UK Parliamentary Group Blames Entertainment Industry For File Sharing Problem, Opposes Kicking People Off The Internet

Will Political Ads On Google Need To Include: 'This Ad Paid For By...

from the and-not-much-else dept

Mon, Oct 19th 2009 2:56pm — Mike Masnick

Lots of politicians have made use of Google for advertising via keyword-based text ads. However, a mayoral candidate in St. Petersburg, Florida recently ran into trouble when the Florida Elections Commission ordered him to take down his ads and pay a $250 fine for not including a "this ad paid for by..."-type disclaimer, despite the fact that the "required" text of the disclaimer is greater than the 68 characters that you can fit into a Google ad.

The link above goes on to talk about other similar situations -- and notes that many of the local Elections Commissions making decisions on these things are made up of more elderly folks (often retired judges) who don't have the greatest understanding of these new-fangled technology whatchamacallits. It seems like we're going to go through an uncomfortable transition period as these Elections Commissions begin to understand how the web works, and the idea that pretty much anyone can create content online -- rather than just the "professionals." What would have happened, for instance, if it hadn't been the candidate or his campaign that bought the ad in the first place... but a fan?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: political ads, politics

19 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 19 Oct 2009 @ 2:58pm

Uh...
My understanding is that wasn't really the issue. My local paper reported that the real reason they were going after him was because he had it so that this ads came up whenever you googled the names of the people running against him....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rabbit80 (profile), 19 Oct 2009 @ 3:19pm

I would welcome it if all ads on google had that.... I'm sick of people being caught out by hoaxes and scams through Google ads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2009 @ 3:21pm

Perhaps it would be better if Google didn't accept political ads?

Perhaps they could make special google ads that would be 68 characters PLUS a disclaimer space?

Speaking of which Mike, how are you going to handle the changes on December 1st?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
marius, 19 Oct 2009 @ 3:21pm

well...
well... they could use image ads, something like 728x90 or 468x60 banners and use 7point points saying on the corner "This ad sponsored by..."

It's still a bit silly but possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2009 @ 3:29pm

Perhaps just a blanket disclaimer of "This ad paid for by future lobbyist-bribe-taker."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Call me Al (profile), 19 Oct 2009 @ 3:33pm

"It seems like we're going to go through an uncomfortable transition period as these Elections Commissions begin to understand how the web works"

Sadly I expect it will be more a case of waiting till they die. In my, admittedly limited, experience of the elderly they either embrace technology or are luddites. If they are the latter then there isn't a hope they will adapt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Oct 2009 @ 3:48pm

Re:
Speaking of which Mike, how are you going to handle the changes on December 1st?

Nothing in the changes impacts us. We've always disclosed more than is even in those guidelines.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spanky, 19 Oct 2009 @ 4:07pm

re
Ban political ads anywhere an adequate disclaimer can't be provided.

Actually, just ban all political advertising. It does no one any good, and creates an obstacle to public office for those that aren't wealthy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2009 @ 4:34pm

the "required" text of the disclaimer is greater than the 68 characters that you can fit into a Google ad.

Then maybe politicians shouldn't use Google ads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2009 @ 4:40pm

Re: well...
It's still a bit silly but possible.

Umm, Google ads are text only.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2009 @ 4:44pm

Re:
Hi, are you the knee, or the jerk? I think I know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Harry, 19 Oct 2009 @ 4:55pm

Similar issue happened with the pharmas
The pharmas got in trouble for a similar issue where they didn't have their disclaimer in the text link. Obviously, there's no way to fit that into a text ad. Originally they thought having the disclaimer on the destination page was enough but this is now questionable. So, now, you have the banner display ads that then scroll the long disclaimers after.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2009 @ 4:57pm

Re: Re:
"Hi, are you the knee, or the jerk? I think I know."

Given the limited field of view of the typical asshole, I guess it must be a little hard for you to tell sometimes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gregory, 19 Oct 2009 @ 7:58pm

Ah hem... 1st Amendment
Political speech is protected speech. McCain-Feingold was bad law and needs to be repealed.

As for this specific instance... it's a freaking text ad, for crying out loud. If that's enough to sway someone's vote, that someone really shouldn't be voting in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2009 @ 8:52pm

Re:
So you favor a structure where only politicians that take huge campaign contributions from corporations can get their message out (ie: via mainstream media) but the rest of the politicians that don't can't?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben, 20 Oct 2009 @ 12:29am

If I was him I would not really care if my ad cost 250 bucks more. The amount of coverage makes it worth it. I know people ignore ads online a lot but he took it out hopefully knowing that. Good investment on his part I think. $250 bones, that makes me laugh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Elpookie, 20 Oct 2009 @ 5:23am

The disclosure law is there for the primary reason that it promotes transparency as to who or what is behind a political add. The fact that we have this "newfangled" thing does not take away from the need for disclosure. The tail should not be allowed to wag the dog mearly because these old folks do not understand the workings of new tech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2009 @ 7:37am

So because Google ads have character limits, politicians get a pass? Seems like a business problem, not a legal problem.

Google doesn't have room for the disclaimer then maybe they shouldn't use Google for political ads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Toronto Poster, 10 Nov 2009 @ 7:36pm

wouldn't the disclaimer defeat the purpose?
I thought the internet is more about freedom not more strings.
He/she should be free to say and advertise as they wish with no disclaimer.Otherwise there will be no fruitful advertising or free speech/will in the first place
[ link to this | view in thread ]