I'll make this short, simple and to the point because I'm in a very dark mood about this FISA business.
Search engine or pay per click (PPC) advertising is one of the most important new tools being deployed in this election and it appears to me to be almost completely unregulated.
FEC internet rules issued in 2006, exempt bloggers but not paid advertisers, from disclaimer requirements. McCain is raising money by ignoring this rule. At least, I think it's McCain. Why don't I know? The answer, the ad, the rules, and more angst, after the jump.
Let's start with a little background:
What do I mean by almost completely unregulated? I mean it's a faith-based system with more holes in it than a colander. Search engine providers, like Google, now wield the power to determine the outcome of an election and have been left to make up their own rules. We know how much money the candidates are spending on PPC campaigns through their FEC filings. It's millions. But there's a whole lot more we don't know.
I think the momentous thing about the 2008 election campaign is just about every presidential campaign used Google AdWords... Obama started the strategy very early and stuck with it and was able to build an enormous list of supporters.
Clinton's campaign started a little later... They had experimented with it early on in the campaign season and then they ended up cutting it off the last two quarters of 2007... During that time the Obama and McCain campaigns were using AdWords.
Clinton's campaign re-launched their AdWords campaign when the primaries were already underway... They had already dug themselves into a huge hole in terms of how many small donors they could count on.
--Peter Greenberger, Google
Starting to get the picture? Obama's campaign outflanked the Clintons using ubiquitous keyword advertising and geographic targeting. He used it to build his storied list of small donors. In fact, he's spent over 2.8 million on Adwords alone so far. Now given that the candidates seem to have some sort of gentleman's agreement not to bid on each other's keywords, and given their high relevancy scores, I would guess that the Obama and McCain campaign are paying very little for clicks. I would similarly guess that, now that primary season is over, they have a very high conversion rate. This implies that adwords is the make or break engine for financing presidential campaigns this season.
According to Greenberger, Google tried to convince Clinton to spend more:
We tried everything, but basically as with any campaign with a finite amount of resources there were internal discussions about the best use of those resources... I believe it was to their detriment...
Just another example of Obama's people being on the curve and Clinton's highly paid staff being a block behind, right? Well, like Lieutenant Columbo used to say, "there's just one more thing, sir."
Let's take a look at McCain's adwords ad:
Who's paying for this ad? Cindy? Someone hoping for political favors back in Arizona? Rod Parsley? Is McCain's campaign paying for some of them and are anonymous unreported donors paying for the rest? You tell me. I don't know.
And, here's the rule McCain (and everyone else) is brazenly ignoring:
What is a Disclaimer Notice?
For the purpose of this brochure, a "disclaimer" notice is defined as a statement placed on a public communication that identifies the person(s) who paid for the communication and, where applicable, the person(s) who authorized the communication.
When is a Disclaimer Required?
Political committees must include a disclaimer on (1) all "public communications" (defined below), (2) bulk electronic email (defined as electronic mail with more than 500 substantially similar communications) and (3) web sites available to the general public, regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or solicits funds in connection with a federal election (i.e., contributions for a federal candidate or federal political committee). 2
Individuals and Other Persons
A disclaimer must appear on any "electioneering communication" (defined below) and on any public communication by any person that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or solicits funds in connection with a federal election.
Application
Specific examples of public communications that would require a disclaimer include:
* Public communications coordinated with a federal candidate (i.e., in-kind contributions or coordinated party expenditures) that are paid for by a political committee or that contain express advocacy or a solicitation;
* Independent expenditures;
* Electioneering communications;
* A communication that solicits funds for a federal candidate or a federal political committee or that contains express advocacy; and
* Political committees’ web sites
http://www.fec.gov/...
Is keyword advertising defined as free speech like blogging and exempt from these rules? Definitely not:
The Commission concludes that Internet communications placed on another person’s website for a fee are ‘‘general public political advertising,’’ and are thus ‘‘public communications’’ as defined in 11 CFR 100.26.
http://www.fec.gov/...
Where's the FEC on this? Waiting for a quorum, I suppose. In the meantime, this is a hole you could drive Paul Allen's yacht though and still have room for his 40 foot yellow submarine.
And where's Google on this? In the regulatory vacuum left by the non-functioning FEC, they've taken it upon themselves to formulate some FEC-like policies on their own, ruling out attacks on a candidates personal life, for example. But the required disclaimers which which tell you who paid for the ad are not part of their policy. (Speaking of disclaimers, I'm only using Google as an example here because they're getting around 80% of the candidate online spending. You can ask the same questions of any search provider. I love you Google.)
Fixing the disclaimer issue should be very simple, if the will is there. One possibility would be to replace the URL line (last visible line of the ad) with a disclaimer. Another possibility would be use javascript to create a disclaimer "tool tip" that displays on a mouse-over on the ad. A third possibility would be to display a disclaimer message between the time the ad is clicked and the user is delivered to the target site. Easy-peasy.
The danger is this: if this rule isn't enforced, anyone with money can buy any number of ads from Google or Yahoo or MSN. Since there's no disclaimer in the ads, and no way to find who's paying for them short of a subpoena, anything goes. Candidates can use PPC campaigns to raise millions. Attack groups can build traffic for smear sites, anonymously. I could bid up candidates' most valuable keywords and hamstring their fundraising. As I pointed out earlier, I could run the same ad McCain is running against a different set of keywords, pay for every click or impression, and raise millions for him and who would be the wiser? Is it in the interests of search engine providers to abide by the disclaimer rule and send reports to the FEC? I don't think so. Should they be deputized to police the most influential campaign advertising mechanism currently in existence? I hope not. Who's minding the store? Once again, you tell me.
This is a disaster, waiting to happen. It's a disaster that might have already happened that we'll never know about. It's also unfair to candidates, like the one I worked for, who obey the spirit and the letter of the law. But hey, while the cat's away, the mice will play, and this congress has bigger things to worry about, apparently, than a functioning FEC. Spakovsky withdrew in the third week of May and what's happened since that time? And I'm so disillusioned with politics today that I barely care.
###