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

mr. rothenberg -- actually, is there anybody on the panel who disagrees with that? >> well, i would, i would just add one kind of code da to it. the law has long -- and i'd defer to mr. goodman on this too. law has long recognized that broadcasting is different -- >> scarcity of the airwaves, held to the public trust. i'm an old radio guy. >> right. so with that as a known exception, platform-agnosticism makes sense, yes. >> all right. so let's talk a little bit about there's a difference in the way that ads are placed. there's been a lot about, you know, who's 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. i go buy a cash card visa, rent a post office box, and ain't nobody going to know i'm a foreign national. do you see that as a problem? >> yeah. well, as i said in my testimony -- and

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 regulate

mr. rothenberg? >> no. opinion is protected. issues are protected. that is not just a slippery slope, you're already three-quarters of the way down that slope. when it's about candidates and about actual advocacy for or against the candidate, then clearly that falls within the scope of -- >> yeah, that's what i asked. i asked specifically for express advocacy you should vote for this guy or don't vote for that guy or the issue call your congressman if this, any of those types of political speech, should that fall under these laws and supreme court cases despite the medium? whether it's -- >> yeah. >> -- whether you're sending a peat of mail in the -- a piece of mail in the mailbox or it's a digital ad? >> yes, they absolutely can. you've got to make certain adjustments for the differences among the media. you can't have video rules applying to audio and vice versa. >> gotcha. >> yeah, sure. >> mr. goodman. >> i agree it doesn't matter the medium under the court's precedents. to the extent speech can be regulate 3 under those -- regulated under those

mr. rothenberg -- actually, is there anybody on the panel who disagrees with that? >> well, i would, i would just add one kind of code da to it. the law has long -- and i'd defer to mr. goodman on this too. law has long recognized that broadcasting is different -- >> scarcity of the airwaves, held to the public trust. i'm an old radio guy. >> right. so with that as a known exception, platform-agnosticism makes sense, yes. >> all right. so let's talk a little bit about there's a difference in the way that ads are placed. there's been a lot about, you know, who's 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. i go buy a cash card visa, rent a post office box, and ain't nobody going to know i'm a foreign national. do you see that as a problem? >> yeah. well, as i said in my testimony -- and

mr. randall rothenberg, and mr. ian vanderwalker. 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 your statements, it was helpful in better understanding these issues. for those who are looking for

mr. david to chief executive che officer of news media alliance, jack goodman order of the law offices, randall rothenberg president and chief executive officer and the advertising bureau and senior counsel for the brennan center for justice democracy program at the new york university school of law. welcome to you all and pursuing all witnesses will be sworn in before you testify so please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to get is the truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? let the record reflect all witnesses answered in the affirmative. in order to allow time for the discussion, please limit your opening testimony to five minutes and your entire statement will be made part of the record, and i appreciate those statements. it was helpful and better understanding these issues for those that are looking for any great outline of these questions we will be debating here and i would suggest you go to the oversight website to review the statements. as a reminder, the clock in front of your shows your time remaining. a delightful turn yellow