State of Washington sues Facebook and Google over failure to disclose spending

> has the same effect as saying that you don't want those things regulated at all

Not liking how something is done doesn't mean it doesn't need to be done.

I'd be a big fan of DACA, for example, or even more open borders, if that could be passed by Congress. I am not a fan of it having been executed though executive order, especially given that it's now become a game of political chicken.

> They already do not have this power

Regulations are legally binding to those that are regulated. Everyone rightly considers net neutrality to be a law, or at least, it was, until the regulatory agency in charge of it decided it wasn't. I'm saying this shouldn't be in the purview of agencies, because that puts it in the hand of the executive branch, which means that Trump has the power to make law, which is expressly not a function of the executive branch.

I'm happy for those agencies to exist. I'm happy for those agencies to be tasked with research, expert opinions, recommendations as to what the laws should be, and even doing the work to draft and submit bills to minimize the workload on Congress, which is their function. I'm not okay with them unilaterally passing regulations without the express (not tacit) consent of Congress. Those regulations deserve more than a public commentary period, they deserve open debate and floor votes with votes on the record for where our politicians stand.

> No, that is most certainly a bug.

Again, I disagree, and I can only assume you're referencing ALEC out of some preconceived notion that I'm not espousing. Regardless, you'll note that I don't go so far as to suggest that gridlock is a feature, but adversarial procedure is, as it means that the legislation that does get past is only that which is tenable to a broad enough faction of the electorate.

Is a law prohibiting me from secretly giving an elected official a briefcase full of one million dollars constitutional? If so, why is it not the same if there's a law that says I can't secretly provide $1,000,000 in services to the same elected official in the form of political advertising?

The authors of the U.S. Constitution had some pretty strong ideas on the idea of bribery; in fact, it's explicitly listed in Article 2, Section 4 as an impeachable offense. The public has a right to know when its politicians and government officials are receiving money (or goods and services) from outside entities.

Presumably, you’re telling me what you think the law ought to be. As far as the law is currently concerned, spending is protected as speech.

> The case likely will not result in significant monetary penalties for the companies in question; even if fines and damages totaled tens of millions it would be a drop in the bucket for the tech giants.

> But deliberately skirting laws governing political spending and public disclosure is rather a bad look for companies under especial scrutiny for systematic dishonesty — primarily Facebook.

So they'll lose face, but not the books ...

Seriously though, come on. I'm getting increasingly cynical about this. This is business as usual in the US. They're not going to self-regulate themselves a conscience.

> So how do you get your message out without spending money?

You use the fact people who won't listen unless you spend money won't hear your message.

> Spending money is how people with novel ideas expose it to more people and can hope to compete against established ideas that don’t need to be marketed.

It's also how you mix and dilute your idea into an ocean of meritless crap that nobody would care about unless someone spent money to have the likes of Facebook and Google shout it at them.

It particularly cements the idea that the only way to get novel (usually you'd aim for "good") ideas heard is by paying money to Facebook, Google or that other big media conglomerate (where their money buys "nation-wide local" "news").

Problem is, people with the good novel ideas are usually not the parties with a lot of money (because both are statistically rare).

And that means that the parties with a lot of money will decide which people get heard at all. Regardless whether they have good ideas, novel ideas, or even remotely plausible ideas.