Reforming Email Regulations in the new Digital Age
Preface
As many Americans, young and old utilize emails, it has become an efficient and convenient way for people to communicate. Whether it is for personal use or commercial purposes, email has become an indispensable tool for many political organizations and campaigns alike. With the likes of any political party, the need for new email regulations will be critical to ensure that mass communication between political organizations/campaigns and supporters/inquirers are not only protected, but also in the loop.
The foundation of early email regulation can be traced back to the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. This act primarily focused on commercial emails. It requires that commercial emails include an opt-out mechanism, identify the message as an ad, and not use deceptive subject lines and header information. Although these touch the very surface level of the regulations the FTC had in mind, the vagueness in political organization communication in the CAN-SPAM Act creates underlying issues with how political organizations should communicate to the masses over email.
RNC v. Google (2023)
Recently there has been a legal battle that recently came to an end between tech giant Google and the Republican National Committee. The lawsuit alleged that Google's email spam filters were unlawfully suppressing their communications. However, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Calabretta ruled in favor of Google, dismissing the lawsuit and citing the protection offered by Section 230, a law that shields digital services from certain lawsuits. This decision has left the RNC disappointed and sparked renewed debates over tech companies' influence on political discourse.
One of the elements that I found particularly interesting was the RNC’s claim that Google was deliberately targeting conservative messaging and putting it in users' junk mail. The whole argument relied on a study that indicated that google’s filtering algorithms exhibited a bias against conservative candidates. Of course, if this was true this would be catastrophic to the Republicans as many of their campaign funds rely on these methods of outreach.
However, in response to these allegations, Google initiated a pilot program that allows political candidates’ emails to bypass their spam filters. With many federal regulator's approval, the RNC still filed suit on the basis of ‘discrimination.’ Regardless of these initiatives, many of the RNC outreach emails were still getting sent to the junk mail. There are many questions that could arise: Could it have been due to the amount of outreach conducted? Was bias involved from Google’s end? Was the email sent simply qualified as junk mail per Google’s policies?
The Path Forward
With the court’s decision in supporting Google, the lack of transparency when it comes to political communication on just one end of the tech giants is critical for review. Both Republicans and Democrats should recognize the need to modernize email regulations. This modernization should include provisions that:
Clearly define what constitutes political email communication.
Ensure transparency in email filtering algorithms employed by tech companies.
Protect the ability of political organizations to effectively communicate with their supporters.
Address concerns related to potential bias in email filtering algorithms without compromising tech companies' ability to combat spam and misinformation.
In an era where political polarization often dominates headlines, the call for email regulation reform stands as a rare bipartisan endeavor. Political organizations and campaigns on both sides agree that the current legal framework is outdated and ill-suited to address the challenges they face in the digital age. By working together to modernize email regulations, policymakers can foster a more transparent and equitable environment for political communication, ensuring that the voices of all political organizations are heard in the digital realm.