Anti-deceptive electioneering law?

Question

In light of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential elections and clandestine Democratic efforts to use deceptive tactics in the recent Alabama senate race, it is clear that social media as a vehicle of deceptive electioneering tactics is on the rise. As [a NYT article](https://nyti.ms/2GtEkuw?smid=nytcore-ios-share) describes,\n\n> But however modest, the influence effort in Alabama may be a sign of things to come. Campaign veterans in both parties fear the Russian example may set off a race to the bottom, in which candidates choose social media manipulation because they fear their opponents will.\n\nGiven all the Mueller indictments, the Russian election meddling/potential collusion was illegal. However, given the above NYT article, this domestic deception was not illegal. \n\nSo, my question: Is this kind of deceptive electioneering, foreign or domestic, explicitly illegal? If not, is Congress considering legislation to make it illegal?\n\n**To be absolutely clear,** as I wrote in a comment below, and as is written in the NYT article, the Alabama example had exactly no significant effect on the election. Regardless, my question is unconcerned with the relative significance of either voter-influencing campaign, nor is it concerned with debating which is more condemnable. Instead, I draw an equivalence only insofar as this: despite key differences in funding, source, and scope, these two examples demonstrate a common use of social media to deceive voters and suggest a growing pattern may emerge.

Answer 1

There is no growing pattern emerging in social media--it "emerged" long ago. Remember Gore said he invented the Internet? It started then. "Deception" in elections is not new--just the means and methods. Rather than going door to door with flyers or using the U.S. Mail to do that, nowadays, it's the Internet and social media which is much cheaper, faster, and more effective. Obama and his team of young volunteers working on his campaign were the first to use this means. Way back then, social media was predominately used by the young. And that's how he, to the surprise of many, won the election. Bernie Sanders did the same. Young people--even those who couldn't vote yet--were speaking his name and talking about his platform long before the older generation. He lagged a bit reaching them before it was too late. Hillary Clinton did not have a social media presence much at all and fairly ignored intentionally or not what was happening there which was a firestorm waiting to happen. That's one reason she didn't have the young people's support. From Obama to Trump, the number of users of social media have rapidly increased and the demographics for each platform keep shifting. For example, Facebook is no longer used by the young, but predominantly by older white women. That's how social media is evolving. The young ones start on one platform, the older ones then start to use it to see what they're up to, then the young ones move on to another to keep their privacy. I give you Twitter and Snapchat for example. Much of the problem lies with the function of SEO which was first used for sales--the more "views" and "likes" and interaction with a post, sales typically increased. Put up a post to cause conflict, and voila! Watch the hits and the "organic" rise in search engine results. This method is now known as "click bait." And what are election campaigns but selling? Yes, Congress has hauled in Facebook's Zuckerberg to testify, but not Twitter, Instagram or any other as far as I know. And FB and other social media have recently changed their algorithms in response which is driving all of us internet marketers crazy to figure out. Just remember, similar issues arose with the invention and growing sales of television. After the Kennedy Nixon debate on t.v., many debated the fairness of looks over substance. During the tv era, we had the National Enquirer and Star magazine printing "false facts." No law was passed to stop that. But If it wasn't for television news showing the Viet Nam War every night in our homes during dinner, there would not have been such a rise in anti-war sentiment and protest. Same with Civil Rights. And farther back than that, the printing press resulted in the masses being able to read the Bible themselves rather than through church interpretation, and that caused havoc, too. Point being, all inventions as well as the means of communicating to the masses have been, are, and always will be a two edged sword. So will we use social media to do good or evil? Probably both.