What Journalists Should Know About Online Ad Transparency
When perusing social media and coming across political ads that align with one’s views, it is much more difficult than one would think to determine whether or not these ads are the products of a legitimate campaign.
Social media does not undergo the same filters as TV and radio broadcasts do to maintain their legitimacy and transparency. Social media is far more unregulated and open for advertisers to exploit users’ personal data and specifically target their specific views—even manipulating their opinions on political matters.
We can expect these efforts to intensify as the 2024 election draws ever closer, considering the fierce battle that we have ahead of us between the candidates. There could not be more of a divide between the two major political parties and advertisers have historically done everything in their power to ensure users are on a particular side. The stakes are higher than ever before.
The McCain-Feingold Act and the Changes Since Then
Known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, this law stated that candidates would have to personally endorse their messages in radio and TV ads, which effectively maintained the desired levels of transparency and accountability in traditional media. The bill passed the House of Representatives on February 14, 2002, by a vote of 240-189.
Backed by then-Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, this law aimed to limit the influence that money had on politics within ads and maintain transparency in campaign financing. Specifically, the regulations prohibit national political party committees, state, district, and local political parties, as well as federal candidates and officeholders, from receiving or using soft money in federal elections. However, state, district, and local parties can use non-federal funds (Levin funds) for specific activities like voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote efforts.
However, there have been a lot of changes since the bill was passed due in large part to the lack of regulations among political advertisements online. The protection could be more clear cut and easier to manage when we were only using TV and radio broadcasts, but now we are dealing with unforeseen ways that advertisers are able to work around the law. There was no way to prepare for today’s media landscape back in 2002 and this is why laws need to change with the times. Without being able to rely on full transparency in these advertisements, individuals will not know what to trust and that is a dangerous notion in such a huge pivotal election.
Google’s Ads Transparency Center
Google has an Advertisement Transparency tool that functions as a way for businesses to gain insights into the advertisement strategies of their competitors. However, it can also be used by journalists to determine the transparency of campaign ads for pieces that necessitate this information. Political ads can be viewed through this tool simply by searching the candidates’ names. This can be of great use for journalists, helping them understand how campaigns use digital advertising to engage voters. Because rules and regulations governing election ads vary by country, not all countries’ political ads can be viewed in this way, but it can certainly be used for our own election later this year.
Concerns are rising that future disinformation campaigns will target American voters if the U.S. does not have the proper ad transparency tools at its disposal. The risks of electoral interference and voter manipulation are at an all-time high this election and the last thing we want is for it to be difficult to identify whether the sources behind political ads are to be trusted. The best course of action is to focus on the development of better ad transparency tools before the election. Otherwise, the crucial role that voters play in the election will be muddled, which must be avoided at all costs.
