A Facebook Ban on Political Ads Would Be a Major Blow to the Left. Just Look
at AOC's Campaign.
By Ryan Grim, The Intercept
08 November 19
On June 26, 2018, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pulled off an upset victory
against incumbent Joe Crowley that would, in the matter of a few months,
help reshape the Democratic Party. Crowley, in line to be speaker of the
House, instead became a lobbyist, and Ocasio-Cortez became the face of an
insurgent Democratic left, joined by three freshmen colleagues who came to
be known as the Squad.
A week after her November election, she joined with activists from the
Sunrise Movement and Justice Democrats to occupy the office of incoming
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, putting the Green New Deal on the political map,
and reorienting the public conversation about climate change.
Yet as insurgent candidates are within striking distance of realigning
Democratic Party politics, Democrats including Ocasio-Cortez are
pressuring Silicon Valley to cut off the very route that they have taken to
power by banning political advertising on social media. Last week,
progressives cheered when Twitter announced a ban on political ads, and
Google is reportedly considering moving in that direction as well.
Ocasio-Cortez was quick to endorse the move, and progressives largely
cheered it. She added that she believed the ban should extend to any social
media company unwilling to take responsibility for fact-checking:
By the end of Ocasio-Cortezs thread, she seemed to be leaving some wiggle
room in her position, noting she runs social media ads herself, and only
wants companies to block outright disinformation: wrong vote records, etc.
Facebook has been under pressure since the election of Donald Trump, with
Democrats attacking the company for not stopping foreign-funded
misinformation from circulating widely. Democratic leaders recently went
after Facebook again when it refused to take down an ad from Trump that
included false claims; Elizabeth Warren responded by running an explicitly
false ad on the platform. When CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared before the House
Financial Services Committee on October 23, Ocasio-Cortez hammered him on
the scandal.
Yet her note about her own use of ads is something of an understatement.
Though it hasnt been widely explored, the campaign of Ocasio-Cortez fueled
her rise, and the rise of a movement, by deftly combining on-the-ground
organizing with sophisticated targeting on Facebook the type of targeting
that she has called for Facebook to ban if it will not commit to blocking
ads that contain lies.
From the start of Ocasio-Cortezs insurgent campaign until the primary, she
spent roughly half the $164,000 she had raised on Facebook ads, in addition
to cash spent on social advertising by political firms working with her
campaign. Though Crowley, who was the boss of the local Democratic Party,
spent more than $3 million on the campaign, she was able to reach new voters
by using Facebook to build and complement her field operations. Spending
$82,000 targeting voters on Facebook may sound like a lot, but by
comparison, Crowly spent just as much $82,500, according to his FEC report
on polling. (His polls showed him well ahead.)
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, in his tweets announcing the ban, acknowledged it
could entrench those currently in power, making it more difficult for
outsiders to mount successful challenges. Some might argue our actions
today could favor incumbents. But we have witnessed many social movements
reach massive scale without any political advertising. I trust this will
only grow, he said, perhaps less than reassuringly.
Dorseys team has since codified the ban, making it clear that issue
advertising is also barred. But corporate advertising can continue. The day
the ban was announced, Michael Whitney, who does digital fundraising for the
Bernie Sanders campaign and previously worked at The Intercept, predicted
(on Twitter) that wed soon be in a world where climate groups were banned
from advertising, but oil companies were free to promote the nonsense that
oil companies are, in fact, respectful climate stewards.
It took just days to pan out.
The problem with asking Facebook to censor ads, critics argue, is that it
puts too much power in the hands of those in a privileged position to
determine what is true and what is false. Facebook, in its halting efforts
at fact-checking, has aligned with an independent organization that allows
the right-wing Daily Caller, itself a jumble of misinformation and
propaganda, to serve as a fact checker. The Washington Posts Glenn Kessler,
meanwhile, routinely declares obviously true things said by progressive
politicians, including Ocasio-Cortez, to be false.
Zuckerberg has steadfastly refused to adopt a ban so far, but the pressure
is building. Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and chair of the
Democratic National Committee, writing in the Guardian, put the debate over
political ads in apocalyptic terms, savaging the company for shirking its
responsibility to filter out lies.
As long as it continues to abdicate responsibility for content on its
platform, Facebook is a very real threat to civic society, he warned,
adding that consumers who continue to use the platform add another nail to
the coffin lid of democracy.
Deans argument focuses on the populist rights ability to manipulate the
platform for political advantage, whether to push Brexit over the top or
elect Trump president. But Dean himself should know that the right isnt
alone in its ability to use new technologies to organize disaffected voters.
Before Deans current incarnation as a corporate influence peddler, his own
2004 insurgent bid for the Democratic nomination for president pioneered the
use of social media at the time, MeetUp.com and email to challenge
entrenched power. In the Guardian, he glosses over the other political
tendency that has learned how to use Facebook effectively: the populist
left.
Ocasio-Cortezs race, for all that it did to reshape American politics, is
terribly misunderstood by progressives: Paid social media advertising was
absolutely critical to her victory, and it allowed her to build a
small-dollar fundraising mechanism that enables her to focus on legislating
more than fundraising. Its worth understanding how critical a role Facebook
played in her campaign and what a ban on political advertising could mean
for other insurgent candidates.
Ocasio-Cortezs filings with the Federal Election Commission tell the
narrative of how her campaign unfolded. She spent virtually nothing on ads
on Twitter, and the platform is relatively small enough that if the Silicon
Valley ban on political ads stopped at Twitter, the world would go on for
insurgent candidates. Indeed, Twitter CFO Ned Segal said that the company
made less than $3 million from political ads during the 2018 midterm
elections, a drop in the bucket. Thats not the case for Facebook, however.
According to estimates by the nonprofit Tech for Campaigns, out of $623
million spent on digital advertising for the 2018 cycle, $284 million of
that was spent on Facebook. (Thats on $55 billion in total revenue.)
The first four-digit expenses Ocasio-Cortez reported in 2017 were directed
to Brand New Congress LLC, the legal vehicle of the organization that first
backed her run and which she was legally required to compensate for
consulting. BNC, which had largely acquired its email list of supporters
through digital ads placed on Facebook, helped Ocasio-Cortez by designing a
website, building out a field program, and setting up software for phone and
text banking. Importantly, much of what BNC did early on included running
targeted ads on Facebook to grow her list of supporters and identify
volunteers and donors. Later, as BNC split into two groups, the second being
called Justice Democrats, JD was able to map its email list against Facebook
data to find like-minded people whod be interested in supporting
Ocasio-Cortez, if only they could learn about her.
In an innovative strategy developed by the Jess King congressional campaign
in Pennsylvania, and imported to the Ocasio-Cortez campaign, JD was able to
match potential supporters on social media with the voter rolls and hit them
with targeted ads. Canvassers both paid and volunteer would then knock
on their doors for an in-person conversation. Having already seen ads about
her, they were primed for the conversation a sophisticated blend of
digital and in-person organizing that Ocasio-Cortezs position would now
have banned.
Between the start of her campaign in early 2017 and the primary in June
2018, according to FEC records, Ocasio-Cortez spent $164,000, while Crowley
spent millions of dollars, blanketing television with ads, pumping robocalls
into homes, going up on the radio, and filling mailboxes with glossy flyers.
On Facebook advertising alone, Ocasio-Cortez spent $82,000 a full half of
her total. And thats only whats listed as Facebook advertising. The
consulting fees paid to JD and BNC went significantly to social media ads.
None of this is to say that Facebook ads alone elected Ocasio-Cortez. If her
message didnt resonate with voters, Facebook users would have scrolled
right past them. That, however, is the inherent advantage populist
candidates have on social media: Their message is popular, but it loses
because it is shut out of the mainstream discourse.
The cost of obtaining the email address of a new supporter varies widely by
politician, but in Ocasio-Cortezs case, it pays dividends, not just for
herself, but for other insurgent candidates. Its not uncommon for a
campaign with significant energy behind it to pay $1 for the name and email
address of a new supporter, and then have supporters turn around and donate,
on average, $1.50 or more to the campaign. Its a cycle that leads to an
ever-growing list, as well as fundraising at a scale large enough to compete
with big money. It works best for populist candidates who can go beyond the
well of Democratic donors accustomed to giving in small amounts. When the
DNC forced presidential candidates to amass a certain number of small donors
to make the debate stage, candidates were eventually forced to spend $30 or
$40 for every $1 donation they could acquire, as the well ran dry. Its hard
to get people to give to a candidate without a clear message or rationale
for their candidacy, which gives an advantage on Facebook to insurgents like
AOC.
That list that she is building is valuable in itself, as she can send an
email asking her supporters to donate to other candidates, such as Tiffany
Cabán, whom she endorsed for Queens district attorney. What Ocasio-Cortez is
doing is building an alternative source of financing for the insurgent
movement, one that doesnt require getting on the phone for hours a day
calling rich people. Thats why, after the primary, her campaign spent
another $457,500 on Facebook advertising over the second half of 2018,
capitalizing wisely on her rise in popularity and fame. By then, she had
brought in the progressive firm Middle Seat, which specializes in online
fundraising, paying them $34,000 in 2018. That fundraising capacity allows
her, in Congress, to focus on movement organizing and her job of legislating
and oversight.
Supporters of Twitters ban on political ads argue that a good candidate can
rely on organic reach. We believe political message reach should be
earned, not bought, said Dorsey, echoing the argument. That may be fine for
Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter, where she boasts more than 5 million followers,
but Facebook keeps a tight hold on its algorithmic access to those who have
liked or followed your page. It doesnt matter how big your page is; if
Facebook decides your post will only reach 1,000 people organically, thats
all it will reach. Theres no such thing as organic on a private platform
run by an opaque algorithm that is constantly adjusted.
For establishment Democrats, calling for the ban is a no-brainer. They can
whack both the right and the left at the same time, comfortable that they
will still be able to raise ample money from corporate and wealthy donors.
Indeed, without the threat of a scrappy campaign deploying a sophisticated
targeting strategy to find disaffected voters, incumbents can breathe much
easier.
In announcing her initial support for the ban, Ocasio-Cortez left open the
possibility she could back off if social media companies simply did the bare
minimum on outright disinformation. Thats a slippery concept, but there
may be possibilities there. I say this [about the ban] as a candidate that
runs digital ads & believe they can be productive + useful *IF* used
responsibly, she noted in her Twitter thread. People say that tech
companies cant fact check, but basic fact checking isnt hard. Were
talking abt blocking outright disinformation: wrong vote records, etc.
Supporters of the ban have also argued that as long as a candidate has a
dynamic message and is a strong organizer, all they need is people, not
money. The theme of Ocasio-Cortezs campaign after all was Theyve got
money, weve got people. But it costs money not millions, but some to
find those people. After her two big payments to BNC in 2017, Ocasio-Cortez
had to cut a check for $5,850 to the New York State Democratic Party for
access to the voter file without which, she could not find voters. For
someone not independently wealthy, that alone is a serious impediment, but
thanks to the online fundraising shed been able to eke out by August 2017,
she was able to afford it.
Another major expense came in May 2018, and ate up most of what she had in
her account at the time $4,737.50 to Means of Production, a socialist
video production company that produced a viral campaign ad. Off of that, she
raised more than $100,000, but, again, used digital ads to capitalize on the
heat of the moment.
So far in 2019, Ocasio-Cortez has raised $3.4 million for her campaign,
making her the chambers third-best fundraiser, trailing Intelligence Chair
Adam Schiff, at $4.4 million, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi at $3.7 million.
Schiff is an example of how Facebook can benefit centrist candidates as well
if they can tap into a political zeitgeist; every time Trump attacks Schiff,
he runs ads on Facebook and rakes in resistance money.
Ocasio-Cortezs haul is on top of what she raised for allies in the House or
candidates shes endorsed, and its the kind of number that puts fear into
the heart of the Democratic establishment, worried that a fundraising model
that relies on small donors and regular people may actually be able to
compete with big money. To do that, she has already spent more than $823,00
on Facebook advertising in 2019 alone, with a full quarter of reporting left
to go, meaning the annual number will easily top $1,000,000. She has spent
just over $1.8 million this year, meaning nearly half of her total spending
has been directly on Facebook ads. (Schiffs campaign doesnt work directly
with Facebook much, relying on consultants to place the buys instead, but
his FEC forms list more than $960,000 spent on digital media acquisition
mostly Facebook and digital consulting.)
Ocasio-Cortez, in 2019, spent an additional $300,000 so far with the firm
Middle Seat, which does digital fundraising and relies heavily on Facebook.
Justice Democrats, meanwhile, has spent more than $200,000 on Middle Seat in
2019.
Put simply, without targeted ads, Ocasio-Cortez, in the short-term, wouldnt
be able to raise money and grow the insurgent movement at anything like her
current scale and pace. And as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change has made clear, massive scale and rapid pace in the
short-term are whats needed to stave off catastrophic climate change. The
question of whether to ban Facebook ads comes down to a weighing of risk.
For those who believe that misinformation from rising fascist movements
represents the greatest threat, a ban that also hurts an insurgent left
might be the most prudent course. But in a world where the status quo has
civilization on a collision course with oblivion, discarding the most
effective organizing tool progressives have available to them represents an
extraordinary gamble.
The next Ocasio-Cortez, if Facebook does ban targeted political ads, will
have to go back to the drawing board which means there would likely be no
next Ocasio-Cortez. That, of course, would be just fine with Mark
Zuckerberg.
That the decision of one unelected man could have that much political impact
such that politicians are lobbying him, rather than the other way around
is all the evidence needed that he has too much power, and that his company
needs to be broken up and regulated like the utility it is. To build the
power to make that move, though, the left needs Facebook ads to get there.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page
