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

rothenberg, your testimony characterizes this as a supply chain issue. what do the members of your industry that are a 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, other their data flows in digital advertising environments, and 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' support for that. and i think we can, 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 assu

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

rothenberg's comments? >> yes. >> i am curious to know what burden we are putting on someone to publish the information of who is advertising. all, the ads that are going on to my wordpress blog, if i enabled it to take advertising, are not being bought. are not being sold by me directly. i have nothing to do with it. is the burden we are putting on the person displaying that add on your individual website? >> one of my concerns i expressed before with the way the honest ads act is worded, it would put the burden on me to keep those records, even though i have no involvement in the actual sale or distribution of that advertisement. >> i know it is hard to address everyone, and i get that. expunging on that information, the people that are collecting the advertising dollars, on what is being promoted? >> presumably they have it, but you are asking me to keep the records. i do not have any of those records. >> so the person that has a record, with the burden be for them to publish the details of that? .> that

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

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

stu rothenberg, tamera keith, thank you both. >> you're welcome. >> woodruff: now, a look at the winners year's nobel prize in economics, announced today. richard thaler is a professor at the university of chicago booth school of business. the award acknowledged his ground-breaking work in establishing the field of "behavioral economics," which blends psychology with economics to better understand human decision-making. we start with a bit of background from our economics correspondent paul solman, part of his weekly series, making sense. >> reporter: in chicago's millennium park two and a half years ago, richard thaler, the academic revolutionary who won this year's nobel prize for insisting, for decades now, that his field, economics, is wedded to distorted view of human behavior. economics teaches that we're all rational maximizers, mathematical machines, who use our big brainy heads to carefully calculate every decision as we strive to reach concrete objectives, creating but look, thaler explained... >> after the '87 crash, when the market fell 20% in a day, and the internet bubble,

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