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 and

twitter. please remind the folks what you are about. >> a nonpartisan nonprofit. it is a broad range to make the democracy work better for the american people. >> host: going back last year,y what happened on facebook and twitter. there were $100,000 spent by was thee minimum.

if there's the foreign entities local, state and federal and that's been the wall of th law d for many years. so, they were successfully, placing these ads very specifically targeted. so the question was what is the appropriate step to deal with this foreign influence in american politics. if we took a look at this and tried to do a carefully crafted approach that provides americans the information they need, but not to go down a path that was trying to solve every problem or be too broad i think that the bipartisan legislation that was introduced in congress takes a first step in a very carefully crafted way.

>> it is sponsored by senator klobuchar and senator mark warnerto of virginia when it cos to the principles of the act it would require the digital platforms more than 50 million to create a public database that spends more than $500 it would also create a public file to add the description of the targeted audience and the number of views that added contact information for the. purchaser. what do you think this boy to do? >> the goal is to provide a tool using disclosures to protect the national security. that was the frame of the discussions when it was being crafted and that was the goal sponsors set up introduced by the democrat from washington and republican from colorado.

the whole conversation that started is how do we protect national security is at the tools we can use that we already have in wall on political advertising on television and radio and that deal with disclosure by candidates and so the goal was to take a modest step forward and include social media as appropriate and as it fits the platform and that was the goal and i think the disclosure tool is probably the best tool it'sin not seeking to ban anything other than to provide disclosure, our guest is with us if you want to ask a question about this legislative proposal in her thinking on it, 8001 for republicans, democrats 8000, an and independents 748-8. one of the criticisms of the

legislation came from bloomberg a gentle man named burzynski. under the honest ads act, it disguises the random locations would still be able to buy and run any kind of political ad from the outskirts of st. petersburg. it would be on radio or the internet of people work very hard to mask their identities andat in the media they can do that and we have seen that efforts to try to mask where the money is coming from. there is position in the regulations that talk about getting to the true identities of the source of the funding. that applies for television or radio and we wanted to ensure in

the cases of the paid political ad so let me just emphasize this oncen. again. the legislation isn't trying to solve allal the problems of peoe expressing views on the internet there is no intent to reach that. it is very narrowly tailored to look at the online paid political advertising and there is language in this bill that does put obligations on the platform to do the best to ensure that the money doesn't come into the election. >> there would be extra work for these databases. >> i think most americans would be shocked at the level of granularity of the detail that they alreadyca have, and in this case when it comes to the online paid political advertising we are not talking about anyone just sitting there blogging on their own or sharing their werer views, we are talking about paid political advertising making

money hand over fist in this area and so i think that this is a burden television and radio aations currently have come it isn't a big ask to ensure that the online platforms have the same kind of obligations. that tailored for the nature of an online platform. >> is it a coincidence senator mccain signed onto this? >> absolutely. first of all he's the chair of the armed services committee and i would note mr. warner is vice chair of the intelligence committee and what really is the point here is to say why did our government must have the tools to protect against foreign interference in how can we create these tools and i think the fact that you have the vice chair of intelligence and chair of the armed services committee showed howoo important the tools are protecting the national security. >> are there free speech concerns about having this kind of database orifice linear on thehe internet?

>> iem actually a fan of the former supreme court justice scalia when faced with questions aboutt disclosure on campaigns talked about the home of the braveki and in this case this isn't any kind of restriction in terms of extra layers it is simply a disclosure and the federal communications commission many years ago back in the 50s and 60s wrote that listeners are entitled to know by whom they are being persuaded. this is simply a tool for the government to ensure the foreign y,and entities are not coming i. the disclosure has been upheld by the supreme court and repeatedly i wouldld go to many people forget in the citizens united physicians by ann h.-one-vote the supreme court upheld the disclosure. they've done that repeatedly in terms of political campaigns and elections and that area not in all of politics but when it

comes to campaigns and elections they bought into the notion sunlight is the best disinfectant and we need to arm both our citizens most importantly to be able to have this information and then we can start to have a good robust discussion but too know who the speaker is. >> host: the first call comes cs from david and clinton township michigan you are on the. go ahead. >> caller: thank you. i just have one question. i was wondering could twitter site and real donald trump be a russian trolling sites? sites?guest co. the honest answer to that is that relies on twitter to determine where and how they verify where the sites are that i think in this case they seem to be coming from the president who confirms he is doing it, so i think again, this legislation

we are talking about doesn't get into what these individual private companies do. it is about paid political advertising on social media and that is the way this bill is staying. >> host: new york on the democrats whine. rob is next. hello. >> thank you for c-span. why doesn't the government have the tools to combat this problem? follow the money, remember the old phrase 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 she's saying but many people are going to write her off. perhaps the president should show us this news.

>> the most important thing to note is the legislation we are talkingoe about does have bipartisan support and these werere efforts that reached outo a number of members. ites was great credit for coming on thiss bill. and i would note that they did the same on the senate side and there were others who say that they are interested in the legislation and simply want to have somear hearings first so im hopeful that they will hold hearings and the honest act will be the basis for those hearings but how do you find an online

platform that should be covered in this instance and what kind of money. 99 cost under $100,000 yet they were very effectively targeted and in many cases i think they sought that they found it to be most influential so these are some of the issues that the hearings should look at. >> they put outou a statement is that they they stop advertising in lower dollar amounts that would shut off an indispensable outlet if senator klobuchar

claims it should apply to all media tha but this has never ben thedl case they are not regulatd in the same way. >> they are not regulated in exactly the same way that i would note a couple of things. first, there is a floor built into this legislation so if you are on one of these platforms, to be covered by some of this disclosure you would have to aggregate $500 just to be covered and anything under that if you are not on one of these sites i think the other point here and i would note that they oppose this disclosure that is a pretty far extreme on the scale of where most americans are that we are trying to set a similar standards and that's why there was an effort to stay not just

we are going to treat online advertising this famous television and radio because ray arefe different platforms but t the bill does do in a very carefully considered they say what is a reasonable expectation to get the information we need to not be too burdensome and at the same time ensure we have the information available and that was the balance that was part of the discussion. >> on the independence line from annapolis maryland. >> caller: i want to thank the organization and torso for being on a jo the job here and lookino this.is i have three quick things. one is to understand facebook scrubbed the 2016 records concerning the business with

different people, that was a newspaper. number two, the tennessee situation in which it was used as a front with some celebrities for bad stuff that was in the newspaper also and then the most important question, for the virginia race do you expect that the russians and others might be involved in those? again, thank you for your service. >> guest: i would note many of these have an obligation on themselves to make sure that the foreign entities are not in the business of influencing u.s. election. that wouldan be the case for almost any private entity there

has to be a level of due diligence. i would note this applies to other private companies like banks who have a level of responsibility when they are trying to fight against drug traffickers laundering money. there is no doubt that there are going to the efforts not only by russian troll farms and others who may not have the best interest of the united states at heart. this kind of propaganda and disinformation has been around for years but the difference is the tools have changed. the ability before when you might see someone sending out flyers is pretty quaint but now you think you can spend, you know, a thousand dollarsho and reached thousands of people, so it's very important that the laws change if 20th 20th century laws trying to deal with 21st century reality and that's what we are trying to get at and i note this legislation is

aimed at online paid political advertising. it doesn't try to solve the problems of people sitting in macedonia or some other country where there are hundreds of people liking things and posting things. this legislation does not attempt to solve the problem and i think largely because we do not know enough yet about the best means to address that so rather than overreach the choice madneeds to be fairly conservate here, to go at the online paid advertising i would note when you have paid advertising even in newspapers, if it is paid for by a political committee they have disclaimer responsibility, so it has been in the u.s. election law for many years and works well. the notion is they should have the information so they can make up their own mind. it's not the government telling you what to think. it's not that i'm saying, if

here's who's speaking if it is a foreign entity that isn't allowed under the standing law if it is a regular domestic entity than you can make up your own mind on how you think about that. [inaudible] >> caller: history on how they repealed the fairness doctrine and how that affected not only the public but the purpose of the fcc was pretty much eliminated back in the 80s. >> i would note the fairness doctrine is a fairly

controversial issucontroversiale republicans and democrats conservatives and progressive sins its inception and since it was put into place and it was fought hard by many folks who wantedoc to have the fairness doctrine eliminated. let me explain what that is but i want to move forward quickly as well because that isn't what are talking about today. it was put in place to ensure broadcasters 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 wasn't goingot to be an appropriate obligation for broadcasters. it was set aside back in the 80s, and some people think eliminating it gave rise to the conservative radio etc. but i would note the federal communications commission still

has enormous amounts of ability to ensure that the kinds of disclosure that have been in the long-standing law dates back to the days of payola. this isn't even from the days of political campaigns, to ensure appropriate sponsorship identification and that is the issue here that isn't the issue with the fairness doctrine so when you look at the sponsorship identification this a has been t the heart of the communications act even back to the radio days somewhat even by the cacophony that was caused when the titanic sank. i hope some of the folks listening will focus on the notion that the tools to best protect the national security are what we are trying to put in place for the paid advertising and have a robust discussion let's not have the other powers discussion. that

>> it may not surprise you that there is aa story today in the "washington post" about facebooi alone spending $2.85 million lobbying the federal government. the same purpose that was dedicated to the officials in the white house on the online advertising content platform transparency efforts how much voice they have on capital to not keep the legislation from happening. >> iof think they have enormous amounts of power partly because of the total immersion into the culture and the town meeting space. it used to be even down to the town hall to meet and now it's on television it's been muc if t is online so they hav have an enormous amount of sway on the hill. theymo obviously are going to spend a lot of money and a lot of time blogging but i'mlo hopel that even with that effort they realize it isn't in their interest to be used by foreign

powers and the effort is to achieve that balance. everyone has a robust first amendment rights to lobby and it is a great thing. i've been a registered lobbyist since the 1980s and i think it often gets a bad name. the question is how do you ensure that it is arriving into the offices for the political officials so that they have a robust picture of what all the issues are and i'm hopeful that the sponsors on the house and senate side are trying to listn to all sides and the hearing will provide an avenue for the come these two speak out and for others to be heard. so i say bring on the lobbying. this is a good thing, not a bad thing.th but let's also make sure the public interest and policy decisions are first and foremost in thforemostand a public offic. >> host: the group if she one

talking to us about this legislative effort on facebook and online ads particularly when it comes to elections. debbie in albuquerque go ahead. go-ahead. >> caller: good morning. i haven't calle called him in ag time, but the idea everybody stood back and watched this slm and it's not just the united states, its global and now you've come along and say anybody can post on it anything they want and you're mad because people believe this so you're going to regulate facebook because people are not educated enough to say maybes this isn't true, that is your logic behind this instead of bolstering education for people with that other sources? i am on facebook and the idea that i would get my news on facebook is hysterical. i see people post all sorts of

stuff and i get a kick out of it. the idea that you are upset because america isn't smart enough to figure out maybe this isn't real, so you're going to regulate a public slam book called facebook because you don't like the way things turned out is basically as a country we are not that smart anymore. >> host: width of the biggest response. >> guest: i went to high school in albuquerque new mexico and my folks still live there so i have a great fondness for new mexico. i want to note again, this caller,th what we are talking about here is not the posting or any of the interaction on facebook or any of the intelligence levels of the american people. what we are talking about is saying we have online paid political advertising. hohow do you use the appropriate standards so that the paid

political advertising is treated in a very similar way to play paid political advertising is treated on television and radio and some degree of their public media? that is a fairly narrow question, and i would also say some of the a opposite of what you're saying. we are actually saying if you haveve disclosure and have the information as an american, we are smart enough to make up our own minde when we have the information, so this is a tool to provide that information and to ensure fo foreign entities ae not paying for the ad. there is a report, i heard several people now talk about this on the hill, the $100,000 that was spent that should be a tell tale sign about the ad so i think i am agreeing with you get the information is accurat as as

you can and then i would trust in the american people to make up their mind on that. >> i want to commend you on your work. this could be legislation proposed to congress and i really hope the congressmen pay attention to this because you can't have a democracy when the facts are confused. the former caller had a point sometimes you don't have the tools to become a private investigator and say where is the smoke.

sometimes you have to do your own investigating to find out what is right. >> that's what the legislation actually recognizes to say the ads that are being run on social media is the same as those that are in other media so to me that is a common sense approach and the bipartisan legislation tries to take that common sense approach. it doesn't solve every problem but if you don't put in place thelo tools then you will never have the ability to find out if

they are making this effort so i think the caller hit the nail on the head on commonon sense here. it's no reasono reason not to ht century law to cover the reality of what we have now with social media. >> i don't know how many times i have seen people take for granted things that are posted on facebook are true and it's so easy to research and you find out that they are taken out of context what the or they are juy downright lies so i think that if you can do this and we can see who is backing these things it would be good because if you think that president obama had

said to president trump he was foolish to believe that the russians were influencing the election and so it seems to me if former president obama believe that, that we need information from people who can support what theyca are saying. thank you very much. >> guest: the caller talked about the importance of facts. this legislation is trying to seek those facts and disclosed in. disclosure i think is the important part. there are those that have said disclosure is an effort to squelch these and i think the opposite is true. what you are trying to do is provide people with the tools so they have accurate factual information and you have a robust discussion.

it's not an attempt to get the camel's nose under two further regulation here. that is and what is going on and i think there will be folks that talk a scare tactic to make this seem to be part of a bigger effort. i would note when you talk about the disclosure it is important to realize in the context of campaigns and elections the supreme court repeatedly said that it is an appropriate tool to be used in this context it doesn't mean it's for every issue but when it comes to the campaigns and elections it is theia appropriate tool and that comes from long-standing decisions.

>> abrahamad lincoln established the national union party and put one-party system so what do you think about us resurrecting that way as it eliminates all the problemss that we face tod. >> i thinkbu having robust political parties is a good thing for the nation because they should be the way that an average american can engage in the political process and i would say one of the problems is that they have become hollowed out shells where large amounts of money are launched and at these high levels and that the ability of the average american to feel like their engagement,

whether d republican, democrat r independent has meaning at a local levelev or that the 25, 5, $100,000 that they may give up their hard-earned money has any meaning in the context where there are individuals on both sides of the aisle giving millions of dollars, so political parties should be about how individuals can engage with like-minded people to support the candidates and ideology they believe in. unfortunately, that is and what the political parties have pobecome, and a this point, they seem to be more engaged in holding onto power or having large amounts to come in. but that is a topic for a different day. we are an online political advertising, paid political advertising today, and i hope that people take the opportunity to look at the legislation and

contactt their members of congress, republican and democrat alike can speak part of the bipartisan effort to find commoefforts to findcommon groud solutions. for many years, people were concerned that we didn't know what to do and i think that we need tore focus on the solution. the american people shouldn't be persuaded that they shouldn't exist but that wer need to give the leaders the political will to make sure the solutions get enacted. >> host: chief of policy programs and strategy for the group if she one. thanks for your time.