on c-span3. the house select intelligence committee, collin stretch of facebook and kate walker for google. watch all three hearings on c-span3 online at cspan.org or listen live on the free c-span radio app. that announcement came the same day as a house oversight sub committee hearing that looked at the regulation of political advertising on social media and other platforms. witnesses discussion certain diz closure rules for online advertisements and the implications of russia purchasing facebook ads during the 2016 election. this is just under two hours.

subcommittee on information technology will come to order. without objection the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. good afternoon. today's hearing is part of a series of hearings the i.t. subcommittee has held to analyze existing laws and regulations that may have become obsolete updating technological advances. we've held hearings on health i.t., drones, autonomous vehicles, internet of things and many other issues. today we turn attention to laws and regulations governoring political advertisement hearing. civil campaign finance laws, disclosure requirements from public information for campaign candidates, parties or political action committees related to federal offices. in addition, the fcc enforces additional disclosure and disclaimer on broadcast,

satellite, radio ads. some proposed increased disclaimer and disclosure laws or internet platforms and proposed a role for ftc. interplay between these three regulatory agencies and how they apply the law is something the oversight committee is uniquely situated to examine and i hope we dig into that today. in many ways an example of i.t.'s subcommittee's efforts to examine emerging technology. there's a level of urgency in importance in this hearing that cannot be understated. since the sun rose on our democratic experiment our adversaries have sought to destroy what our forefathers fought for. our adversaries sought to use our nation's unique qualities to undermine robust and resilient democracy but now the tools have changed. as we've seen in recent months and weeks russia has attempted

to influence our democratic process utilizing among other tools political advertisements on major american social media platforms. with every technological advancement, our nation's regulatory posture has evolved to meet the changing needs of the day. today i hope to explore questions related to the need for reform of our nation's political advertisement laws and regulations. as always i'm honored to be exploring these issues in a bipartisan fashion with my friend and ranking member, the honorable robin kelly from the great state of illinois. always good to be with you. i thank my colleagues and witnesses and fellow citizens who have joined us today in person or who are watching online for participating today. now is my honor to to recognize ranking member of subcommittee on information technology miss kelly for her opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for holding this important hearing. today we'll examine federal laws on federal advertising one month after facebook revealed russia spent $100,000 to buy 3,000 ads to influence the 2016 election. those ads reached 10 million americans.

these are just the numbers we know of. there are likely many more ads directly and indirectly by the russian government. u.s. finance law prohibits foreign money in elections but allows foreign money to purchase issue ads. all political ad must carry a disclaimer, which discloses who the buyer of the ad is. but this requirement does not extend to digital ads like those on facebook. the russian government exploits these loopholes. in the 2016 elections russians on were able to take advantage of our outdated rules and mounted campaigns on facebook, twitter and google. they microtargeted their ads, sometimes posing as community activists with the intention of turning americans against americans. they sought to sway voters in critical congressional districts and swing states with fake news. the last time the federal election commission updated

these elections was april 2011, more than ten years ago. that was before the iphone had been introduced. twitter was still in development and facebook was only for college students. in fact, 35 of the 42 members of the oversight committee were not yet in congress. myself or the chairman included. much has changed in that time, our presidential candidate effectively used twitter to wage a successful presidential campaign. it's time we recognize it in today's world television and radio are not the only media carrying political ads. i am confident that we can prevent meddling by russia by protecting the first amendment rights of americans. i was encouraged to see the fec recently reopened its 2011 comment period on social media political advertising after these russian meddling revelations. however, i'm still concerned

about systemic problems with the fec that have led to years of gridlock. we cannot continue waiting for action, our adversaries have shown they can act quickly and exploit our inability to enforce the law. according to recent polls, 64% of americans want regulation on social media advertising, and an astonishing 78% of americans want payment disclosure for political advertisements. i couldn't agree more. it's clear that americans want transparency and more accountability in social media, political advertising. congress and the intelligence community need to fully investigate what happened in 2016. i commend the chairman for his leadership and willingness to hold today's hearing. congress must work to insure the integrity of our elections. recently senators warner and klobuchar and mccain and representatives kilmer and kaufman introduced the bipartisan honest abe ads act. it will increase transparency and online political advertising by requiring online platforms to

disclose copies of ads and their targeted audiences. this bill is a great start. thank you for our witnesses. i look forward to hearing your thoughts and ideas on how we can protect our democracy, thank you mr. chairman. i also ask for unanimous consent that representatives sarbanes kilmer and cartwright be allowed to join us today and participate in the hearing. >> so ordered. >> thank you ranking member kelly. we now introduce our witnesses. we have allen dickerson. mr. david travern, mr. jack goodman, owner of the law offices of jack goodman. mr. randall rothenberg, and mr. ian vanderwalker. senior counsel for brennan center for justice democracy program at the new york university school of law. welcome to you all. and pursuant to committee laws,

all witnesses will be sworn in before you testify. please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? thank you. let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. in order to allow time for discussion, please limit your opening testimony to five minutes and your entire written statement will be made part of the record. i appreciate those written statements. it really was helpful in better understanding these issues. for those who are looking for great outline of these questions we're going to be debating here today, i would suggest you go to the oversight website to review those statements.

as a reminder, the clock in front of you shows your time remaining. the light will turn yellow when you have 30 seconds left and red when your time is up. so mr. dickerson, you're up first and you're now recognized for five minutes. >> used to courts. chairman herd, ranking member kelly, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to appear on behalf of senate for competitive politics. the internet has fundamentally transformed the ways in which we communicate with one another. it has become ubiquitous. it's on our desks, next to our alarm clocks and in our pockets. today a large portion of

americans walk around every day carrying devices that can instantly connect them with anyone in the world electric almost anywhere. in fact, in 2014, a supreme court reported survey data indicated 12% of americans use their cell phones in the shower. the internet revolution has allowed americans to absorb, produce and distribute content without third party intermediaries. this no longer have to see if an editor has accepted or they no longer have to bare the expense and burden of buying broadcast and political ads. as judge john cain observed when he struck down a colorado campaign finance law, it must be remembered that the internet is the new soapbox. it's the new town square. in a way that makes the 1980s revolution in desktop publishing appear almost quaint, the internet has made us all publishers, distributors and speakers. every american has the opportunity to be tom payne. william lloyd garrison. one suspects those authors would approve. according as the federal election commission itself is recognized, the blossoming of online speech is delicate and great caution must be taken when burdening the rights of american

speakers. that does not mean, as i explained at some length in my written testimony that it's a wild west without rules. it does mean the current regulatory environment strikes a balance in favor of a flourishing civil society. further efforts to license or regulate the placement of small bore issue advertising, particularly those who do not advocate for any outcome, will drive out the poorest and least sophisticated online speakers. they will affect not wealthy corporations, which can afford the experts to insure compliance, but rather grassroots activists passionate about the issues of the day. moreover efforts to shift liability from licensed speech onto online platforms will simply require those companies to pass on those costs onto those same small budget consumers. and it will create incentives to limit small dollar ad buys and grassroots speakers in favor of sophisticated entities that can vet in advance.

the result will be an internet that is less free, less open and less available to ordinary americans. of course, the internet presents challenges. to take one example, foreign threats are a valid and a vital concern. they cannot justify regulations whose burdens will fall on americans overwhelmingly. the deterrence of foreign actors is a familiar problem. it is accomplished through means of diplomacy, counter-intelligence and military readiness. campaign finance law, and particularly the possibility of a fine levied to the fecs civil enforcement authority adds relatively little to that mix. instead, additional campaign finance rules will further restrict access to the internet the new public square, by average americans and small groups. the first amendment stands against those efforts. it is a bulwark against the passions of the moment and a reminder that our dedication to

liberty and unfettered public debate is a strength and not a weakness. nor does technological advancement change the constitution's fundamental guarantees. the first amendment writes to free speech are not circumscribed because they become easier for the american to exercise. as always then, when dealing with political speech, speech to the supreme court has recognized to be at the center of the first amendment's protections, our guiding principle must be restraint. thank you. i look forward to the subcommittee's questions. >> thank you, mr. dickerson. mr. travern you're recognized for your opening remark. >> thank you very much chairman herd, members of the subcommittee on information technology. thank you very much for asking

me to participate in today's hearing. i represent the news media alliance, non-profit trade association representing nearly 2000 news publishers across the united states. our members include some of the largest global news organizations, as well as local newspapers focusing on issues that impact the daily lives of citizens in every state and congressional district. alliance members share a common mission to inform society in an accurate, thoughtful and responsible manner. our news organizations have long made substantial investments and high quality journalism to achieve that mission. our journalists and publishers

are held to high standards, as detailed in the american society of news editor statements of principles and the society journalists code of ethics. not only are we potentially liable for knowingly publishing something that's false, our very brands are built on trust with our readers. because of this, our commitment to truthful and accurate reporting has also informed our approach to advertising. publishers have long played an important role ensuring the integrity of advertisements that appear next to their content. when it comes to political advertisements, the legal responsibility for complying with federal election commission rules clearly falls on the advertiser. nonetheless, news publishers have taken an active role in insuring that proper disclosures are made and all ads placed on publications reflect honesty and integrity that's the foundation of our brands. as technology evolved publishers have carried forward our responsibility to provide accurate content and the internal controls that go with that to our digital products. these efforts are now much more difficult because of the growth of online platforms like google and facebook that act as intermediaries in the distribution of news, content and advertising. publishers previously worked to insure the integrity of both their content and the advertising that appeared next to it. now we have less control over advertising because of program act -- program attic deliver through platforms. these challenges are largely caused by the massive growth and

inability to control an eco system that was built with a specific intention of not exercising responsibility over the integrity of content or the advertising that sustains its foundation. this exacerbated by the fact that google and facebook now control the distribution and monetization of online news and information. they're the top two sources of traffic for online news publishers, they also collect most of the revenue. with google and facebook receiving approximately 71% of all digital advertising dollars in the united states last year, which includes political advertising. news publishers have worked tirelessly to respond to rapidly changing business models, my members now represent some of the most innovative and engaging digital publishers in existence.

we have created the new businesses without compromising in the integrity of our journalism. it is time that google and facebook and other online platforms do their part as well. while they have profited greatly from their immense market power, they have yet to accept fully the responsibility that comes with that position. when it comes to political advertising, congress also needs to make the same adjustments the rest of the economy is making and move away from a platform specific perspective. my members deliver their news content wherever their readers want it, on desktops, in print, mobile devices. if congress sees fit to impose requirements on certain kinds of political speech, then those rules shouldn't be defined by the delivery platform. as a corollary, congress should revisit the need for current platform specific requirements to see if they appropriately apply to our converged digital world. if congress continues to legislate by platform, technology will simply continue to outpace the rules. the alliance believes the fec rules should be updated to require disclosures within an internet advertisement to identify the sponsor of an ad. google and facebook should update their business models and opaque algorithms that accelerate distribution of so-called fake news and viral messaging so high-quality

reputable content is elevated in search and news feeds. i believe these changes would lead to a healthier journalism industry, a better informed citizenry and more united country. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you, sir. mr. goodman, you're now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, good afternoon, mr. chairman, ranking member kelly and members of the subcommittee. my name is jack goodman. i'm pleased to present testimony on political advertising. although i have decades of experience working with broadcast stations on political advertising, i do not appear today on behalf of any present or former client. and the views i express are entirely my own. broadcasters have long been considered america's most trusted source of news. far more than any other medium, broadcast news involving politics is subject to detailed

regulations. this affects what ads the station must accept, information about sponsors they must obtain and disclose to the public and the prices they charge for political ads. in my experience, stations take their compliance efforts very seriously. the fcc's political broadcasting staff is exceptionally helpful, but even experienced broadcasters and their counsel frequently encounter questions as to which no clear answer exists. disclaimer as i will refer to it, information in ads about their sponsor, these are often referred to as sponsor id requirements. disclosure refers to requirements for sponsors of political advertising to reveal who they are and who determines their policies. both the fcc and the fec have rules governing aspects of both disclosure and disclaimer. but agencies have sought to avoid conflicting regulations and very importantly both believe that broadcasters and

their employees should not be required to serve as unpaid government enforcement agents or unofficial private investigators. the fcc's disclaimer rule for all political advertising is that the ad must include a statement saying either paid for or sponsored by whoever is actually writing the check, paying for it. these disclaimer rules limit the type of ads stations can sell. short messages cannot be used because a disclaimer will not fit. thus, inflexible disclaimer rules can prevent the use of some formats for political speech. turning to disclosure, broadcasters and cable systems must maintain public inspection files. including the political file. television station public files are now online and all stations will have their files online by next march. for candidate buys the station is required to disclose the candidate, the requested schedule, and the cost of the ads.

disclosure requirements for non-candidate ads which include both independent expenditures relating to elections and ads about issues or referenda are more complex. the rules require detailed disclosure for any ad that communicates a political matter of national importance. the act explains these include references to a legally qualified candidate, any election to federal office or a national legislative issue of public importance. this definition is, to say the least, unclear. for example, is reference to a legally qualified candidate intended today encompass issue ads about state and local races? determining what is a national legislative issue can also be

challenging. if congress is considering a gun control bill, and a separate gun measure were introduced in a state legislature, would an ad be subject to expanded disclosure? the requirements disclose sponsor's author and details are difficult to enforce. some ad agencies simply refuse to provide requested information. stations infrequently receive orders to issue ads that do not identify any individual or even if the station insists are given one name. stations face similar problems in getting accurate information about issues in the ad. the rule itself is ambiguous. for example, if there are issue ads next year opposing senator kaine's, is re-election of senator kaine an adequate description of the issue? and what if an ad discusses more than one issue, does each one need to be disclosed?

another problem can arise if time is reserved in advance and the advertiser does not decide which specific issue to address until just before the ad runs. because of these problems, even the most conscientious station has problems with what would be in the political file. political broadcasting rules is instructive. any new rules applicable to broadcasters or other media need to be flexible to be adapted to new and varying speech formats. and if new disclosure requirements are created, the responsibility for collection should not be placed on the media, but instead on a government agency with authority to interpret the rules, invest in resources and power to impose sanctions for noncompliance. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. goodman. mr. rothenburg you're now recognized for five minutes. >> chairman herd, ranking member kelly, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the honor of testifying today. i would like to get straight to the point. throughout my 11 year tenure, the interactive advertising bureau has always stood for greater transparency and

disclosure in the digital advertising supply chain, regardless of whether the ads are political or commercial. because we believe transparency and disclosure are necessary for consumer safety. and brand safety. so we strongly support efforts by this congress and the federal election commission to clarify, reconcile and strengthen the disclosures required of political parties, candidates, and campaigns. but as a representative of the economy's fastest growing sector, ieb also believes our industry itself can go even further to implement supply chain protections that would fortify the trustworthiness of digital advertising in media in political advertising and commercial advertising alike. ieb has a proven track record of taking and implementing responsibility across our 650 plus member companies. together with multiple partner

associations, we have created some of the media industry's strongest self-regulatory mechanisms, programs that have been lauded by the white house, congress department and the federal trade commission. through the digital advertising alliance's privacy program we have provided consumers more control over their personal data and digital advertising environments. through the trustworthy accountability groups and anti-fraud registry and auditing program, we have worked closely with u.s. and law enforcement bodies to root criminal activity from the ad supported internet. we were warning about and guarding against russian bot traffic years before it became a washington concern. our long experience with the diverse, innovative and untidy world of advertising and media persuades us in this industry there is a role for government regulation. but durable reform can only happen when the digital advertising community adopts tougher, tighter comprehensive controls for who is putting what on its sites.

since its passage in 1971, the federal election campaign act has mandated disclaimers on all political advertising that advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. but much of the fake news and fake ads at the center of the current storm did not engage in such overt candidate support. there were not a bunch of secretive russian moles purchasing vote for trump or hillary for president internet banner ads. rather, there were sophisticated posts about social and political issues, some of which were made more widely available because the operators were paid to amplify them in people's feeds. some of the scandalous messaging was not even placed for payment. both social influence advertising and unpaid advocacy fall outside the scope of federal campaign disclosure rules. americans have first amendment rights to shout on street corners, put signs on their lawns and post on social media without registering as political committees or reporting how much they spend on megaphones or smartphones.

there is one more complex challenge current disclosure rules to the internet, the traditional regulations from fec and the fcc require disclosure by campaigns and by the media running the ads. in that world, the media are in full control. no programming of any sort runs on a television station or magazine that hasn't been vetted by those companies. in the digital world by contrast, every page is cobbled together from multiple sources and assembled on the fly inside a user's internet browser, articles, videos, sponsored links and social commentary come together from scores of server computers. underneath the visible page, scores of other suppliers may be contributing measurement, ad verification and pricing services. only a portion of the advertising is sold directly by publishers, the greater portion is sold and distributed by third party technology companies which do their work via automated systems. programmatically in industry parlance. legislative proposals that would require websites to field expensive disclosure mechanisms create burdens on struggling media organizations yet would barely capture illicit

communication that is placed problematically. we would like congress's support for strengthening the mechanisms we already have built by which digital media companies police their chains for bad actors and provide greater transparency into who is putting what on their sites. we can monitor the financing chain whether the paid support takes the form of conventional advertising or whether it shows up in less familiar formats. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. >> thank you mr. rothenberg. >> thank you, mr. vanderwalker you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon. on behalf of brennan center for justice i thank the subcommittee for holding this hearing. we appreciate the opportunity to share with you our recommendations concerning federal political advertising laws and regulations particularly as they relate to the ability of foreign powers to participate in elections. we focus on democracy and

justice and has studied campaign finance for 20 years working to develop and defend effective and constitutionally sound policies. there are gaping holes in our regulation of paid political ads in contrast to radio and television, much of the spending on internet is untouched by key regulations. it includes requirement to report spending on mass media ads, the ban on foreign nationals buying such ads and the requirements that broadcasters retain public files of political ads. it's time for this to change. the internet is only going to grow in its importance to politics. the $1.4 billion spent online in 2016 was eight times higher than 2012. failure to subject ads on the internet to the same disclosure regime as other media will leave the public without key information about who is trying

to influence them. it will allow more mischief from foreign adversaries. like russia's meddling in 2016. the honest ads act introduced in in the senate by klobuchar, mccain and warner and in the house by representative kilmer offers a promising framework to ensure such disclosure. congress could also close other loopholes that allow secrecy and potentially foreign money, like spending by dark money organizations and foreign owned corporations. the steps are surely needed, investigations into the 2016 election have revealed a widespread multipronged effort by the russian government to alter the course of debate. injecting propaganda and divisive messages into the american political discussion. as has been mentioned, firms linked to kremlin about thousands of ads on several platforms seen by millions of people. the ads have not been released to the public but they reportedly discuss political issues, including messages advocating the election of candidates.

all while the russians disguised their opportunity with fake profiles designed to look like they were controlled by americans. the intelligence community is confident that russia will be back. of course, we must watch for copy cats, china, north korea and even isis. most immediately the challenge to the american people's political sovereignty and the first amendment values of transparency in politics requires updating campaign finance laws for the internet age. congress should include paid ads on the internet and the definition of election communications from mccain feingold bill, which requires disclosure of expenditures above $10,000 on ads that mention candidates. this would have two benefits. it would expand the ban on foreign spending, and it would increase transparency around online ads making information about who is paying for them publicly available. in addition, online platforms should be required to maintain public files of political ads. that would essentially extend to the internet the federal

communications commission requirement that broadcasters maintain a public file of political ads. and online platforms, along with other businesses that sell ads should be required to make efforts to prevent political ads from being sold to foreign nationals. all these are present in the honest ads act. moving beyond the internet, holes in campaign disclosure rules allow dark money to spend money organizations to spend on politics without revealing their donors potentially hiding foreign sources of funds. in order to close the holes, congress should enact the disclose act. another blind spot in campaign finance results from corporations' ability to spend on elections.

congress should extend it to foreign to domestic corporations substantially owned or controlled by foreign nationals as representatives get money out of foreign u.s. elections act would do. finally these proposals need vigorous enforcement. deadlocks at the fec have increased and passed up chances to strengthen regulations. congress can reform the agency, including by making the number of commissioners odd and requiring at least one member to be non-partisan. thank you, and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> i'd like to thank the gentlemen for your remarks. we're going to start the first line of questioning with the gentleman from michigan, mr. mitchell. you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. it appears to me that a number of the individuals testifying are conflating general or social ads, opinion posts, as being the -- political ads as being the same thing. as mr. rothenberg notes, there were sophisticated posts about social issues some of which were made widely available. by operators, including those outside the united states. now, let me ask you, how are we going to determine what's fake news and real news? who determines that for us? >> well, i wouldn't ask the platforms to determine it.

>> that doesn't answer my question. who determines that? if we're going to say we're going to stop fake news in some manner in america -- trust me, you should see my facebook post. it's not exactly a wonderful thing to read. trust me. who is going to determine what is fake news and stop it? >> no one is going to determine what's fake news. there's a preexisting -- i agree that conflating political ads with bad content is incorrect. there is a pre-existing regulatory regime about political ads. then unquote unquote fake news front, there's a two-fold problem. people get garbage over their news feeds online in the same way that good information is delivered to them. >> i only have five minutes. let me ask the next question for you. >> okay. >> which is a number of the newspapers that you represent print add variety of articles

about the upcoming tax reform and tax cut bill that's pending. they quoted a variety of sources as being that the rich are going to benefit. that the majority of the tax cuts are going to be for the rich, and quoted some sources. did you detail the funding sources of those groups that made that quote? >> with regard to those pieces or other pieces, you know who to complain to. you can complain to the publisher or reporters. most of the things we're talking about -- >> with all due respect, no newspaper in my community reported any of those sources. in fact, as it comes to the tax bill that's pending, the tax brackets have not been published, yet somehow if you read the newspapers in my

community they have determined how the tax bill is going to work based upon some groups that are funded by i'll admit progressive left groups that say any tax cuts are going to be bad. my question for you is if we're going to start being fair in terms of information put out would you not be responsible for posting this comes from a group that is largely funded by -- pick whatever term you want to do. would you not post what their why would you not do that if you want to talk about it. >> congressman, what i would say. you know who to complain to, which is the publisher and the reporters whose names are attached to that content. >> i assure you it hasn't had much difference. the distinction i want to suggest to your group, there's a difference between your responsible for the people you employ. their opinions they put forward. you know in opinion ads who the writer is. i've done a number of them. you're responsible for that contact -- content or the

individual who makes their opinion piece is responsible for the content. that's clear. the difference is on the internet, the provider is not responsible for it. they didn't write it, didn't hire them, they didn't determine who they are, yet you want them held to a standard like your newspaper and it's an entirely different format. >> i wouldn't assert that. >> you did in your testimony with all due respect. let me move on real quick. just a minute left here. mr. vandewalker, can you help me understand, given your perspective on it, we're going to allow the federal government to determine what is appropriate content in social media? we're going to determine that's a political ad, that's not? we're going to leave it up to a group of people to decide that? >> no. the idea is to incorporate an existing framework that already is out there. the election and communications is a bright line test. candidate mentions within a certain time period above a certain spending threshold. >> let's stop here. it's clear the bright line hasn't worked, as mr. rothenberg notes and mr. dickerson, the reality is a lot of these posts are questioned as influencing the election fell well outside the bright line.

so who is going to determine that? >> well, again, the bright line keeps you someone from determining it. certainly there are things outside of the bright line, but having a bright line and having people understand that they can post if it's below a spending threshold protects speech and protects the ability of people to talk about legislative issues without having a decision maker have to make judgment calls every time. >> let me suggest to the group, and i suggested internally to other members, our first responsibility here is to protect the constitution. the first amendment is the first amendment for a reason. we need to defend that even if people think it's fake news. the idea we're going to allow a group of regulators to regulate what we see in terms of social media or other formats offends me and i will oppose that in any way i can. thank you. i yield back. >> the honorable robin kelly from illinois is now recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in january of this year the intelligence community released

its assessment that russian president vladmir putin ordered an influence campaign aimed at the u.s. presidential election. according to that assessment, and i quote, moscow's influence campaign followed a russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations such as cyber activity with overt efforts by russian agencies, state funded media, third party intermediaries and paid social media users or trolls. only one month ago, as i said before, facebook revealed a company linked to the russian government bought 3,000 ads aimed at amplifying divisive issues. the ads are believed to have reached 10 million people in the united states. to be clear, this is just the ads we know about and people they have reached. there are likely to be more advertisers due the nature of digital advertising. mr. vandewalker, are our current laws and regulation sufficient to prevent future influence campaigns by foreign actors? if not, why not? >> well, unfortunately too much of the internet is left out right now. we have, as i mentioned, a regime that applies to political spending at mass media.

but now the internet is far more important than it was then and it's only gaining in importance. it should be brought into the regime that exists so that spending above certain thresholds on electioneering thresholds should be covered. a similar requirement of disclosures for political ads under the fcc rule for broadcasters should be -- should be applied to internet ads as well when they're paid for. >> okay. mr. rothenberg, your testimony characterized this as a supply chain issue. what do the members of your industry that are part of that supply chain need to do to prevent this issue? >> i think they need to participate in both our existing programs of industry wide self-regulation that have been very successful. we've built them to give consumers disclosure and control over their privacy, over their

data flows and digital advertising environments. we've built another that requires disclosure to prevent fraudulent activity from taking place. so i think we need much more aggressive participation in those, and we would welcome congress's support for that. and i think we can build out from those programs to create better conditions for not just disclosure, but i call it supplier qualification. i mean, basically, if you take a couple steps back, if you think about your local supermarket or even something as large as your local walmart, nothing goes on those shelves without it having gone through a series of sluice gates that give everyone a bit of assurance those products are safe. we have created mechanisms that can do the same thing.

i think we ought to build out those mechanisms and get more comprehensive participation in them. >> thank you. besides lack of self-regulation, of advertising appearing on social media, there is also the proliferation of fake accounts. on election day thousands of fake accounts coordinated messages on disparaging secretary clinton and democrats. mr. chavern, print media still contains a large amount of advertising, what is its responsibility? in terms of advertising? >> those that it's traditionally had and upheld, which is to develop a safe and trusting environment for its readers. most of our content is now delivered digitally. and the biggest things we can do there are let people know where the information has come from.

what is the source of the information? the biggest issue from my perspective with quote, unquote, fake news is that it comes out of nowhere. people don't know where it comes from and it's fed to them in the same way other legitimate news is fed to them. the best thing any platform or news source can do is be clear about where the news is coming from, what the source of it is. >> just out of curiosity, do you, with print media, you said you want to provide a safe and trusting -- do you feel like most of your readers feel that way or trust what they read? >> i think they do find it is -- we have an extremely loyal and actually growing audience for our news product. the audience for our news product is bigger than it's ever been in history across all the platforms. and the fact of the matter is, people want credible information about their world and community. and they primarily come to us to get it. >> should digital political ads be held to a different standard than political ads in other media? >> no.

i come back to the -- we're in a platform agnostic world, where you get information 16 different ways, which is all good. but the rules can't be -- can't be divied up by platform. we need to come up with a set of rules that goes with the content, not with the platform. >> what do you think that you can do to do a better job helping readers distinguish between the real news and content that comes from questionable sources or the fake news? >> i mean, there's always been crazy conspiracy theories. i think we've all got uncles who at thanksgiving dinner told us crazy stuff. but that's always been different from the newspaper in your driveway or what's on tv. what's happened now is it all gets put in a blender and fed to you so that the real news sources and crazy conspiracy theories come the same way. you don't want platforms and anybody else censoring content. but you need to give readers

more information, indicate where it's coming from. and these algorithms, which we are all subject to in our lives need to give credit to people who pay reporters for real reporting. >> thank you. i yield back. >> now i would like to recognize my friend and colleague from the great state of texas mr. farenthold. you're now recognized for five minutes of questions. >> ms. kelly asked you a question. i don't think you adequately answered. are there any federal government regulations on a political ad that is placed in the newspaper? is there anything a newspaper has to do? by law? >> as the primary responsible party, no, it's on the advertiser. >> and you say federal regulations should be platform neutral. so it would also by extension be the federal government should not place any regulations on internet platforms, as well, and treat them the same as a print newspaper. is that correct? >> as long as the regulation around the advertisement itself is the same. as long as -- if there are disclosure regulations on whoever they're from, they have to be -- whether it's online or

on your watch. you know, people are consuming content in every way. so the requirements -- whoever they may fall on, should fall without regard to the platform. >> all right. so mr. rothenberg -- is there anybody on the panel who disagrees with that? >> well, i would just add one kind of coda to it. the law has -- i defer to mr. goodman on this, too. the law has long recognized that broadcasting is different -- >> because of the scarcity of the airwaves but held to the public trust. i'm an old radio guy. >> right. so with that as a known exception, you know, platform agnosticism makes sense, yes. >> all right. so let's talk a little about there's a difference in the way ads are placed. there's been a lot of -- you know, who is buying these ads and the disclosures. typically in the newspaper you actually probably talk to a salesman or talk to somebody on the phone. if you're going to buy something on an online platform, it's

typically done online. let's say i'm boris or natasha from moscow and have a pile of rubles i've converted into american dollars, go buy a cash card visa, rent a post office box and ain't nobody gonna know i'm a foreign national. do you see that as a problem? >> well, as i said in my testimony, it's not necessarily a popular point of view across my entire industry, every company should know to some degree of comfort and certainty who it's doing business with. that's a fundamental principle, whether you're making a car or whether you're running a grocery store. so i think that it is -- >> okay -- >> -- not just possible but necessary to have some kind of supplier qualification and customer qualification safeguards in place. >> so now let's go to the other problem that people are complaining about in social media. i think there's -- you may actually have more affect in elections on, say, twitter or

maybe facebook with bots. just posting something at no cost. a bad actor may spend $100,000 hiring a programmer to create bots and start posting stuff. that's -- how do we deal -- how -- is there a technological way to detect that? i understand that's a problem in the industry worldwide, dealing with bots. what do you do about that? and how do you not get legitimate people who are trying to exercise their first amendment rights wrapped up in that? >> sir, you have just identified the absolute total nut of the problem. the dilemma. but it's not unsolvable. i don't think you can come up with anything that will ever be 100% full-proof, because the technology is very low barrier to entry and will always evolve. it's like a game of whac-a-mole. they're always going to find new ways to do things. but i keep coming back. i'm sorry i sound like a broken record.

nobody actually knows what a record is these days. but i'm sorry i keep repeating myself. but i think elements of supplier qualification, knowing with whom you're doing business up and you're doing business up and down the supply chain, and building that in to a comprehensive self-regulatory program will go and goes a long way to reducing the bot traffic. >> under some sort of self regulatory program, you're going to have to have the ability of a social media platform or website operator, whomever, to recheck something. where do you draw the line that they're being treated fairly? let's say i -- i start blake ugel and i'm going to turn down all ads from liberals because i'm a conservative?

how do we address that? >> well, first of all, it's your right. you can do anything you want. and prevent anybody you want from coming on. if you want to grow and you want to create a larger business, you want to be as open as possible. so you have to find a balance. i know that may come off as a little mealy mouthed, but there is a balance between using technology systems and human oversight to determine the quality of your supply chain participants. >> but how does somebody know then, for instance, say my algorithm to determine what's in a user's news feed, i could suddenly weight that to >> it's true. the same has long existed in every other medium, as well. there's been political bias, sometimes it's subtle, and sometimes it's not so subtle. >> you find that on cable news, i'm sure. you choose your channel, i think, these days. >> and you choose your technology. >> thank you very much. i see my time has expired. >> and i recognize mr. raskin for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. and thank you for calling this

really important hearing. mr. rothenberg, you've spoken eloquently about building integrity into the supply chain which leads to the obvious question, what went wrong in 2016, and why are we in the situation we're in. why didn't that happen? >> well, to quote a former secretary of defense, you can't plan for the unknown unknowns. we did very explicitly in going back over the 11, 12 years i've been in this job, working with our partner associations, the association of natural advertisers, the four as, which represents the agencies, built very effective self regulatory programs for known knowns. consumer privacy controls for bot fraud. but nobody had anticipated illicit russian actors. >> doctor, so you think you're ready next time, or you're getting ready for next time? >> well, you know, i -- i was -- intelligence agencies say they're coming back. >> they will be. but i'll give you kind of a

warning born of my older profession. back -- way back in my dark past history, i covered politics and political media for the "new york times." and i developed a principle back in the late '80s that we're always covering the last election. the media and the way communications happen are always outrunning our thoughts about what's going to happen. i don't think anybody anticipated the degree to which twitter was going to be a massive social influence, let alone bots. so, yes, i think it's -- we can very much be prepared for the bot traffic problem. but we don't know what mole is going to pop up in that game. >> gotcha, thank you. let me switch to you. you've made what seems like intuitively obvious point that the internet is properly analogized to tv and radio in terms of its -- in terms of the medium, in terms of its impact, in terms of how it works.

and therefore, the rules that apply to the election and communications and tv context and the broadcast that should also apply. and we're all familiar with that. we have to say that we paid for this ad, and we stand by this ad and all of that kind of stuff. but what about the problem, which has kind of been floating around from the beginning of the hearing that it seems as if the hundreds and hundreds of facebook pages and twitter messages and bots that were put out by the russians, many of them were just meant to sew chaos and inject poison. they would not fall within the election communications definition that we've got under the mccain-feingold legislation. can anything being done about that or is it as mr. rothenberger is suggesting, we've learned our lesson from 2016 and now the public is going to be much more wary, or should be, and the media themselves and the internet companies themselves should be -- 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 goes beyond election communications because it involves issues of national legislative importance, and so it would create a publicly available record. that researchers could use to try to piece together what's coming from where, who is being targeted, and what are the messages. that could be i think extremely valuable in understanding what the -- the sort of next attacks are and how to respond. and then i think -- 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. rothenberger has proposed and really figuring out how to get on top of this thing. >> let me ask you another question.

the supreme court in the blooming decision 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 corporation. however, foreign money could take over domestic corporations, as you were suggesting before, and 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. corporations' ability to spend unlimited amounts on politics either directly or through super pacs requires dealing with the problem that even a domestic corporation can be wholly owned or controlled by foreign powers. and that should be tightened up. one of the ways would be to -- as has been proposed, set some

kind of percentage -- ownership percentage by foreign nationals or foreign governments and say, above this, being even a domestically cited or incorporated 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. we'll go left to right. laws like the federal election campaign act, 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 a candidate, then clearly that falls within the scope of existing -- >> that's what i asked. i asked specifically for express advocacy, you should vote for this guy or don't vote for that guy. >> sure. >> or the issue saying 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? >> yeah. >> whether you're sending a piece of mail in the mailbox, or it's a digital ad? >> yes.

they absolutely can. you've got to make, you know, certain adjustments for the differences among the media. you can't have video rules applying to audio and vice versa. but, yeah, sure. >> mr. goodman. >> i agree that under the court's precedence, it doesn't matter the medium. to the extent speech can be regulated under those cases, it doesn't matter whether you're -- how you say it. >> yes, as to express advocacy. you get beyond that, you get into tremendous free speech issues. >> my first amendment expert, mr. dickerson. >> yes, as -- >> microphone, please, mr. dickerson. >> i'll learn that eventually. yes, with regard to -- 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 a regulatory regime. so in that sense, 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 is running ads against me, there's a public file. is that correct? i guess, mr. goodman -- let's say -- if they were doing it on television -- >> if they were doing it on a radio/television, there is 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? >> the -- in terms of the -- >> public file. like, do i know how --

>> no, there's not a public file requirement. and as a matter of fact, i would take this opportunity -- this is a time where congress can look and see what requirements are needed for across the platforms. we have different requirements now. 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, the rules are different. >> or should it be available on the internet. >> right. >> mr. rothenberg, you obviously know you're next. >> well, on that one, i think -- >> when it comes to specifically digital platforms. >> you're talking about the public file? >> the public file, 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 storageship of the airways and port 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 the 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 all were the rules that govern express advocacy should apply to all mediums. but we're saying when it comes to public file, and making sure that what advertisements are in 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? >> 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 others don't. we have largely lived with that, because, as i explained in my written testimony, the sort of speech being done on broadcast tends to be larger amounts of money. more sophisticated actors. there are human beings in the mix who are making these 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 is 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 i'm not sure this information is 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 ensure that only the sort of sophisticated actors like political campaigns and that only the sort of speech that is clearly about election -- >> yeah, and i want to make sure i'm clear. when i ask questions, it's a narrow, express advocacy and issue 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 to 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, you know, 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 website. 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 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 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 rubles $100,000 in ads and interfered with our elections. so all that happened. and today is the first day of the hearing. today is the first public hearing that we're having on the infringements made by a foreign government on the united states elections. it's shameful that it took so long. so i'm going to -- 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 3rd, 2017, i repeated the effort again. 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 joined -- this time i thought maybe it was just me. so i asked all of my colleagues to join with me to a letter to jason chaffetz and also the honorable bob goodlatte chairman of the house judiciary committee on may 16, 2017. could we please have a hearing on the 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 to today, no action. and we're having 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. department of justice investigation of secretary clinton. so 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 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. kilmer and senator mccain have put out there. seemed straight forward. give me your opinion on that, please. >> we think -- it is an excellent framework to apply to the -- to address the problem of political spending, which to close doors on foreign spending that can come in and affect elections. by bringing the internet into an established framework that exists for political spending and other mass media. >> thank you. and mr. chairman, i thank you for your indulgence and yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. lynch, thank you. 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 permit select committee on intelligence. >> i haven't seen them. >> on the issue of this. but this, again, making sure

that -- i'm glad 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. conley, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and 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 for 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 to the united states. what could be more sacred than protecting everyone's franchise and the integrity of that process in a democracy?

and when it has 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 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 in law. in a sense, that is circumscribing my free speech, is it not? >> to some extent, the courts have so far never questioned the ability of the government to

require disclosure. and with respect to one part of that, which is the i am 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 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 that disclosure is largely the remedy. and i would think this would be within the scope of disclosure. >> uh-huh. so mr. vandewalker, circumscribing what otherwise would be free speech. tobacco advertising, for 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 they made it seem like, gut the first amendment or 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 that there are first amendment interests on both sides. that is the listener has an interest in knowing who is speaking to them so they can evaluate that message. the democratic interests in voters knowing who is piping up for a candidate. that tells you something about what that candidate stands for.

holding candidates accountable for the financial support they get, as well as being able to evaluate, is this message about some political issue coming to me from an environmentalist group or oil industry, and do i trust which one of those and -- >> i'm going run out of time, so let me just -- you know, do boris and natasha operating from the dacha in the outskirts of moscow, trying to corrupt american democracy through multiple social media and digital ads, do they have the same unfettered 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 bloomen 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 that allows political debate and others do not necessarily -- >> and therefore we have a right to protect ourselves from boris and natasha. >> right. >> thank you. mr. krishnan guru-murthy, you're now recognized for five minutes of questions. >> thank you chairman hurd and kelly for holding this important hearing. 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 ensure that all future elections are protected against foreign meddling. mr. vandewalker, we've heard today the suggestion, and we've seen 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 10 million people -- 10 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? >> i mean, i think it's very troubling. and, again, that should not be considered an upper bound. facebook said that's was the audience that the paid ads reached, those same profiles produced unpaid content that reached probably -- potentially, tens of millions more. we don't yet know. and that's one of the problems with not having very much disclosure in this area, is we actually still don't know the extent of the reach. and we need more information about who is trying to sway our political opinions. >> so may have reached tens of millions of people, not just 10 million. through the purchase of thousands of ads and the use of russian linked accounts or bots,

on various social media platforms russian's government was able to manipulate the internet 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. multiple news reports found that on facebook alone there were hundreds of profiles 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?

>> i think there's been a lot of discussion from, you know, our perspective to the brendan -- brennan center. 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 welcome. would love to see you at future hearings. you're now recognized. mr. kilmer is now recognized for five minutes. >> thanks, chairman hurd, and

ranking member kelly, both for overseeing this important hearing. but also for letting me sit in with your subcommittee. our democratic republic, the -- that system in which we, the people, are the boss, has become vulnerable to foreign actors. that want to disrupture our system of government to influence electoral outcomes. and from the reports that we have 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 enact rules for online advertisements, similar to what's already in place for tv and radio and satellite ads. those rules require disclosure of who is buying what ads, where. and that's vital if we're going to ensure 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. chavern'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 problems we saw in the last election cycle. but this would at least solve the discrete issue of the public's right to know whether a foreign actor is trying to purchase an ad on the internet. so i have a bunch of questions. but i'm going to try to limit them. first for mr. rothenberg, because you spoke to the challenges associated with, you know, 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 could the government ensure compliance by foreign actors if we went in the direction that you suggested previously? >> well, i am not sure that you could -- 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 the -- 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. chavern. 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 -- i suggest that that might differentiate from the concern that you just raised. i guess, mr. chavern, what's your view on that figure, do you have a sense of what types of platforms would -- would be captured at that level?

>> i -- 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 are still studying the implications of the components of it, in particular the repository database and 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 others and different ones in the future, as there always are. >> i can answer that, mr. kilmer. it would include companies like hearst, conde nast, meredith, vox, vice media. basically a lot of newspapers and magazines that are not in a position to take on extra burdens. 50 million 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. >> thanks very much, mr. chairman, for permission to participate today in the hearing. thank you for taking this issue as seriously as you have and i also want to thank ranking member kelly for her focus on this. i want to thank my colleague from washington on the honest ad account

and this is a critical step as we prepare for the elections next week -- next year. although it could be next week, seems like it's coming fast and furious. and that's why we need to get ready for it. is there anyone on the panel who thinks that right now we have an adequate level of disclosure with respect to spending on political advertisements, on online platforms, to be ready for the next election? does anyone think that disclosure is adequate? mr. dickerson? i predicted you would be the one -- you do. but i don't see anybody else. let the record show. i don't think it's adequate. i think that if we're going to be ready, as you were saying, mr. rothenberg, we've got to anticipate what comes next. it's hard sometimes to do that. but i would think putting a baseline regime of disclosure in place with respect to what's happening online would be one

thing that we could do to be more ready than we are now. and so we're obviously going to encourage our colleagues to continue to push very hard for this kind of disclosure. which, as 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 has indicated through polling data that it wants to see this kind of information, as well. i'm curious what you would say about whether advertisers should be allowed to make money from foreign election interference. i mean, just how would you answer that question, mr. vandewalker? do you think that advertisers should be able to make money on foreign interference in our elections? >> well, i mean, i think within -- reasonably should be preventing foreign interference in our elections. and it logically follows from that that companies shouldn't be able to make a profit from it.

>> any others? >> yes. i think the -- i think the question really needs to be refocused, because the issue is not whether, for example, somebody makes money off an ad, but whether an advertiser that's foreign is permitted to participate in u.s. elections. and i think that is one of the issues that if there is going to be further disclosure requirements, needs to be addressed. which is that online platforms like broadcasters have no enforcement authority. they -- if boris and natasha, who have been mentioned before, they say, yes, we're u.s. citizens, and -- or we have a u.s. company, they -- either an online platform or newspaper or a tv station have no way, really, to determine whether that's accurate. >> i think -- >> that's why i think this has to be a government responsibility. >> and -- but i do think it goes to the question of what kind of expectation we should have from the advertisers themselves. what sort of responsibility they should carry to promote this

kind of disclosure, to keep track of these kinds of things. i don't think, as you indicated, mr. rothenberg, that we can, for example, rely on campaigns to enforce these standards. i don't think that's realistic. i think the advertisers or the platforms that are receiving these purchase advertisers are in a better position to do that. it may not be easy out of the gates to construct these new regimes or algorithms, but they can construct algorithms for just about anything else in the world, they should be able to do this in order to enhance disclosure. i'm going to run out of time so i wanted to ask one other question of you mr. vandewalker. the fec takes a lot of hits these days and in certain regards is not functioning the way it should be. but there are some things it is able to do pretty well. it collects information that's submitted by campaigns. every quarter. it digests that, and it produces it in a very accessible way on

its online platform, so people can go there and get information about what's happening in terms of the spending on the campaigns themselves. so do you have any reason to think that the fec would not be able to handle the responsibility of administering what's being envisioned under the honest ads act in terms of information being collected, public files being produced, that being put in a place where the public can see it easily. isn't that a function that the fec could undertake at this point? >> yes. as you mentioned, that's one of the things fec is good at and recently revamped the public face of those disclosures, making them more searchable online. and certainly policies could be developed in cooperation with social medias of the world who are very good at putting things

online, i think, to make it all feasible and usable. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. i recognize myself for another five minutes. mr. dickerson, i want to follow up on something mr. vandewalker said. does a russian in russia have first amendment rights in the united states? >> russian in russia certainly has fewer first amendment rights than an american. or than a russian would have on american soil. >> gotcha. mr. goodman, can the government of russia buy an ad saying come to moscow on broadcast television? >> there is no restriction which prohibits a foreign government from buying an ad. i think there would be a restriction on them buying an ad which would be explicit advocacy. because that would be illegal under u.s. election laws. >> so the russian government, if they wanted to buy an ad on broadcast that said, don't send weapons to ukraine, what would --

>> there are disclosure requirements. and i'm certainly no expert in the disclosure requirements with respect to foreign participation in u.s. media. but other than that, assuming they comply with those disclosure requirements, there is no prohibition on their speaking in the u.s. >> does the foreign agent registration act have anything to do with that disclosure or that purchase of -- >> that's exactly what i was referring to. >> gotcha. mr. chavern, can the russians run a political advertisement in the newspaper saying, don't send guns to the ukraine? >> i believe it would not count as express advocacy. and i -- >> if they said, call your congressman and tell them, don't support sending guns -- american guns to the ukraine. >> once you get into issue advocacy, i -- i have the same -- i would have the same question as mr. goodman about foreign agent --

>> mr. rothenberger, can the russians run a digital ad that tells you to call your congressman and tell them not to support sending american guns to the ukraine? >> mr. chairman, i'm not an expert on that, so i cannot answer that question. >> mr. vandewalker, do you have an opinion on either one of those three scenarios that i just brought up? >> you know, so one of the things that could get at that is the political file requirement. which would, again, not be prohibition, but -- >> so let me ask you, is there some piece of law, court case, that regulates whether the russian government could buy an ad on print, broadcast, or digital that says, call your congressman and tell them to not

send guns to ukraine. >> not that i'm aware. >> and just for the record, i'm supportive of sending guns to the ukraine. i just want to make that clear. >> right. i mean, it could be an election hearing communication if it were 60 days within an election and mentioned to someone running for re-election. >> mr. dickerson, your opinion on one of those three scenarios. >> my opinion is -- i'm pleased to finally hear the federal -- or foreign agent registration act raised. because it basically is a political file. i mean, this is a law that requires, you know, essentially any -- and this is a very broad definition of political public communication at very low-dollar thresholds to be filed with department of justice, to have physical copies of the ad filed with the department, to have a disclaimer on the front of the ad saying it's being paid for by a foreign government. i mean, i think a lot of the tragedy of this conversation is that in our efforts to get at russian activity, we're ignoring

the tool that is directed at foreign actors and instead trying to expand laws that by definition impact american political speech. you know, and given the scope of the existing -- the existing fora, and the fact that it could be expanded if it was this committee's interest, to not only foreign agents, but also foreign principals, that strikes me as a much narrower, much more constitutionally defensible way of building the political file that's being discussed here precisely because it's being targeted to foreigners and not americans. >> so your understanding is that it's for agents of the government and doesn't include principals of the government. >> that's my understanding. >> mr. raskin. you're now recognized. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i'm going follow up on your questions. and as i'm listening to the testimony, i recognize that what's at stake here really is the integrity of liberal democracy in our century. you know, vladimir putin and his

agents understood they could not compete with us militarily. they could not compete with us economically. and they could not compete with us politically on a fair stage, because they've got nothing to sell but tyranny and despotism and kleptocracy. but he detected a little bit of an achilles' heel in the united states, which is our openness, and specifically our openness, our freedom of expression on the internet. which might be the most wide open of all of the forums in media that we have. and so he took advantage of that. and i think everybody here agrees that we were caught sleeping. and there were hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps millions of dollars, spent to invade every nook and cranny of the internet in order to inject poison into our political process and to try to gerrymander the outcome of our

election. now, let's -- 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 either as a government or private entity in the united states in saudi arabia? in iran? in russia? in the philippines? do the authoritarian societies allow people from liberal democracies to access their public with such ease? does anybody have an answer to that? mr. rothenberg? >> well, yes. for generations, we did that through the voice of america, and various other arms of the united states government. and did it very effectively. >> but what about the purchase of tv ads in saudi arabia? or iran or russia? the purchase of radio ads i understand. i understand there is the voice of america which is announced and disclosed and clearly comes from the united states.

but what about the kind of surreptitious penetration that -- of the public consciousness that took place in 2016 here? >> well, history shows us that we have all played games in each other's countries with each other's media for generations. i'm not defending it or decrying it. i'm just stating a fact that -- >> well, there's no doubt the u.s. government has intervened to destabilize democracies, as in chile, as in iran, and that's something that obviously that real small "d" democrats oppose and have tried to stop in our history. but perhaps we need some kind of global understanding about giving the people of every society the right first to free and fair elections in democratic government. and then the right to pursue those elections without covert interference by foreign nations.

well, let me ask this question. the fica makes it unlawful for any foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make a contribution or donation in connection with a federal, state or local election. that doesn't use the language of express advocacy. it says any contribution in connection with an election. would it be within the constitutional authority and province of congress to ban -- and i think perhaps the chairman was asking this question, too, not just express advocacy spending by foreign nationals, corporations and governments, but also any political advertising taking place during the election season. would we have the authority to do that to foreign nationals on the theory they don't enjoy the first amendment rights of the american people, or indeed of i think even permanent residents of the country people who are

here in our part of the country. does anybody have an opinion on that? >> i think the problem, congressman, is less a matter of the first amendment than a matter of vagueness. as i know you're aware, the supreme court in buckley said that precisely that language was unconstitutionally vague in the sense that actors couldn't as a matter of due process determine what was and wasn't covered. this is the danger with these sort of words -- >> well, we have drawn the line between express advocacy and then just generalized political advocacy. but because the line exists, we've got two separate categories. and our campaign laws apply for american citizens on one side, but not the other. but perhaps they could apply on both sides for people, or entities, foreign governments and corporations, that decide they want to get involved in our elections. what do you think about that? >> well, i think we're already there. express advocacy is banned. by foreigners and foreign governments. >> but we want to go beyond that to all political spending during our campaigns. for example, it turns out that the russian government cleverly

got itself involved with alt-right activities, tried to get involved with black lives matter. it was doing everything possible to exasperate tensions in our country. which we live with to this very day. >> i think the department of state would have use on this. from the point of view of the first amendment, that is probably permissible, provided the things are defined in a way that is understandable. and frankly, congress has a bad track record on. >> and, of course, they have the right to speak voluntarily and freely through public platforms where they're announced, and they have got a right to do a facebook page, which is not the spending of any money. but it just seems to me that when we talk about the expenditure of money in the political system, that's where it gets to be very dangerous, because you can't rerun an election. and one contaminated election can take a country down a very dark road. i yield back to you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i recognize myself for another five minutes. this set of questions is for mr. chavern, mr. goodman, mr. rothenberg. we'll start with you, mr.

rothenberg. how much does it cost a month to host a website? >> oh, my goodness. i mean, you can do it for -- well, under $20 a month. >> but mr. goodman, chavern, would you agree about the cost? you're familiar with word press? >> yes, certainly. i had a blog on word press. >> how much does that cost? >> right now, i don't know. it's -- i think you can actually go up on word press for -- i think there might be a free option. >> i believe there is a free option. >> yep. >> when people do advertising on a digital platform, they fill out some form, right? upload the copy. that form gets stored somewhere. and that gets pushed out, right? >> essentially. it's a good summary. >> so there's an electronic record of it? >> that i can't speak to.

i don't know how -- those are or are not. >> could there be an electronic record? >> i imagine, yes. >> could it be exported to an excel document or google sheet? >> i imagine, yes. that doesn't sound like it would be that difficult. >> and if you already own a website, publishing an excel document or google sheet, how much does that cost? >> give me the question again, sir. >> if you already own a website, and how much does it cost to publish a google sheet or an excel document to that website? >> if i'm already have, say, a word press site and -- you can upload that relatively simply. diminimus. >> zero cost, right? so i'm curious, mr. goodman, mr. chavern, would you disagree with any of those? or would you agree with mr. rothenberg's comments on all of that? >> yes. >> so i'm curious to know what burden we're putting on someone to publish the information of

who is advertising. >> well, first of all -- first of all, the ads that are going on to my word press blog, if i've enabled to it take advertising, are not being bought. not being sold by me directly. >> yeah, of course. >> i have nothing to do with it. it's all automated. >> so what is the burden we are putting on the person that is displaying that ad on your individual website? >> well -- one of my concerns, as i expressed before, with the way the honest ads act is worded, it would put the burden on me to keep those records. >> so what is the burden? >> even though i have no involvement in the actual sale or distribution of that advertising. >> i know it's hard to address everyone, right. and i get that.

are they expunging all the information of the people with the advertising dollars being promoted. >> presumably they have it and you're asking me to keep the records. i don't have any of those records. >> the person that has the record, what burden would it be for them to publish the details of that? >> that, i don't know, it would depends who it is and where they are in the system. >> mr. goodman, do you have an opinion when it comes to broadcast. >> i think one is if you are the one paying for the ad, what broadcasters already do, there is a considerable amount of complaint that isn't that informative, citizens for good government, who nat actually is isn't clear. the broadcaster goes back and asks and says who's your counsel and executive committee and they don't get an answer, i get that. i'm not asking for enforcement, i'm asking what burden is there to publish the information, the

data already there? >> the information is currently uploaded to two websites run by the fcc and proven not to be a significant burden to most tv stations. >> got you. >> one thing i noticed in the website you gave, obviously the website viewed by you may have the same ads. if i viewed as, it might have different sort of ads programically by the ad tech platform. you have to take in volume. these programmatic systems have no human touch related to them and the volume of ads, in deciding for example -- >> is it the same amount of effort to publish a 10-line excel document or spread sheet as a 10 million line? i know the answer. the same level of effort.

because you're not collecting it. if you're collecting it automatically, to display it is no difference displaying 10 lines versus a million lines. now, you may have to pay for the size of the file, but i'm getting at -- i keep hearing over and over the burden to publish data that is already in hand. you already have the data, where's the burden. >> it's where you're placing the burden. >> who ever has it, collecting it. >> okay. that depends how you write the requirements. >> mr. dickerson, do you have any opinion on this exchange? mr. vandy walker? >> no. i'm excited to hear the answers. >> parting wisdom. i don't have any time left but

i'll extend some to y'all. 10 seconds, mr. vandewalker, what would you wish this committee to know you haven't been able to address. that's the question for all of you. mr. dickerson, you better be good because you will be last. you don't have to say anything. if the answer is you got it all you got it all. >> i think you got it all. >> i think self-regulation managed industry-wide with tough enforcement can go further than this congress can go in enforcing the rules. >> i think that whatever you do it needs to be clear, so that there -- the rulings are understandable and the responsibility for enforcement is also well established. >> let's take this moment to figure out what rules about political advertising makes sense no matter what the platform. that doesn't mean being caught by what happened before, let's take this moment to say what really makes sense and what do we need? >> mr. dickerson, don't let me

down. the courts allowed to establish record keeping burdens of this nay your only insofar as the underlying speech is directed at an election. to the extent we are toying with using foreign intervention we can separately regulate as an excuse to undue that burden i think we are wading into territory far less charted than some of the testimony suggested. >> gentleman, thank you for being here with us and the record will remain open for written statements. for the record, no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.

>> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

this week several congressional committees are taking a look at russias social media i media influence on the election. when representatives from twitters, facebook and google go before a committee. live here on c-span 3. then own wednesday, officials have the same companies testify before a pair of committees. our live coverage begins that day at 9:30 a.m. eastern with the senate intelligence committee and continues in the afternoon at 2 eastern with the house intelligence committee. again, watch owl three hearings this week on c-span 3. online c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. the first set of the charges were filed in the russia investigation being led by special counsel robert mueller. former trump campaign chair paul

manafort. and rick gates were indicted on 12 counts including money laundering and conspiracy against the u.s. they pled not guilty to all charges in court. in addition to that, it was disclosed monday that a former foreign policy advisor to the trump campaign pled guilty earlier this month for lying to federal algts about his contacts with kremlin connected russians. press secretary senders was asked about the charges. here's a brief look. >> first, i'd like to get to the reaction to the indictment of paul manafort and rick gates. specifically we have heard a couple tweets from the president. if you can help me understand when he says why aren't krookd hilary and the dems focus? is the president saying special counsel mueller should be

investigating hillary clinton and the democrats and is he going to rule out firing robert mueller? >> i'll address the second question first. president said last week i have said several times before there's no intention or plan to make any changes in regard to special counsel. today's announcement has nothing to do with the president. or his campaign or campaign activity. the real collusion scandal as we have said has everything to do with the clinton campaign. fusion gps and russia. there's clear evidence of the clinton campaign colluding with russian intelligence to spread disinformation and smear the president. to influence the lebs. we have been saying from day one there's no evidence of trump russia collusion and nothing in the indictment changes that. >> the it is about the campaign. specifically. >> it has nothing to do with the activities of the campaign. it has to do with his failure to tell the truth. that doesn't have anything to do

with the campaign or activity. >> it is the clearest ed evidence of ties between the trump campaign and russia activity. >> there's no official capacity in which the trump campaign was engaged. they took place before the campaign existed. >> live every day. with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday morning, inside the elections editor nathan gonzalez discusses the earl le out look for campaign 2018. and talks about the indictments of three former trump kal pain officials in a special counsel muellers russia investigation. watch hive at 7:00 a.m. eastern tuesday morning. join the discussion. he's bp called one of the premier chroniclers of our age.

best selling authors. michael louis will be the guest sunday on in depth. >> what the books have in common is their characters interesting characters to me. in interesting situations. so what the trick is that if you can attach the reader to the character, the beginning of the book. they'll follow that character anywhere. i trust me there is no one in america who would want to read my description of collateralized debt obligation. once you realize the lives of the people who you have come to know turn on knowing what that is. you want to know. so it's a very powerful device that is the origin of literature. >> mr. lewis is the author of several books including liars poker. money ball. the big short. and the undoing project. during the three hour

conversation we'll take calls, tweets and facebook questions. watch in depth with author michael lewis. sunday live from noon to 3:00 p.m. eastern. on book tv. c-span 2. the defense advisory committee held a public meeting on sexual assault in the military. with speakers including a former u.s. air force senior airmen who talked about her assault and rape by an air force non-commissioned officer. the commit tees was created by congress last year to give advice on the investigation and prosecution of sexual miscondut in the military. this is half an hour. good afternoon. i'm dwigt sullivan. the investigation prosecution and defense of sexual assault in the armed forces. this meeting is open. if a member of the