• Home
  • Opinion
  • Quizzes
  • Redistricting
  • Sections
  • About Us
  • Voting
  • Events
  • Civic Ed
  • Campaign Finance
  • Directory
  • Election Dissection
  • Fact Check
  • Glossary
  • Independent Voter News
  • News
  • Analysis
  • Subscriptions
  • Log in
Leveraging Our Differences
  • news & opinion
    • Big Picture
      • Civic Ed
      • Ethics
      • Leadership
      • Leveraging big ideas
      • Media
    • Business & Democracy
      • Corporate Responsibility
      • Impact Investment
      • Innovation & Incubation
      • Small Businesses
      • Stakeholder Capitalism
    • Elections
      • Campaign Finance
      • Independent Voter News
      • Redistricting
      • Voting
    • Government
      • Balance of Power
      • Budgeting
      • Congress
      • Judicial
      • Local
      • State
      • White House
    • Justice
      • Accountability
      • Anti-corruption
      • Budget equity
    • Columns
      • Beyond Right and Left
      • Civic Soul
      • Congress at a Crossroads
      • Cross-Partisan Visions
      • Democracy Pie
      • Our Freedom
  • Pop Culture
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
  • events
  • About
      • Mission
      • Advisory Board
      • Staff
      • Contact Us
Sign Up
  1. Home>
  2. Open Government>
  3. campaign finance>

To protect free speech online, we need transparency, not secrecy

Ann Ravel
November 01, 2019
Person using a computer

"As digital political advertising continues to grow without legislative oversight, the disclosure that is so crucial to democratic decision-making is shrinking," argues Ann Ravel.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Ravel is the digital deception project director at MapLight and was a member of the Federal Election Commission from 2013 to 2017. She is now running as a Democrat for the California Senate.

Five years ago, as vice chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission, I wrote a statement calling on the commission to discuss online political messaging, which was and still is completely exempt from federal campaign finance disclosure laws. While I didn't foresee exactly what would happen over the next half-decade — Russia's interference in the United States' elections, the rise of the far-right aided by social media and the proliferation of digital disinformation — I did see that political campaign communications were increasingly moving online. If left unregulated, digital media posed an enormous threat to democracy as we know it and I wanted the FEC to discuss this.

The day after my statement, another commissioner, Lee Goodman, appeared on "Fox & Friends" to argue that I was trying to "censor" free speech online. Following his appearance, my Twitter account and FEC email were flooded with misogynistic and anti-Semitic messages and death threats. One email was even signed "Heil Hitler."

Though this was my first personal experience with individuals citing the First Amendment to push back, violently, against the notion of disclosure, it was far from my last. Ever since Bradley Smith in 2001 published "Unfree Speech" — which asserts the First Amendment requires the repeal of all restrictions on campaign finance giving — the concept of free speech has been pitted against campaign finance disclosure. Just last month, Goodman called on this familiar rhetoric to argue against having an FEC symposium about online disinformation.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter


This argument has always been surprising to me. A core tenet I hold is the right of individuals to speak freely and engage in civic discourse. My very first case as a lawyer was defending, pro bono, the First Amendment right to get signatures on a petition. From this perspective, I have always maintained that, far from obstructing free speech, campaign finance disclosure and transparency are in fact integral to maintaining this most fundamental American right.

This view comes straight from the Supreme Court. Far from finding that campaign finance disclosure infringes on free speech, the courts have always been firm in ruling that disclosure is necessary to deter corruption, enforce existing laws and ensure voters have accurate information about electoral issues and candidates. In Buckley v. Valeo for example, while striking down many election spending limits, the Supreme Court in 1976 maintained the need for disclosure. Even in Citizens United v. FEC — the 2010 case that lifted restrictions on corporate independent expenditures in the name of free speech — the court still endorsed disclosing the sources of those expenditures. In the majority decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that "this transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages."

As digital political advertising continues to grow without legislative oversight, the disclosure that is so crucial to democratic decision-making is shrinking. Without disclosure, advertisers are able to target minority groups with propaganda to deliberately disenfranchise them or suppress turnout. Acting completely anonymously, individuals can program armies of automated accounts to harass other users or manipulate trending topics. Russian agents can spread viciously false propaganda to sway our elections because the regulations do not exist to catch them. None of these actions is — or ever should be — protected by the First Amendment.

Without protection against these threats, voters are robbed of the ability to give proper weight to speakers and messages Kennedy spoke about. Not knowing who is trying to influence them, or how, deprives voters of their agency and ability to decide whether a particular message or candidate resonates with them. The lack of transparency also means individuals and groups can, with greater impunity, harass and target people — frequently women and minorities — in an attempt to silence them. This form of manipulation has not been protected by the First Amendment in traditional media and it should certainly not be protected online.

Fortunately, lawmakers have proposed bills to address these problems, such as the For the People Act and the Honest Ads Act. Yet Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has stated that he will not even allow such legislation to be heard on the Senate floor. His rationale? Back to the old standby excuse: It would give the federal government too much control over Americans' political speech.

It is past time to stop raising this particular specter. When we talk about increasing transparency online, stifling free speech is not the risk. The proliferation of digital deception undermining our democracy, however, is a crisis.

From Your Site Articles
  • FEC chairwoman taking a fresh crack at regulating online political ads ›
  • Compromise in sight on some regulation of online political ads - The ... ›
  • Fact-checking Trump's claim of free speech violations - The Fulcrum ›
  • Tenn. judge gives OK to call candidate 'literally Hitler' - The Fulcrum ›
  • Dan Newman: campaign finance reformer turned graphic novelist - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
  • The science of political advertising ›
  • See, Facebook? Twitter Proves You Can Ban Political Ads | WIRED ›
  • Twitter to ban all political advertising - BBC News ›
campaign finance

Want to write
for The Fulcrum?

If you have something to say about ways to protect or repair our American democracy, we want to hear from you.

Submit
Get some Leverage Sign up for The Fulcrum Newsletter
Confirm that you are not a bot.
×
Follow
Contributors

Why does a man wearing earrings drive Christians crazy?

Paul Swearengin

DeSantis' sitcom world

Lawrence Goldstone

Hypocrisy of pro-lifers being anti-LGBTQIA

Steve Corbin

A dangerous loss of trust

William Natbony

Shifting the narrative on homelessness in America

David L. Nevins

Reform in 2023: Leadership worth celebrating

Layla Zaidane
latest News

Blowback: A warning to save democracy from the next Trump

David L. Nevins
22h

Measuring the cost of neglecting individual duty

Kevin Frazier
22h

How America gets to a new center

Dave Anderson
05 June

Why are we building a new party in California?

Lucie Repova
05 June

Ask Joe: Two sides of a story

Joe Weston
02 June

Podcast: Saving democracy from & with AI

Our Staff
01 June
Videos

Video: The Buffalo shooting, how far have we come on race?

Our Staff

Video: Daughters and Sons

David L. Nevins

Video: Why music? Why now?

David L. Nevins

Video: Honoring Memorial Day

Our Staff

Video: #ListenFirst Friday YOUnify & CPL

Our Staff

Video: What is the toll of racial violence on Black lives?

Our Staff
Podcasts

Podcast: Saving democracy from & with AI

Our Staff
01 June

Podcast: AI revolution: Disaster or great leap forward?

Our Staff
25 May

Podcast: Can we fix America's financial crises?

Our Staff
23 May

Podcast: Gen Z's fight for democracy

Our Staff
22 May
Recommended
Blowback: A warning to save democracy from the next Trump

Blowback: A warning to save democracy from the next Trump

Big Picture
Measuring the cost of neglecting individual duty

Measuring the cost of neglecting individual duty

Voting
Video: The Buffalo shooting, how far have we come on race?

Video: The Buffalo shooting, how far have we come on race?

Diversity Inclusion and Belonging
Video: Daughters and Sons

Video: Daughters and Sons

Big Picture
How America gets to a new center

How America gets to a new center

Elections
Why are we building a new party in California?

Why are we building a new party in California?

Voting