U.S. House Passes Spanberger's Amendment to Strengthen Disclosure Requirements on Foreign-Based Online Political Advertisements

Statement

Today, the House is discussing and debating how we can safeguard the integrity of our elections--the bedrock of our democracy. How do we protect our electoral systems from foreign threats, and how do we prevent foreign influence over our electorate?

As we stand here today, the number of countries engaged in active campaigns to mislead the electorate--the American people--continues to grow.

According to a new report from the University of Oxford, the number of countries engaged in disinformation campaigns has more than doubled in the last two years. Additionally, at least seven countries have used their intelligence or military apparatuses to deploy disinformation on social media to influence a foreign country and its people.

As a former intelligence officer, I recognize the risks that these potential attacks--yes, attacks--pose as we head into next year's federal, state, and local elections.

There is a legitimate fear across our intelligence community that foreign governments will build on Russia's extensive information warfare strategy.

Foreign actors--from Russia to China to North Korea to Iran--are eager to undermine the foundations of our democracy.

Leading up to the 2016 presidential election, Facebook disclosed that it found more than $100,000-worth of ads on divisive issues purchased by a Russian company linked to the Kremlin. And the potential return on investment is extremely high.

As we approach 2020, they have every reason to follow this playbook again and to strengthen their disinformation operations.

In the context of these threats, we need to take a serious look at how we build resiliency against foreign interference on social media platforms. Digital advertising can be far less-expensive and time-intensive as a tool for propaganda--and it can spread disinformation, confusion, hate, and division at an alarming rate.

The SHIELD Act takes real steps to require large online platforms to keep records of qualified political advertisements. And I'd like to thank my colleagues for their hard work on this critical issue.

The SHIELD Act would require online companies to keep publicly available records about online digital political advertisements. It would require information about the contents of a specific advertisement, its target audience, and the issue it addresses.

Additionally, it would require disclosure information about those purchasing the advertisement.

Disclosure sheds light on corruption. It unmasks influence. And it stops our democracy from becoming vulnerable to foreign governments, non-state actors, and shadowy influence groups constantly working to distract and mislead the American people.

My amendment would strengthen this disclosure.

My amendment would add that online platforms need to include a statement when the person purchasing a political advertisement is acting as the agent of a foreign principal.

Not only would it include language making clear that they're acting on behalf of a foreign entity, but it would require the online platform to identify the foreign principal involved. That principal could be a foreign government, a foreign political party, or a non-state actor.

Fundamentally, my amendment to the SHIELD Act would put the power back in the hands of the American people. It would help address a critical, underlying question--who is in charge of deciding American elections? Is it those abroad, working to divide and influence the American people? Or is it the American people themselves?

By requiring online records of purchase requests that include public information on the foreign principal behind these advertisements, the American people will be able to see clearly who is attempting to influence their decisions.

As Congress acts today to restore the trust of those we serve in our system of government, my amendment would strengthen our efforts to prevent the spread of foreign influence in our democratic system.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to H.R. 4617 to increase transparency in online advertisements--something that should not be controversial.

Source