Cambridge Analytica's Crime Was Not Violating Your Privacy Or Taking Data From Facebook, It Was A Massive Campaign Finance Scam

from the get-the-scandals-right dept

If you asked most people what the Cambridge Analytica scandal was about, many would insist that it involved the company illegally sucking up all sorts of data from Facebook and using that to nefariously micro-target people with ads or information in a way that supported Donald Trump or suppressed the interest in voting for Hillary Clinton. As we pointed out years ago, it seemed like everyone was very much misinterpreting what happened with Cambridge Analytica.

The reality is now coming out, but so many people are so bought into the original myth story that I doubt it will get much attention. First off, over in the UK, government investigators have now admitted that Cambridge Analytica didn't really do anything special or have any access to data that lots of others had:

Detail of the data processing practices undertaken by SCL/CA is set out at Annex 2, but, in summary, we concluded that SCL/CA were purchasing significant volumes of commercially available personal data (at one estimate over 130 billion data points), in the main about millions of US voters, to combine it with the Facebook derived insight information they had obtained from an academic at Cambridge University, Dr Aleksandr Kogan, and elsewhere. In the main their models were also built from ‘off the shelf’ analytical tools and there was evidence that their own staff were concerned about some of the public statements the leadership of the company were making about their impact and influence.

Basically, the company was buying up a ton of data that lots of others also had access to and using off-the-shelf analytical tools that lots of others had access too... but then puffing themselves up to have some sort of secret sauce. They had none.

That doesn't mean there weren't issues though. But the issues were not so much about Facebook coughing up this data to Cambridge Analytica, but rather how Cambridge Analytica was actually a tool for the Mercer family to engage in campaign finance violations by illegally coordinating between a Mercer-created super PAC and the Trump Campaign. As you hopefully know, the whole concept of super PACs is based on the idea that they cannot coordinate with the actual campaigns. Most people recognize that in practice, this is bullshit but they at least try to maintain an appearance of separation. It now appears that the Mercers did no such thing, and Cambridge Analytica was at the center of it all.

A megadonor like Robert Mercer may only contribute millions to a super PAC if it operates independently of—and does not coordinate with—the candidate that it supports.

By the Mercer-owned Cambridge Analytica simultaneously working for the campaign and the super PAC, it was in a position to use strategic information gained from its work for Trump to develop and target the super PAC’s ads supporting Trump.

Federal law limits how a vendor may work for both a candidate and a super PAC backing that candidate. Unless a “common vendor” like Cambridge Analytica creates and complies with an internal firewall separating its work for the candidate from the work for the super PAC, it can act as a conduit for unlawful coordination.

Usually, it can be difficult to assess whether a vendor firewalled their work for the campaign from the super PAC because companies are not required to make their firewall policies public, and they tend to avoid disclosing details about internal operations.

Yet the newly published documents suggest a striking overlap between Cambridge Analytica’s work for Trump and for the Mercer-backed pro-Trump super PAC, which indicates that any firewall policy was not followed.

In other words, there's a real scandal here, but it's not a "Facebook data" scandal, so much as it's a Mercer/Trump campaign finance violation scandal.

However, I'll bet that years into the future, people will remember the other non-scandal instead of what appears to be the real issue.

Filed Under: campaign finance, data, donald trump, mercer family, privacy, robert mercer, steve bannon, superpac
Companies: cambridge analytica, facebook, scl

Another SuperPAC Trying Another Approach To Getting 'Dark' Money Out Of Politics

from the using-the-system dept

We've written a bunch about Larry Lessig's MayDay SuperPAC and its crowdfunded attempt to elect politicians who promise to change the way money in politics works. And many users also pointed to Wolf PAC, which is another high profile political action committee committed to dealing with the issue of money in politics. Now another such PAC has been announced, kicked off by some more Silicon Valley folks, called CounterPAC, the focus is on getting candidates to take a pledge not to accept so-called "dark money".

It's based on the (mostly successful) pledge that Senate candidates Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown took in the 2012 Massachusetts Senate race, that if any such group spent money on their campaigns, the campaigns would give a similar amount to charity. As CounterPAC notes, the pledge was a success:

It worked. Outside spending was drastically reduced to merely 9% of total spending in contrast to upwards of 60% in other states.

CounterPAC’s mission this year is to get as many candidates as possible to agree to a similar pledge rejecting untraceable dark money.

CounterPAC was apparently put together by a bunch of Silicon Valley folks, including (currently on leave from Google) Matt Cutts (who I know a little bit, but had no idea he was doing this), Ethan Beard from Greylock, well-known Silicon Valley lawyer Ted Wang and some others. It was officially started by Jim Greer (who ran the site Kongregate) and Zack Booth Simpson.

Who knows if any of these approaches will be successful, but it's encouraging to see people trying to do something different, rather than just complaining about things and being cynical and defeatist. Part of the Silicon Valley world is that you need a lot of experiments to see what works, and here's another one to throw at the wall.

Filed Under: counterpac, dark money, elizabeth warren, mayday, money in politics, pledge, scott brown, superpac

Awesome Stuff: One Last Chance To Join With Thousands Of Others To Help Limit The Influence Of Money In Politics

from the don't-let-cynicism-get-in-the-way dept

Okay, we've written about Larry Lessig's Mayday PAC a bunch of times already, including when it launched, when it hit its first target of $1 million (which was then matched by donors for another $1 million), and again when the second round launched with a goal of raising $5 million (again to be matched with another $5 million) by July 4th.

Guess what? Today is July 4th, and the campaign ends today.

And you have a chance to help determine if it meets that $5 million goal or not. While there's been a big last minute push from a variety of places, as I write this, the campaign is still significantly short of its target goal. There is a very real chance that it won't reach the $5 million. And that would be unfortunate. So, today is basically a big chance for you to make a statement about trying to limit the impact of money in politics. One note on cynicism: pretty much every time we've written about this, the comments have been filled with people cynically trashing the idea either based on the argument that it's impossible to get rid of the influence of money in politics or because Lessig hasn't taken a specific issue on a particular pet issue (term limits is one that comes up often enough). Personally, I find this disingenuous and disappointing. It seems like people are actively looking for ways to keep the status quo, rather than to represent any real challenge to it at all. This kind of attitude is a self-fulfilling prophecy that only keeps things the way they are.

No one knows for sure if Lessig's plans will have any real impact, but I know of no one who has put as much time, thought and effort into tackling the problem of the corrupting influence of money in politics. For every simplistic point that someone has for why this plan or that plan won't work, Lessig has a detailed, fact-based or data-based answer. This isn't just some randomly idealistic person with a dream. This is someone who has dedicated a huge chunk of his life and intellectual resources towards really tackling the problem in a realistic and doable way. Even if I don't know all of the details, if there's one person who can actively make a difference, who has thought through the pros and cons of basically every possible approach, it's Larry Lessig.

Go ahead and be cynical, if you must. But think about what that cynicism leads to in the end. Even if the MAYDAY PAC fails, isn't it better that they have a chance to succeed, rather than killing it off from the start so you can sound smart about how you knew it wouldn't work?

Filed Under: cynicism, larry lessig, mayday, mayday citizens pac, money in politics, politics, superpac

Larry Lessig's Anti-SuperPAC SuperPAC Already Halfway To $1 Million Initial Target

from the into-orbit,-next-stop,-the-moon dept

Last Thursday, we wrote about Larry Lessig launching the MAYDAY Citizens' SuperPAC, an attempted "moonshot" to crowdfund a SuperPAC with the long term goal to elect politicians to Congress who will be dedicated to ending the power of money in politics. It is, as we noted, the SuperPAC to end all SuperPACs. The structure of the plan is interesting in that it's a staged approach explained on the Mayone website. The first two "test" stages happen this year, with the first goal being to raise $1 million by the end of May, at which point Lessig will get someone (who almost certainly is already lined up) to donate another $1 million. Then they launch stage 2 for June, which is an attempt to do the same, but at $5 million (with a further matching $5 million). If both of those work out, the SuperPAC will then have $12 million, which it will use in 5 races for the mid-term elections this year. And, with that in place, the goal will be to launch a much bigger crowdfunding effort for 2016. Many people seemed to misunderstand the original plan, thinking that this $12 million part was the moonshot. It's not. It's a test flight.

Anyway, the first stage of the test flight is just to get to that $1 million mark, and it's worth noting that here we are on May 6th, just five days into the effort, and the MAYDAY Citizens' SuperPAC is already more than halfway to its goal. That is, they've already hit the $500,000 mark less than a week into the effort. Will that be enough to hit both of the 2014 goals? That's tough to say, but as an initial effort, it sure seems like a very nice start, and almost certainly goes way beyond what many people expected would happen. Still, this is just the start. A moonshot is inherently risky, but the first week has been tremendously encouraging.

Filed Under: larry lessig, mayday, moonshot, superpac

Larry Lessig Launches Crowdfunded SuperPAC To Try To End SuperPACs

from the fighting-superpacs-with-superpacs dept

Larry Lessig is thinking big (as per usual) and taking a "moonshot." Today he announced the launch of the MAYDAY Citizens' SuperPAC, in which he's hoping to crowdfund $1 million to help elect people to Congress who will help reform the political system to try to take money out of politics -- basically a SuperPAC to end all SuperPACs. This project has an interesting twist on traditional crowdfunding: nothing will happen if the goal isn't met, but if it is, then two interesting things will happen: a matching donation and a second round, seeking $5 million:

We’ve structured this as a series of matched-contingent goals. We’ve got to raise $1 million in 30 days; if we do, we’ll get that $1 million matched. Then we’ve got to raise $5 million in 30 days; if we do, we’ll get that $5 million matched as well. If both challenges are successful, then we’ll have the money we need to compete in 5 races in 2014. Based on those results, we’ll launch a (much much) bigger effort in 2016 — big enough to win.

The ultimate aim is to spend enough to win a majority in Congress committed to fundamental reform by 2016. We’ve spent the last year gaming out how much that would cost. I think it is feasible and possible — if we can take these first steps successfully now.

Lessig has put together a video explaining all this as well: This whole thing is wildly ambitious, which means it has a high likelihood of failure -- but if it succeeds, think of the impact it could have. If you're an American citizen, you can contribute here and help see if this moonshot is possible.

Filed Under: corruption, crowdfunding, larry lessig, mayday, money and politics, politics, superpac

Hall & Oates Convince Super PAC Named After Them To Shut Down

from the but-now-where-will-the-hall-&-oates-fans-put-their-money? dept

There's been plenty of talk this election season about the rise of PACs and SuperPACs -- and the ease of creating them. Of course, that can lead to some bizarre situations. Take, for example the creation of the Hall and Oates Fans for America SuperPAC, which was recently approved by the Federal Election Commission (found via On the Media). The thinking behind it might not surprise you very much:

“It was really just kind of a joke a couple of us came up with drunk one night. I wish I could say there was more to it, but that’s about it,” said [William] Hansmann.

Hansmann stated that the goal of the SuperPAC was "to create parody videos on YouTube." Seems like as good a use of a SuperPAC as any. As for why they chose famed rock duo Hall & Oates? Well, that was easy:

“When we hit on Hall & Oates, we were just like, who doesn’t love Hall & Oates?” Mr. Hansmann explained.

That may be true... but while everyone may love Hall & Oates... it turns out that Hall & Oates don't really love being associated with a SuperPAC. They had their people "get in touch" with Hansmann and convince him to shut down the SuperPAC, which had raised all of $0. According to Hall & Oates' manager, the duo was wary of any political connection whatsoever, even one involving parody videos:

"Daryl Hall and John Oates recognize that the personal view points of their fans cross all political spectrums and are honored to be supported by their fans everywhere regardless of political affiliation... The PAC's founders recognize that the use of the ‘Hall’ and ‘Oates’ names for the purpose of raising funds is not an appropriate fan activity no matter what the goal of the fund raising activities might be.”

Thankfully, it appears that the dynamic duo and their manager resolved this in a friendly manner, rather than the all-too-typical reaction of some to immediately rush to legal nastygramming.

"Daryl Hall and John Oates are pleased that the amicable dialog with the founders of the Super Pac have brought an expedient resolution to this matter and achieved a result both sides are pleased with."

Of course, what's unclear is if the SuperPAC has just been shut down, or is being renamed. Any suggestions on what else it might be called?

Filed Under: hall & oates, jokes, superpac, videos