By Doug Pinkham
Public Affairs Council President

July 14, 2010

FEC Re-Tweets on Regulating Social Media

Like most regulatory agencies, the Federal Election Commission doesn't know what to do with social media. FEC rules governing Web-based campaigning are insufficient when groups are posting political Facebook pages or communicating to thousands of followers through Twitter, says a recent article in CQ Politics.

For example, political committees must put disclaimers on websites and email messages if those messages are similar and sent to more than 500 addresses. But how do you apply that rule to a campaign's Twitter account?

Election attorney Jan Baran told CQ Politics that he doesn't expect federal regulation of social media anytime soon. "The FEC focuses on goods and services for which a campaign must pay fair market value... That won't be an issue with Twitter or Facebook, which are free to all."

Nevertheless, the Maryland State Board of Elections recently ruled that candidates and committees must disclose who actually operates social networking sites. The idea is to protect the public from misinformation and protect candidates from opponents who establish false accounts under their name. If the Maryland General Assembly accepts this rule, campaigns would also have to retain records of social media communications for one year, according to Government Technology.

Forget the Facts

We all know that people can't stand admitting they're wrong. But does that tendency apply to voters confronted with real facts that contradict their beliefs? Well, in the words of an Alaskan politician known for being occasionally fact-challenged herself, "You betcha!"

If you enjoyed my Nov. 24 post about the problems with fact-based arguments, or the book "True Enough" by Farhad Manjoo, you'll want to read an excellent article by Joe Keohane in the July 11 Boston Globe.

Political scientists are discovering that an informed citizenry does not necessarily lead to accurate public opinions or rational voting behavior, writes Keohane.

In other words, if your organization's grassroots campaign or media outreach efforts are designed to correct untruths about your company, industry or cause, your task will be much harder if your audience already holds a firm opinion.

Before the growth of the Internet, cable TV and talk radio, there were a lot more people without strong views about the news of the day. But now it's hard to find someone who doesn't have an opinion about Wall Street, oil companies, the Obama administration, healthcare reform and a host of other subjects.

And the answer to this problem may not be better education, writes Keohane. He cites a 2006 study by Charles Taber and Milton Lodge at Stony Brook University showing that "politically sophisticated thinkers were even less open to new information than less sophisticated types." It seems that smart people can become so overconfident in their beliefs that many refuse to admit it when they're totally wrong.

Another researcher, Brendan Nyhan at the University of Michigan, has found that people who feel more secure and less threatened are more likely to have an open mind when confronted with new information. "In other words," writes Keohane, "if you feel good about yourself, you'll listen - and if you feel insecure or threatened, you won't."

That's encouraging news for a politician or business executive trying to set the record straight when the economy is healthy and the public feels safe. But it's bad news for anyone trying to correct misinformation in the current political environment.

Corporate America: UR in Trouble

Twelve percent of American workers between the ages of 18 and 29 - the "Millenials" - think it's ok to post negative comments about their employer on blogs or Twitter, according to a new report by the Ethics Resource Center. This is a substantially higher rate than the number of Gen-Xers (30 - 44) or Baby Boomers (45 - 63) who say it's acceptable.

But that's not the only difference in how young people view corporate ethics. Nineteen percent of Millenials believe it's all right to keep copies of confidential documents, compared with only 16% of Gen-Xers and 15% of Boomers.

These attitudes probably say more about work style than ethics, however. "Because they grew up in the Internet age," says the report, "[Millenials] value confidentiality and privacy less than other age groups. In their thinking, information flow is virtually instantaneous and knowledge is meant to be shared rather than owned."

Just one more reason why companies need to assume that everything they say to employees internally has the potential to be disseminated externally. This goes for personnel decisions, business plans, political strategies and a host of other communications once deemed "For Internal Use Only."

Comments? Email me at http://pac.org/contact/blog.