Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Ample fear, zero silver bullets at campaign disinformation conference

Sen. Mark Warner

Congress and tech companies need to act fast (a decided long shot) to protect the 2020 election's integrity, Sen. Mark Warner told the conference.

Sara Swann/The Fulcrum

The spread of disinformation online promises to be one of the biggest threats to American democracy during the 2020 election and beyond, if no action is taken. But efforts to defend against these falsehoods remains hamstrung by partisanship.

Federal Election Commission Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub called disinformation "a fundamental assault on democracy" during a digital disinformation symposium this week at FEC headquarters in Washington.

Weintraub, along with PEN America and the Global Digital Policy Incubator at Stanford University, invited politicians, government officials, tech companies, academics and media representatives to the symposium to discuss disinformation and how to combat it. There were no ready answers.


Adversaries, both foreign and domestic, look for division and discord when targeting their disinformation campaigns, so they can drive that wedge deeper, said Ginny Badanes, a Microsoft representative on one of Tuesday's symposium panels.

With the 2020 campaign rapidly intensifying, the major concern among the panelists was that these disinformation campaigns will suppress voter turnout and erode confidence in next November's outcome.

While the panelists could agree something needed to be done, no one professed to have a "silver bullet" solution. On the contrary, one of the unifying themes of the conference was participants insisting there was no such singular cure-all.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Another consensus was that the federal government needs a unified approach to fighting against disinformation, and not just during election season. But panelists were doubtful such effort would come together in time for the presidential election.

Democratic Rep. Stephanie Murphy, a former Pentagon intelligence analyst who says her Florida constituents have been unduly victimized by disinformation, pointed to the apparent partisan impasses thwarting two pieces of legislation widely seen as having big potential to improve America's defense against election hacking through social media or cyber attacks. One would set the same disclosure rules for online campaign advertisers as exist for political spots on television. The other would provide incentives for states to adopt voting systems with auditable paper trails, because all electronic systems are vulnerable to hacking.

While some election security bills have bipartisan support, none have moved all the way through Congress because Republicans and President Trump oppose them. Most notably, the sweeping democracy reform bill HR 1, which includes election security provisions, has hit the wall in Mitch McConnell's Republican Senate after House Democrats passed it in March.

"The topic of election security has been poisoned by partisan politics," Murphy said. "The U.S. will never muster a whole of society response if the whole of society doesn't first recognize the problem."

The Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, Mark Warner of Virginia, who gave the opening speech at the symposium, agreed that bipartisan consensus needed to happen fast if anything is going to get implemented in time to protect the integrity of the 2020 campaign.

"How in the heck did we come to 2019 and think that the protection of our election security should be a partisan issue? I mean would we ever think that the protection of our electric grid or our financial system should be a partisan issue?" he said.

Apart from Congress, Warner also put the onus on tech and social media companies to regulate disinformation on their platforms. Labeling the source of information, for example, could better distinguish humans from bots and deter deception, he said.

The agency that hosted the session has been grappling with its own partisan impediments because starting this month only three of its six seats are filled, and the absence of a quorum means it's largely neutered as the congressional and presidential campaign finance watchdog.

Although a plan of action was not decided at the symposium, Weintraub said she hopes it sparks continued conversations on comprehensive solutions.

"We need to all pull together for the good of our democracy," she said.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less