Don?t let Putin and his allies interfere in American elections again. Require online campaign ads to include disclaimers as to who is paying for them ? just like what is done for television and print advertisements. Americans deserve transparent information about who is paying for communication with a goal of influencing their votes. Arimenta Johnson As a concerned voter, and a physician, I am appalled at the data handling and disclosures going on. In medicine, managing patient information is tightly regulated, and I am required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest prior to any presentation, talk, or manuscript submission. I fully believe the health of our democracy is just as important as the health of its citizens. We need better disclosures of who is behind these ads and who is paying for them, especially ads presented online and in non television or radio venues. It makes no sense that rules don?t apply to a Facebook ad. In democracy, like medicine, sunlight is the best cure. Dr. Robert Dood 2 I support a disclosure requirement for political advertising in all forms, as a hinderanance to misleading the public and to make foreign infiltration of our elections more difficult. Mr. Jeffrey Mirsepasy 3 I am writing to support the new FEC rules requiring that online political advertisements disclose who purchased them. It is clear that people based in Russia meddled in the 2016 election and that voters may have been misled by political ads. Forcing ad buyers to disclose their identity would make it easier for social media users to verify whether or not they can trust the content of advertisements they encounter. Ideally, these disclaimers should appear directly in the body of the ad because many social media users read the content of an ad without actually clicking through. It would also be helpful if social media users were informed about how much that advertiser is spending and what audiences they are targeting. Ideally, these rules should also apply to so-called ?advocacy? ads, advertisements that advocate for a specific issue without actually endorsing a specific candidate. No matter what, we need to do everything we can to protect the integrity of our elections, and while these rules do not go far enough, they are an important first step. Dr. Chuck Tryon 4 I am writing to support the new FEC rules requiring that online political advertisements disclose who purchased them. It is clear that people based in Russia meddled in the 2016 election and that voters may have been misled by political ads. Forcing ad buyers to disclose their identity would make it easier for social media users to verify whether or not they can trust the content of advertisements they encounter. Ideally, these disclaimers should appear directly in the body of the ad because many social media users read the content of an ad without actually clicking through. It would also be helpful if social media users were informed about how much that advertiser is spending and what audiences they are targeting. Ideally, these rules should also apply to so-called ?advocacy? ads, advertisements that advocate for a specific issue without actually endorsing a specific candidate. No matter what, we need to do everything we can to protect the integrity of our elections, and while these rules do not go far enough, they are an important first step. Mrs. Sarah Charles 5 RE Comment: Internet Communication Disclaimers and Definition of Public Communication I strongly support the commission?s proposed rules to update and refine current disclaimer regulations to include language more fitting for the technology and political landscape of 2018. I think the events of the 2016 election make it a matter of urgency and the utmost importance. I support the proposed rule to add the language of ?internet-enabled device or application? to the definition of ?Public Communication.? I say this because for the foreseeable future the one constant to every adaptation of technology is the connection of that device to the internet, or the ability of the device to connect to the internet. Additionally, I agree that there is an immediate need for greater clarity on the use of disclaimers for online media political adverts. I think that, in order to avoid confusion or loopholes by which political committees could circumvent any new regulations, the terms ?internet? and ?video? and should be clearly defined and expanded upon. That is true for either proposal. I think both options A and B have great potential for increasing the transparency and responsibility of online ads, but I think B has some drawbacks. As a user of the internet, and many apps, I am unlikely to click on an ?adapted disclaimer? in order to find the true origin of the ad. Therefore, in my mind, having an adapted disclaimer is just as good as having no disclaimer. I think that if an adapted disclaimer is mandatory than a more lengthy description of what is needed, and an expanded definition of ?clear and conspicuous? should be considered. While the design challenges that come with designing an app that both fits into the space of a small app and has a disclaimer may be lengthy, I think it is necessary. Despite that, I think option B has more logical reasoning, as the internet is indeed a unique mode of communication, and should be regulated as such. Sincerely, Isaac Windes Arizona 6 Alison Steffel 1135 W. 9th St. Tempe, AZ 85281 Re: REG 2011-02 Internet Communication Disclaimers Dear Commissioners: This comment is submitted in response to the FEC?s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on revising disclaimer regulations on Internet communication and online political advertisements. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and I respectfully submit the following. As a college student and a young voter, I have seen the way that the Internet has influenced people of all ages especially regarding politics. With the plethora of information and videos from a wide-range of sources, disclosure of where these ads come from is incredibly important. The definition of ?public communication? needs to be revised and expanded. The definition has not been updated since 2006 and the Internet and its uses have evolved greatly in the last 12 years. Online video content needs to be held to the same standards as television ads, with ?clear and conspicuous? disclosure and ?stand by your ad? components stating authorization of messages as per the first alternative regarding video content. With daily updates about Russia?s interference in the 2016 election, it is time to be proactive and update the old regulations and definitions. Although the previous definition of public communication is still valid, Internet consumption has increased exponentially and now a majority of Americans depend on it to get their news. According to the Pew Research Center, 85% of adults now get their news on a mobile device and 67% get at least some news on social media. The FEC should require Internet disclaimers on all paid political communication just as they would for television. Americans deserve to 7 know who is attempting to sway their decisions and votes, and how reliably they can trust that source. Foreign actors should no longer be able to influence our system or U.S. elections. The ?clear and conspicuous? requirement should be enacted for all sponsored online political ads. The ads that are on the Internet are just as public and invasive as driving past a billboard, and should be held to the same scrutiny. It does not make sense for Internet ads to be held to a lower standard than political ads in other forms. The lack of transparency in digital ads is a threat to national security, and needs to be dealt with. Sincerely, Alison Steffel 8 I am strongly in favor of complete disclosure for all paid political advertising. I am not in favor of allowing some forms to be exempt due to ?technical? issues. I believe that all advertisements need to have the full disclaimer included, with no need for the viewer/listener to take any action whatsoever in order to access that information. Thank you for your consideration, Tim Jouet 9 The 2016 election was compromised, and without these rules in place, it will happen again in 2018. Ms. Lois Riskin 10 The FEC should require online campaign ads to include disclaimers about who is paying for them ? as is required for television and print advertisements. Americans have a right to know who is paying for online political ads. The FEC?s Internet Communication Disclaimers rule should be comprehensive and modern. Dark money ads and foreign meddling influenced the 2016 election, and without these rules in place, it will happen again in 2018. Please make sure that the American people can understand who is speaking to them. Jill Godmilow 11 **The FEC should require online campaign ads to include disclaimers about who is paying for them ? as is required for television and print advertisements. **Americans have a right to know who is paying for online political ads. **The FEC?s Internet Communication Disclaimers rule should be comprehensive and modern. ** Dark money ads and foreign meddling influenced the 2016 election, and without these rules in place, it will happen again in 2018. ** the FEC should make copies of all paid internet political messages, their funding source and target audience, available to the public similar to the libraries kept for television advertising. **Internet campaign ads should, be required to include either a full disclaimer or, if size or format makes a full disclaimer impractical, then an adapted disclaimer such as ?Paid for by?? with a link to a full disclaimer in one step.