34

Some ads are protected but John Oliver's isn't In the US there is a federal law that requires TV stations and other mass media networks to give equal opportunity to all candidates running for an office. If the station airs an ad for one candidate it must give all other candidates running for the same office an opportunity to advertise. If any licensee ...


13

When you sign up with Facebook, you consent to sharing information with Facebook. You can read their privacy policy. If you don't agree with it, you can refuse to sign up for the service. Cambridge Analytica said that they were collecting information for private research. They then shared that information with Republican political campaigns. It's ...


12

The Cambridge Analytics situation was more a wake up call for something that has been brewing for some time. Two tech giants, Facebook and Google, have long been under some scrutiny for selling their user's information to pretty much anyone who can pay. Chrome tracks your activity and reports it to Google. So do searches, and Google has become quite adept ...


11

You don't need that exact statement, but per 52 USC § 30120(d)(1)(B) you do need to have a statement that identifies the candidate and states that the candidate has approved the communication. Such statement— (i) shall be conveyed by— (I) an unobscured, full-screen view of the candidate making the statement, or (II) the candidate in voice-over,...


9

One area of great concern is that Cambridge Analytica executives apparently have fewer scruples than their peers. About 15 minutes into the Channel 4 undercover video here chief executive Alexander Nix, managing director of CA Political Global Mark Turnbull, and chief data officer Dr. Alexander Tayler appear to be slyly suggesting they're ready and able to ...


7

The key federal (Supreme Court) case law here is Buckley v. Valeo, decided in 1976. In 1974, President Ford signed a campaign finance law to do exactly what you suggest - limit the amount of money that could be spent on political campaigns. The Supreme Court, however, decided that the law directly conflicted with the First Amendment protection and right to ...


7

The reason there is a discrepancy that arose your need to ask the question is because the question is based on incorrect understanding of what the media companies do. All of the companies listed (not all media companies, but all the ones listed in the question), mainly function in one of two business models: produce content directly sold to consumer (...


6

Members of House Intelligence Committee released some of the Russian FB ads, as reported in November by Fox News as well as WaPo They were seen by at least 10 million Americans according to Facebook, many of them bought with rubles. They were bought by the Russia based Internet Research Agency with the intention of influencing people with strong feelings ...


6

@Affable Greek gave a practical legal answer. For a more idea-based reasons, there are 3 approaches of seeing the necessity of political campaign ads and the need to spend money in campaigns: Incumbent politicians have a basically insurmountable way of campaign advertising via being an incumbent. They have the name recognition. They can do favors to ...


6

It appears that most or all of the ads have been removed since facebook located them and they have not been released to the public, however the 3,000+ Kremlin-linked ads are being shared with congress which may result in their eventual release Here is an example of a post from now-closed Russian created page "Secured Borders", notice the poor English. ...


6

This depends on what you mean under "government" and under "against". A meeting against a current administration or President or certain government policies is legal, a meeting advocating the overthrow of the government, even if the meeting itself is peaceful would be illegal. Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such ...


5

Yes it is legal. It's protected by the First Amendment. You can find such advertisements easily if you Google. Here's a random hit: https://twitter.com/GAIAUNION/status/290956794052894722 https://twitter.com/OccupyNashville https://twitter.com/TPPatriots (though, in all fairness, Occupy can't really be considered "against the government" given they are ...


4

There's a bit of a substory here politically. One of the stories that has been floating around is that Russia "interfered" with the US election by buying Facebook ads like this one The problem here is this: how much influence did ads like this bring? In fact, did these Facebook campaigns influence the election at all? Personally speaking, I have some people ...


3

In response to the last part of your question: yes the advertising was aired. According to this LA Times article, "…the ads appeared Monday morning on FOX (at 8:48 a.m. EST), MNSBC (8:29 a.m.) and CNN (8:50 a.m.)."


3

tl;dr: No. This kind of tracking is extremely difficult and uncommon, especially among political groups which invest less in advertising and marketing than most private firms. Click-through Rate My first job out of school was working in digital advertising (ad operations) in the mid-west. We published a couple dozen websites, in addition to newspapers, ...


3

The HIghway Beuatification Act of 1965, most often attributed to Lady Bird Johnson (LBJ's wife), curbed many forms of billboards across the United States - at least on federal roads, along their right of way. There are exceptions, but in general, a state loses its highway funding if billboards are allowed too close to an interstate. The tricky balance is ...


3

First, there is more lame content between the ads sometimes. Second, companies take a "percentage of your money" for lots of things. R&D, employee benefits, transportation, all of which are required to bring a product to market. Advertising is just another business expense, and an important one to generate sales. Third, you will now have companies with ...


2

This falls under the requirements for financial disclosures. Every campaign communication is funded by someone and the intent of this notice is transparency in campaign finance. Whether a letter, a yard sign, or a TV ad, there must be language that clearly identifies the person or organization responsible for funding it.


2

As Oliver wasn't running for office, Fox could have refused to run it. The equal opportunity laws apply only to candidates for public office and their direct campaigns. However, Fox did run it. I suspect that ad would have little impact on the typical Fox viewer, and if Fox had refused, then Oliver could have portrayed that as censorship. A clever tactic ...


2

It seems, then, that the answer to your question is this: Yes, networks can refuse John Oliver's ad, but rarely would any network turn down paying customers on an editorial basis, largely because of the traditionally "walled-off" nature of the structure of traditional news organizations. In other words, this would constitute a permeation of the traditional "...


2

It is unlikely that the United States government spends a significant portion of its advertising budget on news programs. It is far more likely that it spends most of that roughly $500 million on sports and entertainment advertising. Also, not all of it would be on television. Magazines, newspapers, and direct mail are also potential channels. Even if ...


2

Sure. That is one of the biggest topics which was explored by political scientists in the first half of 20th century. You may want to check works of behavioralists which studied behavior of voters and the influence of political campaigns on them. Check Lazarsfeld`s works for example. These studies showed that political advertising do not necessarily change ...


2

The sentence right before the one you quote in the wiki article is instructive: The ad was immediately pulled, but the point was made, appearing on the nightly news and on conversation programs in its entirety. The commercial became widely known and seen because ABC News and CBS Nightly News broadcast it a lot due to the controversial content, and the ...


1

TalkingPointsMemo sources a quote from Politico of one of the ads for Jill Stein: Choose peace and vote for Jill Stein. Trust me. It’s not a wasted vote. … The only way to take our country back is to stop voting for the corporations and banks that own us. #GrowaSpineVoteJillStein. The Huffington Post paraphrases a number of items but does not actually ...


1

TL;DR it depends on how you define "effective." There have been a fair number that generally speaking try to draw connections between advertising and process measures (i.e. turnout or likelihood of an individual to vote for candidate x), if that is what you mean. Obviously a type of analysis that could relate advertising with probability of victory is hard ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible