candidates right now in terms of online platforms. but, you know, we'll have to consider the fact that there may be other ones and different ones in the future. >> it would include companies like hearst, conde nast, meredith, vox, vice media, basically a lot of newspapers and magazines that are not in the position to to take on extra burdens, financial burdens in reporting. 50 million unique users in the internet world is actually not a lot. >> thanks. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes, you're now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for permission to participate in the hearing. thank you for taking this issue as seriously as you have and also want to thank ranking

member kelly for her focus on this, and i want to thank my colleague from washington for his leadership on the honest ads act which i think is a critical step as we prepare for the elections next week -- next year, a although it could be next week. it seems like it's coming fast and furious, and that's why we need to get ready for it. ..

we've got to anticipate what comes next. it's hard to do that but in the baseline regime of disclosure in place with respect to what is happening online with the one thinwould be onething we could e ready than we are now and so we are going to encourage your colleagues to continue to push very hard for this kind of disclosure, which has the hearing has indicated is not out of line with the expectations that have been created with respect to the broadcast industry over time and the public i think indicated through the polling data that it wants to see this kind of information as well. advertisers should be allowed to make money for the election interference. how would you answer that question? do you think advertisers should be able to make money on the foreign interference?

>> i think within reason we should be preventing the foreign interference in our elections and it logically follows from that combination could make a profit from it. yes, i think the question needs to be focused because it isn't whether for example somebody makes money off the ad about whether an advertiser is permitted to participate and i think that is one of the issues if there is going to be further disclosure requirements needs to be addressed which is online platforms like broadcasters say yes we are u.s. citizens and have a u.s. company and to

determine whether that is accurate it has to be a government response. >> but i do think it goes to the question of the expectation that we should have from the advertisers themselves and what sort of responsibility they should carry to promote and keep track of these kind of things and i don't think as you indicated that we can enforce the standards i don't think that is realistic. the advertisers are the platforms receiving these positions to do that. it might be easy out of the gates to construct the algorithms but for just about everything else in the world they should be able to do this in order to enhance the disclosure.

the. to get information about what is happening in terms of spending on the campaigns. do you have any reason to think that the fcc wouldn't be able to handle the responsibility of administering what's being and envisioned in the information being collected and files being produced and equipment for the public to see it quickly isn't that a function they could undertake at this point?

>> that is one of the things and they have revamped the public space of the disclosures making them more searchable online answer to many policies can be developed in cooperation with social media as of the world who are good at putting things online to make it all feasible. >> thank you. i yield back the. does russia have first amendment rights in the united states? >> there's more than a russian would have on american soil. >> mr. goodman, can the government of russia by and add come to moscow i think that there would be a restriction on them by an act which would be

explicit advocacy because that would be illegal under the u.s. election law. >> if they wanted to buy an add-on broadcast that said don't send weapons to ukraine. >> i'm no expert with respect to the foreign participation in the u.s. media but other than that, assuming they comply with the disclosure requirements there is no prohibition on their speaking in the u.s.. >> does the registration act have anything to do with that of disclosure or purchase? >> that is what i was referring to. >> can they run a political advertisement in th the newspaps thenewspapersaying don't send go ukraine? >> it wouldn't count as

expressed advocacy. >> if they said call your congressman and tell them to support sending guns to the ukraine? >> once you get into the issue advocacy i would have the same question about foreign agent. >> can the russians run a digital ad that tells you to call your congressman and tell them not to support sending american guns to ukraine? >> i'm not an expert on that, so i cannot answer that question. >> do you have an opinion on either one of those three scenarios i just brought up? >> one of the things that could get at that is the political file requirement. not prohibition but --

>> is there >> is there a piece of law and court case that regulates whether the russian government could buy the ad on print broadcast or digital that says call your congressman and tell them to not send guns to the ukraine? >> not that i'm aware of. >> and i'm supportive of sending the guns to the ukraine to make that clear. >> it could be a communication if ther it were 60 days as mentd for someone running. >> your opinion on one of the scenarios. >> i am pleased to finally hear the registration act raised. it is a political file. this is a law that requires essentially a broad definition of political public communications and very low dollar thresholds to be found in the department of justice.

to have physical copies in the department and a disclaimer saying it's being paid for by the government, i think a lot of it, the tragedy of the conversation is that in our efforts to get at the russian activity we are ignoring the tool directed at the foreign actors and instead of trying to expand walls that by definition expanded the american age and given the scope of the existing and the fact it could be expanded if it were in the committees and trust that strikes me as a narrow way of building the political fight over the speaking discussed.

>> i recognize what is at stake is the integrity of the liberal democracy in our century. vladimir putin and his agents understood they could not compete with us militarily. they couldn't come here with us economically and they cannot compete with us politically on a fair stage because they've got nothing to sell but tierney and despotism but he detected a little but then the kiwis heel l in the united states which is our openness and freedom of expression on the internet which might be the most wide open of all of the forms of media that we have, so he took advantage of that and i think everybody here

agrees that we were caught sleeping and if there were hundreds of thousands of dollars perhaps millions to invade every note and cranny of the internet to inject poison into the political process and to try to gerrymander the outcome of the election. now let me ask this first of all, can we do this in reverse, for example would we be allowed to spend whatever money we wanted in saudi arabia, and iran, russia, the philippines? do they allow people from the liberal democracies to a access the public with such ease, does anybody have an answer to that? >> for generations we did that through the voice of america and

we did it very effectively. >> about the purchase of tv ads in saudi arabia or iran or russia to purchase i understand there is the voice of america which is announced it is disclosed and comes from the united states. but what about the kind of surreptitious penetration of the public consciousness that took place in 2016. that is something that the democrats oppose and have tried to stop in our history and then

the right to pursue those without covert interference by the foreign nations. the not just to express the advocacy spending but for the national corporations and governments. but also so taking place in the

season would we have the authority to do that for the nationals on the fury tha theort they do not enjoy the first amendment rights of the american people who were indeed the permanent resident. they couldn't as a matter of due process determine what was and wasn't covered. the danger in these sort of words. >> we've drawn the line between express advocacy and generalized advocacy because the line exists because two separate categories and campaign law applies for american citizens on one side of the other and they could apply on both sides for people or

entities, foreign governments and corporations to decide they want to get involved. what do you think about that? >> i think we are already there and it is banned. >> that we want to go beyond that to all the political spending during the campaign. for example, if it turns out that the russian government cleverly got himself involved with all of the right activities and it was doing everything possible to exasperate tensions in the country that we live with to this day. >> i think from the point of view of the first amendment, that is probably permissible provided that it is in a way that is understandable and congress has a bad track record on it. >> and theand they have the rigo speak through public platforms where they are announced and they've got a right to do a facebook page wit with isn't the spending of any money but it just seems to me when we talk about the expenditure of money in the political system, that's when it gets to be dangerous because you cannot rerun an

election and one contaminated can take a country down a very dark road. >> thank you. i recognize myself another five minutes. >> set of questions mr. goodman, mr. rothenberg. how much does it cost to host a website each month? >> you can do it for under $20 a month. >> would you agree on that? >> right now i think there might be a free option. >> i believe there is a free option. >> when people do advertising, on a digital platform, they fill out some forms and uploads a

copy so there's only a tiny record of it. >> that i cannot speak to. >> could there be an electronic record and can it get exported? >> i imagine. it doesn't sound like it would be that difficult. >> how much does it cost to publish a document to that website? >> if i already have wordpress and you can upload that relatively simply. >> so i'm curious what you

disagree with me on those or would you agree with the comments on all that? i am curious to know what burden we are putting on someone to publish the information of who is advertising. >> first of all, the ad if i enabled it to take advertising are not being bought or sold by me directly. i have nothing to do with it. >> what is the burden we are putting on the person displaying that ad on your individual website? >> one of my concerns i expressed before, it wouldn't put the burden on me to keep those records even though i have no involvement in the actual

distribution. >> i know that it is hard to address everyone. i get that, but are they expunging on that information that people are collecting the advertising dollars on what is being promoted? >> presumably, they have it but you are asking me to keep the records, and i don't have any of those records. >> so the person that has the record, what burden would it be for them to publish? >> it depends upon who it is and where they are in the system. >> i think there are two questions. one is if you ask for who is paying, that is what broadcasters already do. there's a considerable amount of complaints it isn't a informative for the citizens for good government who actually that is.

>> into the broadcast goes back and asks and you loose your counsel or executive committee and they don't give you an answer. i get back. i am not asking for enforcement. i am asking what burden is there to publish that information and data. >> the information is currently uploaded to the website websitey the ftc and its proven not to be a very significant burden to most tv stations. >> the one thing i would note is in the website example you gave obviously the website viewed by you would have some types of ads and if i view the same website that they may have a totally different set of ads programmatically by the platform, so i think you also have to take into account the volume and again, these stone's have no human touch related to them and above all human deciding for example the amount of effort --

>> what about the spreadsheet to publish the 10 million line? >> it's the same level of effort because you're not collecting it. so, to display it is no different in displaying the ten lines versus a million. you may have to pay for the size of the file, but i am getting at i keep hearing the burden to publish the data that is already in hand. you already have the data. what is the burden? it is where you are placing the burden. that depends on how you write the requirements. >> do you have an opinion on all of this?

>> no, i am excited to hear the answer. [laughter] >> i don't have any time left to die thabythat extend from that m you all. ten seconds. what is it that you wish the committee would know about the topic that you haven't been able to address and that is the same question for you mac i think the committee got it all. >> industry self-regulation would toughen the tight enforcement and can go further enforcing the rules. i think whatever you do, it needs to be clear so that the rules are understandable and responsibility for enforcement has also established.

>> let's take a moment to figure out the rules on political advertising and the platform. let's take a moment to say what makes sense and what do we need. >> the courts have allowed us to establish record-keeping burdens and things of this nature only so far as the undermining speeches directed and to the extent that we are toying with using the intervention which we can separately regulate as an excuse to undo the burden, i think we are waiting and a territory that is far less charted in the territory suggested. >> i want to thank you for being here today and appearing before us. for any member any statements or questions for the record if there is no further business without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.

>> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

we looked at proposals to require greater disclosure of political bias on social media like facebook and twitter. this is half-an-hour. >> thehe next guest chief of policy programs and strategy talking about this legislative proposal taking a look at ads that appear on facebook