On January 9, 2020, Rob Leathern, Facebook’s product director overseeing the political ads library, published a blog post defending the company’s approach to political advertising. The post arrived three months after Twitter banned most political ads and two months after Google limited audience targeting for election material.
Facebook chose a different path, releasing new transparency tools while keeping its core policy intact. Leathern’s team built the Ad Library and coded the transparency panel that launched the same day. Any user can now access the Ad Library to see how many people viewed a given political ad, how much was spent, and what percentage of that spend targeted each state, age bracket, or geographic area. These tools represent the company’s response to months of employee letters, civil-rights group petitions, and pointed questions from lawmakers.
Despite these additions, Facebook’s fundamental policy remains unchanged. The company will continue accepting money for political advertisements.
It will not ban or fact-check campaign ads. Politicians can still make false claims in their advertising, based on the belief that voters should hear what their leaders say, regardless of truthfulness. Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg have previously stated this position, and Leathern reiterated it in his post.
The practical implications are significant. Campaigns can still upload voter files containing names, addresses, and phone numbers, then match them to user profiles.
Once matched, candidates can show different messages to different segments of the electorate. A hardline immigration ad might reach one group while a moderate tax plan targets another. Almost no public visibility exists until after the ad has run.
The new transparency panel shows totals after the fact. It does not stop the targeting, require pre-approval, or fact-check advertisements.
Facebook frames this as a principled stand, arguing that private companies should not decide political speech and that Congress should write industry-wide rules. Leathern wrote that Facebook hears the criticism but fears the alternative, which he described as private companies making decisions about political ads. He called for Congress to establish regulations.
However, no bill has passed, and no hearing has produced legislation. The company continues operating under its own rules, which it reaffirmed on January 9.
Internal dissent persists. Leathern acknowledged the company is not deaf to criticism but did not announce any policy changes. He announced new transparency tools and a renewed call for regulation.
Twitter and Google chose different approaches. Facebook maintained its position, continuing to run political ads, allowing micro-targeting, and arguing that Congress should step in.
The company will keep showing, after the fact, how many people saw each ad and how much was spent. Whether this satisfies critics remains uncertain. The employee letters, civil-rights group petitions, and pointed questions from lawmakers have not stopped. Leathern’s blog post claimed the company hears the anger and fears the alternative, but did not claim the anger would subside.
