Political
Campaigns in an Internet Era
by Russell L. WEAVER, Professor
of Law & Distinguished University Scholar, University of Louisville, Louis
D. Brandeis School of Law*.
Communications technologies have evolved
dramatically over the centuries[1].
Before Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press in the fifteenth
century, people communicated primarily through oral or hand-written means;
processes that were slow and not conducive to mass communication[2].
The Gutenberg printing press enabled printers to create multiple copies of
documents, and led to the widespread dissemination of ideas and information[3].
Ultimately, the press contributed to dramatic societal transformations,
including the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution, and the Protestant
Reformation[4].
After Gutenberg’s invention, communications technologies remained relatively
stagnant for many centuries[5]
until electricity was harnessed in the nineteenth century[6].
Electricity had an equally profound impact on communication because
it made it possible for information to move much more quickly than people could
move[7],
and led to an explosion of new technologies, including the telegraph[8],
radio[9],
television[10],
and eventually satellite communications[11]
and the internet[12].
Despite revolutionary advances in speech
technologies, mass communication was tightly controlled for centuries[13].
Throughout history, governments have tried to restrict or control communication
through tactics such as the imposition of prior restraints[14],
including content licensing[15],
as well as through criminal prosecutions for seditious libel[16],
Even when the government was not censoring or repressing speech, not uncommonly
private individuals exercised control over the means of communication. Since
most speech technologies were expensive to own and operate, not everyone could
own or operate the means of communication. Even Benjamin Franklin, who was
famous as a printer, among other things, struggled for a long time to acquire
the means to purchase a printing press[17].
Because of their cost, most communication technologies (including the printing
press, telegraph, radio, television and satellites) were owned by a small
number of rich people who controlled access to those technologies[18].
As a result, advances in speech technology did not necessarily make it possible
for ordinary people to engage in mass communication.[19]
Media moguls could favor the stories and political positions that they
preferred[20].
This article examines how the internet
has reshaped communication in the political sphere. As we shall see, the internet has dramatically altered the ability of ordinary
people to participate in political processes[21]. with both positive and negative consequences. In the most
recent U.S. presidential election, the capabilities of the internet
were on full display.
The internet is
remarkably democratic. As noted, prior technologies required substantial
resources to purchase and operate. As a result, media outlets, particularly
newspapers, could function in a decidedly undemocratic manner since they were
often under the control of rich and powerful families or large corporations[22].
In particular, broadcast media (radio and television) suffered from limited
broadcast spectra which meant that only a very few individuals or corporations
could obtain broadcast licenses, and therefore most people were unable to
engage in mass communication using those technologies[23].
By contrast, the internet is widely accessible. The internet requires nothing more than a desktop computer and
an internet connection. Those who cannot afford a desktop can access the internet through a smart phone. Those who cannot afford a
connection can access the internet for free through a
myriad of businesses such as Starbucks and McDonald’s. One who cannot afford
either a desk top (or smart phone) or an internet
connection can gain free access to both computers and the internet through
their local libraries. Ease of access to the internet
has diminished the power of the traditional media to control the flow of
information. Even though the media still tries to control the “news,” the internet dramatically limits its ability to do so. For
example, consider the uprising that occurred in Egypt during the Arab Spring
uprising. Although Egyptians had previously protested against their government,
the fall of the Tunisian government seemed to convince many Egyptians that
change was possible in their country, too[24].
Before the internet, the Egyptian government was able
to maintain tight control over the traditional media (radio, television and the
print media), and was thereby able to control the flow of information to the
Egyptian public. During the uprising, the government tried to influence public
events through its control of the media. For example, instead of covering the
protests in Tahrir Square, state-owned television
stations depicted pictures of normal traffic flows in other parts of the city[25],
or of pro-Mubarak demonstrations[26].
The contrast between the coverage of Egyptian television and the coverage of
other media outlets like Al Jazeera was striking[27].
Egyptian television did not report on the demands of the protestors[28],
nor did the Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram.[29] Because
of the internet, the Egyptian government’s ability to
control the flow of information was dramatically diminished[30],
and the internet played a major role in the Egyptian revolution[31].
Facebook provided a particularly effective platform for informing Egyptians[32],
and organizing protests[33].
In addition, Google, YouTube, and cell phones were used “to capture and share
video”[34].
By the time of the revolt, some 473,000 Egyptians had accessed the Facebook
page that was being used to facilitate communication between the protestors[35].
Twitter postings regarding Hosni Mubarak reached 11,000 postings in a single
hour[36]. Bambuser, which permits streaming video images, saw
postings increase dramatically from 800 a day to 10,000 postings a day during
the protests. Once the Egyptian government realized that the internet
was being used to coordinate the revolt, it moved to shut down Egyptian internet
servers[37],
as well as other internet-related communication devices such as cell phone
services[38]
and Twitter[39].
The government also ordered Vodafone to shut down its service in selected areas
in Egypt[40],
and issued similar orders to internet service providers[41].
The net effect was a major drop in Facebook activity[42], Data traffic was reduced by ninety percent[43].
Amazingly, in a nation of some 80 million people and 20 million internet users, Egypt was able to shutdown 90% of
internet access in a matter of minutes[44].
However, the shut down did not quell the protests. Many Egyptians were offended
by the government’s decision to shut down the internet[45],
and headed for the streets to participate in the protests, causing the protests
to swell[46].
Some interpreted the government’s efforts to restrict speech as a sign of
weakness and fear[47].
Eventually, Mubarak was ousted from power[48].
Another striking example of the internet’s
impact is illustrated by the campaign of Rand Paul who was elected to a United
States Senate seat from the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Paul, son of the
Republican U.S. Representative and presidential candidate, Ron Paul,
aggressively used the internet in his campaign[49].
Paul entered the race after then-incumbent United States
Senator Jim Bunning, a baseball Hall of Famer, was pushed out of his seat by
the Republican hierarchy. When Bunning decided to resign, it was widely
assumed that Senator Mitch McConnell (the Republican minority leader in the
Senate and the senior Senator from Kentucky) intended to replace Bunning with
Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson. McConnell did not anticipate the rise
of Rand Paul. Paul effectively used internet-based fundraising techniques to
gather more campaign donations than Grayson[50],
or that Paul – capitalizing on Tea Party sentiment – would overtake Grayson
(once a “prohibitive favorite”) in public opinion polls[51].
Ultimately, Paul defeated Grayson by a comfortable margin (14 percentage
points) in the primary[52].
Despite the fact that Paul made some controversial remarks during the general
election campaign[53],
and some difficult issues were raised regarding his past[54],
either of which could have derailed an ordinary candidate, Paul easily defeated
his Democratic rival, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway[55].
Although Paul used traditional fundraising techniques, he also used online
techniques to raise a substantial amount of campaign funds[56].
Almost immediately, Paul jumped to an early lead in public opinion polls[57],
and he continued to lead throughout the general election campaign, despite
aggressive opposition from the Louisville newspaper, The Courier-Journal[58].
Paul ultimately defeated Conway by 12 percentage points[59].
Part of that gap may have been created by Conway’s aggressive and negative advertising which alienated voters[60]
and lowered Conway’s public approval ratings[61].
However, Conway may have decided to air those advertisements because he was
trailing in public opinion polls.
Perhaps the most dramatic illustration of the
power of the internet was President Obama’s 2008
campaign for the presidency. Obama’s staff was more technologically savvy than
the staff of previous campaigns and skillfully used text messaging and internet techniques to propel his campaign effort[62],
as well as to connect with and mobilize voters[63].
Obama also used the internet to raise campaign funds.
At one point, he tried to raise a million dollars in a single minute[64].
During a single month, he raised $150 million[65],
and overall he raised nearly three quarters of a
billion dollars for his campaign[66].
Without the internet, it is difficult to believe that
candidate Obama could have defeated then Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his
rival for the Democratic nomination. When the race began, Clinton held
significant advantages over Obama[67].
With a former President as her spouse, Clinton obtained major financial
donations from prominent Democratic supporters, and was able to garner major
endorsements[68].
Obama, who aggressively used the internet, was able to
overcome Clinton’s advantages, to create his own advantages, and ultimately to
prevail in the primary campaign. Although Obama attracted large donors as well[69],
his campaign was propelled by small donations gathered over the internet[70].
By contrast, Clinton was more dependent on “large” donors with nearly half of
her donors reaching their maximum permissible contribution levels[71].
Obama ultimately raised three times as much money as
Clinton[72].
Given the headwind facing Republican candidates in that election cycle (e.g., an unpopular incumbent President,
a severe economic recession, and two wars), had it not been for the internet, Hillary Clinton might well have become the first
female President of the United States.
The internet also
influenced the 2008 general election campaign. Candidate Obama relied heavily
on the internet, especially on social media[73],
including Facebook, Twitter, text messages and YouTube[74].
Because of Obama’s internet fundraising prowess, candidate
Obama was able to dramatically outspend his Republican Challenger John McCain
who accepted public financing for his campaign, including spending limits that
limited him to spending about $84 million on his campaign[75].
Obama rejected public financing and raised hundreds of millions of dollars[76],
and more than $750 million during the course of the campaign[77].
Obama’s fundraising prowess provided him with a huge financial advantage during
the general election campaign, allowing him “to overwhelm the McCain campaign
with a flood of advertising”[78].
Obama promoted himself “not only in old-school venues such as television and
Web sites”, but also in “innovative spaces such as video games” and he even
“purchased a 30-minute time slot on several networks to air an infomercial”[79].
Obama also “met McCain’s negative ads one for one,” and ran positive ads as
well[80],
and also maintained substantial campaign networks in every state, even states
that might have been regarded as unwinnable by a Democrat[81].
A striking example of the effect of Obama’s money was his ability to capture
the State of Indiana, a previously reliably “red” state[82].
Obama flooded Indiana with television ads and campaign workers[83].
In the 2010 congressional elections, Indiana returned to its Republican roots[84].
In a
relatively tight popular vote (the electoral vote was a “landslide”)[85],
Obama’s nearly $8 to $1 financial advantage must have helped decide the
election. It is difficult to begrudge Obama the additional funds since much of
his money came from small donors[86].
The campaign generated more than 6,000 new donors in a single month, each of
which gave less than $100[87],
thereby reflecting the campaign’s popular appeal[88].
Even though the internet
seemed to have a major impact on the 2008 election, it seems to have had a more
profound impact on the 2016 election.
President Donald Trump’s use of Twitter to convey
his views in one of the more interesting and profound developments of the internet era. Before the internet,
political candidates who wanted to convey their views to the public had no
choice but to go through the filter of the traditional media. The media could
pick and choose which of those views they wished to report, and how they would
report them. In other words, it was extremely difficult for a political
candidate to directly communicate with the American people, or convey
unfiltered views to them.
Trump’s genius (perhaps his downfall, at times) is
that he has used Twitter to effectively circumvent the media filters and take
his views directly to the American public. One journalist argued
that “Trump is running what might be the most transparent administration
in history”[89].
Indeed, Trump seems to post on Twitter about almost everything, and at all
hours of the day or night[90].
As another columnist noted, the “president picks fights with his own cabinet
members, and they argue it out in public. He delivers his views and his
reaction to the news in the middle of the night, when officious aides aren’t
there to mess around with them”[91].
It is doubtful
that Trump could have won without Twitter. In fact, the traditional media
(defined broadly to include both the print and the broadcast media) all but
campaigned against Trump during the election season. When Trump won, they were
in shock. As WNYC’s On the Media stated:
“The election of Donald Trump was a surprise for many journalists, pollsters,
and pundits, who are now asking what went wrong and what was missed along the
way”[92].
Some wondered, “whether collective delusion -- not a lack of information -- is
the reason why the press is in shock”[93].
The 2016 election was also heavily
influenced by WikiLeaks perhaps with help from the Russian
government[94].
Everyone admits that someone hacked into the Democratic National Committee’s
(DNC) computer servers during the 2016 presidential election campaign, and
stole as many as 20,000 emails, many of them embarrassing to Democratic party leaders.[95]
In particular, the emails revealed that Democratic officials had attempted to
rig the Democratic presidential primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton[96].
Some believe that the hack was undertaken by Russian
intelligence officials[97].
Clinton campaign officials argued that the Russians were attempting to
influence the outcome of the U.S. election, and in particularly trying to help
Donald Trump win the election and undercut U.S. participation in the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)[98].
Trump had indicated a desire to “get along” with Russia[99].
Regardless of who did the hacking, the emails were turned over to WikiLeaks which
published them online[100].
The DNC hacking incident reveals how the internet has
revolutionized this aspect of campaigning. In the Watergate incident, in which
Republican subordinates broke into the Democratic National Committee’s
headquarters, there was an actual physical break-in of Democratic offices at
the Watergate complex[101].
The burglars might have been seeking information that would help the
Republicans undermine Democratic candidates, or they might have been attempting
to learn what the Democrats knew about issues that might prove embarrassing to
the Republicans[102].
By contrast, the 2016 break-in was high tech and digital. The “burglars” did
not have to physically enter the DNC’s headquarters because the internet allowed them to conduct their break-in from afar
using electronic techniques, and WikiLeaks gave them
a platform for publishing the stolen information worldwide[103].
In the United States, the 2016 hacking was widely decried as Russian
interference in the U.S. presidential campaign[104].
The situation led to the appointment of a special counsel and multiple
indictments[105].
However, this
type of opposition research went both ways. The evidence suggests that a group
called Fusion GPS prepared a 35-page document referred to as the Steele Dossier which involved opposition research on then-presidential
candidate Donald Trump’s Russian connections[106].
The document, which was written by a British intelligence official, was
financed initially by Trump’s Republican primary challengers, and later by his
general election opponent, Hillary Clinton[107].
The Dossier contained a number of salacious allegations about Trump, and was
made public over the internet when it was published by
buzzfeed[108].
Trump denounced the Dossier as “fake news”[109].
Of course, by enabling all
people to engage in political speech, the internet has
not been without its challenges or difficulties. For one thing, concerns about
“internet neutrality” have emerged[110].
“Net neutrality” is the idea that phone and cable companies that offer internet
services should be required to treat all traffic on the network equally[111].
In other words, they should not be allowed to slow or block communications from
their competitors, or favor communicators who pay a fee[112].
An absence of net neutrality creates a risk that small or out-of-the-mainstream
groups will be disfavored and unable to get their message out to the general
population. Of course, this difficulty only affects the ability of individuals
to get their message out through their web sites and potential hits on those
websites. To the extent that individuals choose to communicate through email listservs, an absence of net neutrality may not have much
impact.
The internet
has also enhanced created the possibility for the creation of so-called “fake
news” which can influence public attitudes and potentially political campaigns.
For example, following the release of WikiLeaks
emails regarding the Clinton presidential campaign, Clinton’s campaign manager
announced a fund raiser at a pizzeria, Comet Ping Pong[113].
Shortly thereafter, a slew of “fake” online allegations began appearing
suggesting that Clinton and her campaign manager were operating a child sex
ring out of the restaurant[114].
These allegations included online posts, involving pictures of children who
were alleged “victims” of the sex ring[115].
Even though the allegations were completely untrue, the pizzeria received 30 to
40 threatening phone calls in a single weekend, and a man entered the pizzeria
and fired a rifle, believing that he was acting to protect the children[116].
There has also been
considerable controversy regarding the ability of foreign interests, in
particular the Russian government, to harness social media platforms in an
effort to control or influence the outcome of U.S. elections[117].
Much of the concern focused on anonymous paid advertisements that were aired
during the 2016 presidential campaign on platforms such as Facebook, Google and
Twitter, and that could have reached as many as 150 million Americans[118].
In some cases, technology was used to retweet content
on to other platforms such as YouTube[119].
A major congressional investigation is underway regarding how those
advertisements influenced the 2016 presidential election[120].
In the modern era, elections
are also potentially subject to manipulation through sophisticated electronic
devices such as “trolls” and “bots”[121].
These devices can be used to manipulate information because sites such as
Twitter, not only allow individuals to participate anonymously, but to automate
their participation[122].
As a result, users can use “bots,” run by so-called “puppet masters,” who can suggest the existence of lots of “likes” and “retweets” for particular posts[123].
Because of these possibilities, when it may appear that a particular idea or
political candidate is generating a lot of internet interest, much of this
interest may have been ginned up through bots and fake accounts[124].
These devices allow individuals to “manufacture consensus” by “building the
illusion of popularity for a candidate or a particular idea”[125].
After a group decides to promote a particular message, “Bots flood the network,
tweeting and retweeting thousands or hundreds of
thousands of messages in support of the story”[126].
“The initial aim isn’t to convince or persuade, but simply to overwhelm — to so
completely saturate the network that it seems as if people are talking about a
particular story. The biggest prize is to get on Twitter’s Trending Topics
list, which is often used as an assignment sheet for the rest of the internet”[127].
Two researchers at the U. Southern California estimated that as much as 20% of
all traffic on Twitter is bot-driven[128].
Of course, the risk is that such bot-driven tweets may cause individuals to
doubt what they see on Twitter or on the news generally[129].
Like Gutenberg’s invention of
the printing press, the internet has revolutionized
communication and has produced an unparalleled increase in democratization.
Unlike prior communication technologies, which were owned and controlled by a
small number of wealthy individuals, or large corporations, the internet is accessible to almost everyone. Even those who
are too poor to own a corporation, or pay for home internet
access, can access the internet through handheld devices or through free
sources (e.g., libraries). The net
effect is that, for the first time in history, ordinary people are able to
engage in mass communication, and thereby impact the political debate. The
effect of these technologies have been dramatic, and have been evident in the
United States as well as in many other parts of the world[130].
Nevertheless, the internet has a slimy
underbelly. Internet service providers can attempt to distort search results by
favoring certain web sites over others. Ease of access also creates the
possibility that outsiders will attempt to control or influence the outcome of
election results. Such manipulation is especially possible given that internet communications can be anonymous as well as
automated. As a result, it is possible to propagate “fake news” and to use
“bots” to increase the importance of a news story. Thus, the internet
is far from mature, but rather should be regarded as having entered its
adolescence.
* Professor
Weaver wishes to thank the Dean's Faculty Scholarship Development Fund for
funding the research related to this article and the speech associated with it.
[1] See R. L. Weaver, From Gutenberg to the Internet: Free Speech
Advancing Technology and the Implications for Democracy (2013) (hereafter “From
Gutenberg to the Internet”).
[2] See I. Fang, A History
of Mass Communication: Six Information Revolutions 40 (1997) (hereafter “A
History of Mass Communication”).
[3] See From Gutenberg to the Internet, supra note 1, at 4 [“Before Gutenberg,
written works were created by hand, a process that was extremely slow, and only
a small number of people (usually monks) could devote the time needed to create
books (much less, multiple copies of books)”].
[4] See R. Lasso, From the Paper Chase to the
Digital Chase: Technology and the Challenge of Teaching 21st Century
Law Students, 43 Santa Clara L. Rev.
1, 4 n.2 (2002) (“Printing changed every aspect of the human condition--from
thinking, learning, and language, to science, religion, and government”. “The
17th century became known as ‘the century of genius’ in large part due to the
explosion of creativity and new ideas fueled by printing. Creativity is often
the result of a combination of intellectual activities. For example, reading
two books on separate topics and combining their themes in one mind produces a
creative interaction. Increased output of printed works led first to the
combination of old ideas, and later to the creation of entirely new systems of
thought.”); G. Paul ,
J. Baron, Information Inflation:
Can the Legal System Adapt?, 13 Rich.
J. L. & Tech. 1, 8 (2007) (“There has been only one transformative
advance in the original writing technology. Circa 1450 Johannes Gutenberg
invented the movable type printing press, which dramatically lowered the cost
of producing written records. The printing press allowed mass production of
information and thus contributed to the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution,
and the Protestant Reformation.”).
[5] See A History of Mass Communication, supra note 2, at 47 (“It would seem
reasonable that the burst of technology that gave western Europe and then the
world a system of printing would continue its pace of invention and innovation
to meet the excited demand. Yet, between 1450 and 1800 surprisingly little
changed in the printing industry. Printers continued to set type by hand. A
typical screw press impressed no more than 100 to 150 sheets of paper an hour.
At the start of the Industrial Revolution, printing was done much as it had
been accomplished in Gutenberg’s day.”).
[6] See D. Crowley & P. Heyer, Communication
in History: Technology, Culture, Society 118 (5th ed. 2007)
(hereafter “Communication in History”).
[7] Whereas it had previously taken as
long as 10 days to send a message across the U.S., it now became possible to do
so in a matter of seconds. See Tom Standage,
Telegraphy – The Victorian Internet,
in Communication in History,
supra note 6, at 130.
[8] See C. T. Meadow, Making Connections: Communication Through the
Ages 77-83 (2002) (hereafter “Communication Through the Ages”).
[9] See Communication in History, supra note 6, at 204.
[10] See ibidem., at 158.
[11] Ibidem. at 313.
[12] See From Gutenberg to the Internet, supra note 1.
[13] See ibidem., at
3-35.
[14] See R. L. Weaver, Understanding the First Amendment ch. 5 (6th ed. 2017).
[15] See Thomas v. Chicago Park District, 534 U.S. 316, 320 (2002); see also H.W.
Brands, The First American: The
Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin 31 (2000) (hereafter “The Life and
Times of Benjamin Franklin”) (“Declaring that the tendency of the Courant was ‘to mock religion and bring
it into disrespect,’ the General Court ordered that ‘James Franklyn, the
printer and publisher thereof, be strictly forbidden by this court to print or
publish the New England Courant’ unless he submitted each issue of the paper to
the censor for prior approval.”).
[16] See Law Commission Working Paper No. 72, Treason, Sedition and
Allied Offences (1977); J. Schenck Koffler & B. L. Gershman, The
New Seditious Libel, 69 Cornell L.
Rev. 816 (1984).
[17] See The Life and Times of Benjamin
Franklin, supra note 15, at 88
(“The printing trade was fairly comparatively capital intensive, requiring
specialized equipment that had to be purchased. Whether he [Benjamin Franklin]
bought an existing business – Keimer’s, for instance
– or started his own from nothing, he would have to find the funds to purchase
the equipment. Such funds were precisely what he lacked.”).
[18] See From Gutenberg to the Internet, supra note 1, at 3-35.
[19] See ibidem.
[20] Ibidem.
[21] Ibidem. at 73-142.
[22] See J. Epstein, Dynasts of the Daily Press, reviewing
Megan McKinney, The Magnificent Medills: America’s Royal Family of Journalism During a
Century of Turbulent Splendor (2011), and Amanda Smith, Newspaper Titan: The Infamous Life and
Monumental Times of Cissy Patterson (2011), The New York Times Book Review Section, at 17 (October. 16, 2011).
[23] See Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969) (“The lack of
know-how and equipment may keep many from the air, but only a tiny fraction of
those with resources and intelligence can hope to communicate by radio at the
same time if intelligible communication is to be had, even if the entire radio
spectrum is utilized in the present state of commercially acceptable
technology”).
[24] See Scott Simon, Unrest
Spreads Through the Middle East, National Public Radio, Weekend Edition
Saturday (January. 29, 2011),
[http://www.npr.org/2011/01/29/133327917/]
Unrest-Spreads-Through-Middle-East (“I think that if you look at Egypt, this
has been an extremely turbulent decade. But the problem is that each time they
started to crest and they started to put pressure, they got beaten back . . . . Literally beaten back. And you remember very clearly the
journalists, the protestors, the bloggers, being
beaten up and arrested. And there was this sense of almost like a tide coming
in. And the waves would hit the beachhead but it would never quite be enough. I
think the difference this time is the demonstration effect from Tunisia and the
idea that this is actually possible.”) (quoting Mr.
Marc Lynch, Director, Middle East Studies, George Washington University) ; Tunisians Watch Egypt, supra note 759
(“And the Tunisian revolt inspired the Egyptian.”).
[25] See K. Fahim,
State TV Offers Murky Window Into Power
Shift, With Few Protestors in Sight, The New York Times, A11 (February. 1,
2011).
[26] Ibidem.
[27] Ibidem. Interestingly, once Mubarak shut down the
Internet, Egyptian Americans were able to follow Egyptian events on Al Jazeera.
See Dan Bilefsky, Converging on Little Egypt, With Anger and
Hope, The New York Times, at A14 (January. 31, 2011).
[28] Ibidem.
[29] Ibidem.
[30] See M. Warner, Social Media and Satellite TV: A One-Two
Punch Against Mubarak, Public Broadcasting Service, The
News Hour (February. 14, 2011). [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june11/egypt2_02-14.html].
[31] See Liz Sly, Jubilation – and
New Determination – Sweep Across Egypt as Thousands Rejoice, The
Courier-Journal, at A3 (February. 12, 2011) (“The protests were started by
a small core of secular, liberal youth activists organizing on the Internet who
only a few months earlier struggled to gather more than 100 demonstrators at
time.”); see also Brooke Gladstone, Tweeting From Egypt’s Tahrir
Square, National Public Radio, On the Media (February. 4, 2011).
[32] See D. D. Kirkpatrick,D. E. Sanger, A Tunisian-Egyptian Link That Shook Arab History, The New York Times,
at A1 (February. 14, 2011):
The result was a Facebook group Mr. Ghonim set up: We Are All Kalid
Said, after a young Egyptian who was beaten to death by police. Mr. Ghonim – unknown to the public, but working closely with
Mr. Maher of the April 6 Youth Movement and a contact from Mr. ElBaradei’s
group – said that he used Mr. Said’s killing to educate Egyptians about
democracy movements. He filled the site with video clips and newspaper articles
about police violence. He repeatedly hammered home a simple message: “This is
your country; a government official is your employee who gets his salary from
your tax money, and you have your rights.” He took special aim at the
distortions of the official media, because when the people “distrust the media
then you know you are not going to lose them,” he said.
[33] Ibidem., at A10; see also Jubilation – and New
Determination, supra note 25, at A3 (“But their work on Facebook and other
social network sites over the past few years built a greater awareness and
bitterness among Egyptians over issues like police abuse and corruption.”).
[34] See J. Preston, Movement Began With Outrage and a Facebook Page That Gave It an Outlet,
The New York Times, at A10 (February. 6, 2011); see also K.Fahim, M. El-Naggar, Across Egypt, Protests Direct Fury at
Leader, The New York Times, A8 (January. 26, 2011).
[35] See Preston, supra note ???,
at A10.
[36] See Natasha Singer, Why Some Twitter Posts Catch On, and Some
Don’t, The New York Times, at A4 (February. 6, 2011).
[37] See S. Simon, Egypt’s Stone Age Response to 21st
Century Media, National Public Radio, Weekend Edition Saturday, Simon Says
(January. 29, 2011).
[38] See S. S. Nelson, Lawlessness Could Hijack Egypt’s Popular
Uprising, National Public Radio (January. 31,
2011) (as the unrest grew, “the government took the unprecedented step of
shutting down the Internet and cell phones across the country to stop
protestors from communicating with each other or the outside world.”).
[39] See Across Egypt, Protests Direct Fury at Leader, supra note 34, at A1 (noting various
restrictions, including the fact that Twitter had confirmed that its site had
been blocked in Egypt).
[40] See J. Glanz,
Egypt Autocracy Found Internet’s “Off”
Switch, The New York Times, at A1 (February. 16, 2011) (“Vodafone expressed
extreme reluctance to shut down but was told that if it did not comply, the
government would uses its own “off” switch via the Telecom Egypt infrastructure
– a method that would have be much more time consuming to reverse.”); M. Richtel, Egypt Halts Most Internet and Cell Service,
and Scale of Shutdown Surprises Experts, The New York Times, at A13 (January.
29, 2011).
[41] See ibidem.
[42] Ibidem.
[43] See Egypt Halts Most Internet
and Cell Service, supra note 40, at A10.
[44] See Egypt Autocracy Found
“Off” Switch, supra note 40; M. Richtel, Egypt
Cuts Off Most Internet and Cell Service, The New York Times (January. 28,
2011).
[45] See N. Cohen, Egyptians Were Unplugged, and Uncowed, The
New York Times, at B3 February. 21, 2011); J. Glanz,
Egypt Autocracy Found Internet’s “Off”
Switch, The New York Times, at A1 (February. 16, 2011).
[46] See Egypt Halts Most Internet and Cell Service, supra note 40; Egyptians Were Unplugged, supra note 45, at B3.
[47] See S. Shane, Technology Helps Ignite Chain (as in
Tunisia). Except When It Bolsters Oppression (as in Iran), The New York Times,
Week in Review, at 1 (January. 30, 2011) (“But by cutting off Egypt’s Internet
and wireless service late last week in the face of huge street protests,
President Hosni Mubarak betrayed his own fear – that Facebook, Twitter, laptops
and smartphones cold empower his opponents, expose his weakness to the world
and topple his regime”).
[48] See M.
El-Naggar, The
Legacy of 18 Days in Tahrir Square, The New York
Times, at 4 (February. 20, 2011).
[49] See J. Gerth,
Paul Takes Lead in Fundraising, The Courier-Journal, at B1 (Feb. 2,
2010).
[50] See Ibidem.; see also Joseph Gerth, Ron Paul Touts
Son for Senate in Ky. Visit, The
Courier-Journal, at B4 (January. 31, 2010) (“The campaign does most of its
fundraising on the Internet instead of using traditional fundraising events.”).
[51] See J. Gerth,
Rand Paul: This Year’s Political Surprise, The
Courier-Journal, at A1 (February. 14, 2010).
[52] See K. Rudin,
Rand Paul is Big Winner in Ky. GOP Senate
Primary; Conway Wins, National Public Radio, It’s
All Politics (May 18, 2010).
[53] See R. Alford, Drug-Fight Funding Stance May Cost Paul: He
Insists E. Ky. Will Side With Him, The Courier-Journal, at B1 (August. 14,
2010); J. Gerth,
Paul Draws Questions From East and West,
The Courier-Journal, Political Notebook, at B1 (July 12, 2010); K. Rudin, Rand Paul in Civil Rights Bill Firestorm,
National Public Radio, It’s All Politics (May 20, 2010) (“Supporters of Paul
and defeated opponent Trey Grayson, the secretary of state, don't like each
other. But right now, Paul seems to have other, more pressing problems. He has
gotten himself in a growing controversy over his views about the 1964 Civil
Rights Act.”).
[54] See A. Wolfson,
Paul Taps Anti-Washington Fervor:
Republican’s Limited-Government Message Resonates with Voters, The
Courier-Journal, A1 (October. 17, 2010) (Paul’s
campaign was potentially complicated by the fact he had belonged to a society
in college that was sacrilegious and blasphemous – a potentially difficult
complication in a religiously conservative state).
[55] See The New York Times, Election 2010, Election Results, Kentucky,
at p. 96 (November. 3, 2010) (showing that Paul defeated Conway by 56% to 44%).
[56] See R. Alford, Paul Fundraiser Nets $172,000: Using
Father’s Online Strategy, The Courier-Journal, at B5 (June 30, 2010).
[57] Rand Paul Leads Jack Conway in Kentucky Senate Race, The
Courier-Journal, A1 (May 29, 2010).
[58] See J. R. Carroll, Conway’s Potential Was Seen Early: Mentors
Urged Him to Run for Office, The Courier-Journal, at A1 (October. 10, 2010:
Andrew Wolfson,
Rand Paul Has Long History of Controversial Views, The Courier-Journal (June.
17, 2010).
[59] See J. Gerth, Paul Win Sends a Message: Part of GOP Wave,
He Champions Small Government, Few Business Limits, The Courier-Journal, K3
(November. 3, 2010) (showing that Paul amassed 751,664 votes (56%) to Conway’s
597,685 votes (44%).
[60] See R. Montagne, Kentucky Senate Race Heats Up Over Attack
Ad, National Public Radio, Morning Edition (October.
20, 2010).
[61] See Real Clear Politics, Kentucky Senate – Paul v. Conway (showing
that, following the airing of Conway’s attack advertisements, Paul’s lead
expanded to double digits in some polls, and near double digits in other
polls).
[62] See J. R. Carroll, “Game Change” Insightful and Lively, The Courier-Journal, Forum Section, A7 (January. 30, 2010) (“Under
the radar, the [Obama] campaign was raising money off the Web with ferocity –
positioning Obama to capitalize on his victories while Clinton scrambled to
keep up.”); M. Luo,
Obama’s September Success Recasts the
Fundraising Landscape, The New York
Times, at A21 (October. 20, 2008);
see also M. Luo,
Small Online Contributions Add Up to Huge
Fund-Raising Edge for Obama, The New
York Times, February. 20, 2008, at A18; M. Luo, J. Zeleny,
Reversing Stand, Obama Declines Public Financing, The New York Times, at A1 (June. 20, 2008).
[63] See D. Superville,
Obama Turns to YouTube Event, The
Courier-Journal, at A6 (February. 2, 2010).
[64] See “Obama Minute” Looks to Raise a Million in a Minute, National
Public Radio, The NPR News Blog (April 21, 2008).
[65] See Luo & Zeleny,
supra note 62, at A18; P. Overby, Obama Raises Stunning $150 Million in
September, National Public Radio (October. 19, 2008).
[66] See P. Overby,
Could Big Donors Break Obama’s
Fundraising Record?,
National Public Radio (November. 7, 2009).
[67] See D. K. Kirkpatrick, Clinton
Campaign Shows Fundraising Edge, The
New York Times, at A18 (April. 2, 2007).
[68] See Clinton Exceeds Obama in
Summer Fundraising, National Public Radio (October. 2, 2007) (“Hillary
Rodham Clinton outpaced all of her rivals for the Democratic presidential
nomination by raising $22 million this summer for her primary campaign,
reporting more new donors than even Barack Obama.”).
[69] Ibidem.
[70] P.
Overby,
Presidential Fundraising: 2003 x 2, NPR News Blog, National Public Radio
(February. 12, 2008).
[71] Ibidem.
[72] See Obama Out-Fundraises Clinton 3-1 in Indiana in March, National
Public Radio, NPR News Blog (April 22, 2008).
[73] See A. Shapiro, Obama No Longer Leads the Pack on Social
Media, National Public Radio, All Things Considered (Januray.
26, 2011).
[74] See ibidem.
[75] See Public Funding on the
Ropes, The New York Times, at A20 (June 20, 2008); Peter Overby, Obama’s
Fundraising Skyrockets After Slow May, National Public Radio (July 17,
2008); P. Overby
& R. Montagne, Obama Campaign
Shatters Fundraising Record, National Public Radio (December. 5, 2008).
[76] Ibidem.; see
also P. Overby, Obama Finished Campaign With Money to Spare,
National Public Radio, All Things Considered (December. 5, 2008); Linton Weeks,
Did Obama Kill Public Campaign Finance?,
National Public Radio (October. 22, 2008).
[77] See M. Luo, Obama Hauls in Record $750 Million for
Campaign, With Plenty Left to Spend, The New York Times, A29
(December. 5, 1998).
[78] See ibidem.
[79] See ibidem.
[80] See ibidem.
[81] See Did Obama
Kill Public Campaign Finance, supra note 76.
[82] See Could Big Donors Break Obama’s
Fundraising Record, supra note 66.
[83] See ibidem. (“Just one example: Indiana,
a state that had been reliably Republican until 2008. State Republican Chairman
Murray Clark was staggered by what the Obama money was able to buy – TV ads and
campaign workers flooding his state. ‘I hate to keep going back to money,’ he
told NPR in October of 2008. ‘But I think its hard for
campaign and political veterans to fathom what kind of money the Obama campaign
has.’”).
[84] See C. Johnson, SENATE: Democrats Retain Control Amid GOP
Gains (November. 3, 2010) (“Republicans picked up six seats — in Indiana,
Illinois, Arkansas, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And they held on
in several other races with strong showings from a few candidates with strong
ties to the Tea Party.”).
[85] See CNN Election Center 2008 (Obama-Biden received 53% of the
popular vote to McCain-Palin’s 46%). http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/ The
variance of seven percent of the popular vote is relatively small given the
fundraising discrepancy.
[86] See Overby & Montagne, supra note 1237 (“[Obama] got small donors on the Internet like no
one has ever seen before.”); Weeks, Did
Obama Kill Public Campaign Finance?, supra note
76.
[87] See ibidem. (“The Obama campaign reports
it had 632,000 new donors in September, and the average gift was less than
$100.”).
[88] See ibidem. (“In an essay titled, ‘Money
in the 2008 Presidential Elections: A Collapse of the Campaign Finance Regime?’
T. E. Mann of the Brookings
Institution [who notes] the rise in the number of small donors, investments in grass-roots campaigning, and ‘signs that suggest fundraising
is more an indicator than a cause of interest, energy, and electoral appeal,’
he writes.”).
[89] M.
McKinsley, Trump
the Transparent, The New York Times (June 17, 2017).
[90] Ibidem.
[91] Ibidem.
[92] See B. Gladstone,R. Garfield, Election 2016: America’s Rorschach Test, On the Media (November.
11, 2016).
[93] Ibidem.
[94] See D. E. Sanger & N. Perlroth, As
Democrats Gather, a Russian Subplot Raises Intrigue, The New York Times (July
24, 4015).
[95] Ibidem.
[96] Ibidem.
[97] Ibidem.
[98] Ibidem.
[99] Ibidem.
[100] Ibidem.
[101] See R. Pear, Watergate Then and Now: 2 Decades After a
Political Burglary, the Questions Still Linger, The New York Times (June
15, 1992).
[102] Ibidem.
[103] Ibidem.
[104] See D. E. Sanger & N. Perlroth, As
Democrats Gather, a Russian Subplot Intrigue Emerges, The New York Times
(July 24, 2016).
[105] See P. Baker, Mueller’s First Indictments Send a Message
to Trump, The New York Times (October. 30, 2017).
[106] See K. P. Vogel, The Trump Dossier: What We Know and Who
Paid for It, The New York Times (October. 25, 2017).
[107] Ibidem.
[108] Ibidem.
[109] Ibidem.
[110] A.
Selyukh, U.S.
Appeals Court Upholds Net Neutrality Rules in Full, National Public Radio,
The Two Way (June 14, 2016).
[111] Ibidem.
[112] Ibidem.
[113] See J. Ludden, Armed Man Threatens D.C. Pizzeria Targeted
by Fake News Stories, National Public Radio, All Things Considered (December. 5, 2016).
[114] Ibidem.
[115] Ibidem.
[116] Ibidem.
[117] See P. Ewing, Tough Questions, Hours of Hearings But No
Silver Bullet on Russian Tech Interference, National Public Radio, Tech
Titans and the Information Complex (November. 2, 2017).
[118] Ibidem.
[119] Ibidem.
[120] Ibidem.
[121] See Ph. Ewing, As Scrutiny of Social Networks Grows,
Influence Attacks Continue in Real Time, National Public Radio, Politics
(September. 28, 2017).
[122] See F.
Manjoo,
How Twitter is Being Gamed to Feed Misinformation, The New York Times (May
31, 2017).
[123] Ibidem.
[124] Ibidem.
[125] Ibidem.
[126] Ibidem.
[127] Ibidem.
[128] Ibidem.
[129] Ibidem.
[130] See From
Gutenberg to the Internet, supra note 1.