VIDEO: ProPublica’s “Free the Files” Project on Rachel Maddow
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Last night, reporter Justin Elliott was a guest on The Rachel Maddow Show to talk about ProPublica's Free the Files project, a crowdsourcing effort to post political ad data online.
By law, broadcasters are required to keep detailed information on these ads, including when they aired, how much they cost, and who bought them. This treasure trove of data, however, is kept in cumbersome paper files that are only accessible by physically visiting local stations. The FCC has since voted to require broadcasters to upload these documents online, but media companies have been lobbying against this transparency measure. Earlier this week, Elliott reported on Republican efforts to block funding for the FCC to implement this measure and further delay the transition to an online database.
As Maddow highlights in the segment, "the investigative journalism all-stars over at ProPublica have decided that watching and waiting for this to wend its way through the system is kinda boring." Instead, we had readers from across the country help us "free the files" at their local stations and post the data online, and we hope you'll continue to follow our reporting on this important election season issue.
ProPublica in the News
- 100 great things about America
- How ProPublica changed investigative reporting
- In Praise of ProPublica
- Making a market: How ProPublica blends news that wins Pulitzers with news that wins followers
- Scott Klein: News apps don't just tell a story, they tell your story
- ProPublica's outreach a welcome step toward "open-source" journalism
Latest Press Releases
ProPublica Reports
Get Our Data and Reporting Tools
We frequently publish data, and reporting tools like tipsheets and guides.
Our Hottest Stories
- The 182 Percent Loan: How Installment Lenders Put Borrowers in a World of Hurt
- IRS Office That Targeted Tea Party Also Disclosed Confidential Docs From Conservative Groups
- Medicare Drug Program Fails to Monitor Prescribers, Putting Seniors and Disabled at Risk
- On Victory Drive, Soldiers Defeated by Debt
- The Most Important #Muckreads on Rape in the Military
- The Story Behind Our Hospital Interactive
- Sound, Fury and the IRS Mess
- Is Obama Delivering on His Promise of a “21st Century” Approach to Drugs?
- Congressmen to Hagel: Where Are the Missing War Records?
- Lifting the Veil on Dangerous Prescribing
- IRS Office That Targeted Tea Party Also Disclosed Confidential Docs From Conservative Groups
- The 182 Percent Loan: How Installment Lenders Put Borrowers in a World of Hurt
- How the IRS’s Nonprofit Division Got So Dysfunctional
- On Victory Drive, Soldiers Defeated by Debt
- Medicare Drug Program Fails to Monitor Prescribers, Putting Seniors and Disabled at Risk
- The Most Important #Muckreads on Rape in the Military
- Is Obama Delivering on His Promise of a “21st Century” Approach to Drugs?
- Congressmen to Hagel: Where Are the Missing War Records?
- Sound, Fury and the IRS Mess
- The Story Behind Our Hospital Interactive






1 comments
Fred Dashiell
June 8, 2012, 4:07 p.m.
This relates to transparency as to who is funding political ads. In this regard, the Citizens United decision was not at all bad. It explicitly emphasizes the importance of disclosing the identity of funders of “public speech”. It’s not because of Citizens United that the identity of such funders has remained secret. What happened? Let’s not blame the Supreme Court for the secrecy. What happened? Why aren’t the donors identified?