FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of

Twitter, Inc.

)

) 

)

MUR 7832 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF CHAIR SHANA M. BROUSSARD, VICE CHAIR 

ALLEN DICKERSON, AND COMMISSIONERS JAMES E. “TREY” TRAINOR, III, 

STEVEN T. WALTHER, AND ELLEN L. WEINTRAUB

This matter involves allegations that Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) made prohibited in-kind 

corporate contributions to the primary and general election opponents of 2020 congressional 

candidate Anna Paulina Luna, in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as 

amended (the “Act”), by declining to “verify” Luna’s account, but verifying the accounts of 

Luna’s primary and general election opponents.1

 

The allegations are premised on the Complaint’s assertions that Twitter verification is a 

“thing of value” provided to those candidates and not Luna, and that Twitter’s decision not to 

verify Luna’s account was made for the purpose of influencing a federal election.2 Even 

assuming arguendo that verification is a thing of value, the Complaint lacks sufficient factual 

support for the allegation that Twitter acted for the purpose of influencing a federal election. 

Moreover, Twitter credibly asserts that its decision not to verify Luna was predicated on precandidacy violations of Twitter’s rules and terms of service and made in accordance with 

corporate policies implemented to protect and maximize profits. Therefore, based on the 

strength of the available information, we determined there is no reason to believe Twitter 

violated the Act as alleged by the Complaint in this matter. 

1 Compl. at 1 (Oct. 26, 2020).

2 Id. at 6-7.

MUR783200083
MUR 7832 (Twitter, Inc.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 2 of 8 

I. BACKGROUND

A. Twitter Verification 

Since 2009, Twitter has employed a procedure to “verify” certain accounts.3 When an 

account is verified, a blue symbol with a white checkmark appears next to the username 

associated with the given account on its main page and on any tweets or responses to tweets. 

The verification badge “lets people know that an account of public interest is authentic.”4

 

Twitter states that it initiated this process after concerns arose that false accounts were 

impersonating high-profile users on the platform.5

 Between 2009 and 2017, Twitter allowed any 

“notable and active” users to request verification if they met certain criteria.6

Twitter states that verification is “perceived as an endorsement,” which led to problems 

with its initial verification procedures.7 In 2017, Twitter began to review already verified 

accounts and remove verification badges from accounts that violated its rules.8

 Twitter also 

enacted its Post-2017 Verification Policy, which states that users are ineligible for verified status 

if they were “associated with coordinated harmful activity, or hateful content as defined in 

Twitter’s Ads Policies.”9 Twitter’s Post-2017 Verification Policy also states that Twitter would 

consider both users’ online and offline conduct when making verification decisions.10 

Referencing that change, the Policy stated that users may be ineligible for verification “even if 

their activity on Twitter doesn’t violate the Twitter Rules.”11 

3

 Resp. at 4 (Dec. 14, 2020). Twitter describes this as a process to “confirm the authenticity” of notable 

accounts. Id. at 1.

4

 Twitter Help Center: About Verified Accounts, Twitter.com, https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-youraccount/about-twitter-verified-accounts (“Post-2017 Verification Policy”).

5

 Resp. at 4. Twitter states that it wanted to prevent activities that “deceived its users and the general 

public.” Id. According to Twitter, unverified accounts “can sow confusion and lead users to a less-satisfying 

experience on the platform.” Id. at 5.

6

 Id. at 4 (“Twitter places particular emphasis on the verification of accounts belonging to government 

officials, news organizations, notable athletes, prominent companies/brands, etc.”).

7

 Id. at 5-6 (quoting a November 15, 2017 tweet by Twitter Customer Support announcing the upcoming

2017 Verification Policy, available at https://twitter.com/TwitterSupport/status/930926124892168192). According 

to Twitter, “concerns arose that Twitter was approvingly associating itself with accounts — such as those belonging 

to white supremacists —that were acting contrary to [the] platform’s rules.” Id.; see also Alex Castro, Twitter 

Pauses Verification Process After Controversy Over Charlottesville Organizer, THE VERGE (NOV. 9, 2017), 

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/9/16628290/twitter-jason-kessler-charlottesville-verification. 

8

 Resp. at 6.

9

 Post-2017 Verification Policy; see Resp. at 6.

10 Post-2017 Verification Policy. 

11 Id. 

MUR783200084
MUR 7832 (Twitter, Inc.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 3 of 8 

Twitter states that it implemented these changes to its verification policy because of 

“heightened outrage” from users over verifying certain controversial figures and pressure from 

advertisers to “minimize divisive content” or risk losing advertising revenue.12 Twitter states 

that major advertisers insisted that Twitter and other tech companies do more to “minimize 

divisive content on their platforms,” and that hundreds of advertisers have pulled or temporarily 

paused ads that end up “running next to objectionable content that promoted racism or other 

controversial material.”13 Twitter asserts that its verification and conduct policies are not 

“motivated by a desire to influence any election,” and cites to sworn congressional testimony 

from its Chief Executive Officer, Jack Dorsey, stating that Twitter does not “consider political 

viewpoints, perspectives, or party affiliation in any of our policies or enforcement decisions, 

period.”14

Twitter states that while it was implementing and evaluating its Post-2017 Verification 

Policy, the company “froze nearly all new verifications while it worked on improving the 

verification process and solicited public comments on how it might improve the process,” but 

exempted political candidates and public health officials.15 During the 2018 election cycle, 

Twitter implemented a partnership with Ballotpedia to verify congressional and gubernatorial 

general election candidates.16

Twitter expanded its program of verifying political candidates in the 2020 election cycle. 

On December 12, 2019, it announced a new policy under which, in partnership with Ballotpedia, 

it would proactively verify federal and gubernatorial candidates in the primary and general 

elections (“2020 Candidate Verification Policy”).17 Twitter states that candidates were required 

to comply with the company’s policies — including compliance with Twitter’s Rules, Terms of 

Service, Coordinated Harmful Activity Policy, and Hateful Conduct Policy — in order to be 

verified.18 A February 28, 2020, update to the 2020 Candidate Verification Policy stated that, in 

order to be verified, a candidate must: 

12 Resp. at 6.

13 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

14 Resp. at 7 (citing Twitter: Transparency and Accountability, 115th Cong. (Sept. 5, 2018), Testimony of 

Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO, before the House Comm. on Energy and Commerce at 3, https://docs.house.gov/

meetings/IF/IF00/20180905/108642/HHRG-115-IF00-Wstate-DorseyJ-20180905.pdf (“Dorsey Testimony”)). 

15 Resp. at 7.

16 Nancy Scola, Twitter to verify Election Candidates in the Midterms, POLITICO (May 23, 2018), 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/23/twitter-verify-candidates-midterms-2018-1282802. 

17 Bridget Coyne, Public Policy Director, Twitter, Helping Identify 2020 US Election Candidates on Twitter

(Dec. 12, 2019), https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/helping-identify-2020-us-election-candidateson-twitter.html (“2020 Candidate Verification Policy”); Ballotpedia Partners with Twitter to Identify 2020 Election 

Candidates, BALLOTPEDIA (Dec. 12, 2019), https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia_partners_with_Twitter

_to_identify_2020_election_candidates (last visited Oct. 17, 2021). 

18 Resp. at 7. 

MUR783200085
MUR 7832 (Twitter, Inc.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 4 of 8 

1. Meet Ballotpedia’s threshold for an official candidate requiring that they register with 

a federal or state campaign finance agency before the candidate filing deadline and 

appear on official candidate lists released by government election agencies after the 

candidate filing deadline (this may require gathering petition signatures and paying a 

filing fee); 

2. Meet certain account requirements before becoming verified, which include having a 

profile photo, header photo, bio, and website that clearly identify them as a candidate; 

and 

3. Comply with our Twitter Rules and Terms of Service as we have stated on our Help 

Center page.19

Further, Twitter’s 2020 Candidate Verification Policy states that: “If a Twitter account 

engages in, or has engaged in, activity that violates the Twitter Rules, it may be ineligible for 

verification or subject to enforcement action.”20

B. Complaint 

The Complaint states that by early February 2020, Luna was the only Republican primary 

candidate in Florida’s 13th Congressional District whose Twitter account was not verified.21 

Between February and August 2020, Luna or representatives made four attempts to contact 

Twitter concerning verification.22 In response, Twitter sent several boilerplate messages, but did 

not provide any specific information about the status of Luna’s request.23 Three of these 

responses enumerated the three requirements for verification as stated in Twitter’s 2020 

Candidate Verification Policy.24 

The Complaint states that there was no further correspondence between Luna and Twitter 

regarding verification of her account after August 2020 and that as of the date of the Complaint, 

Twitter had not provided Luna with any explanation as to why her account was not verified 

19 2020 Candidate Verification Policy. 

20 Id. 

21 Compl. at 3-4 (Oct. 26, 2020).

22 Id., Attach. A (email from Luna to Katie Rosborough, Senior Manager of North America Policy 

Communications, Twitter (Feb. 7, 2020); email from Luna to Twitter Government & Politics (Feb. 7, 2020)); 

Attach. B (email from Luna to Twitter Government & Politics (Mar. 3, 2020)); Attach. C (email from Luna to 

Twitter Government & Politics (June 11, 2020)); Attach. D (email from Derek Utley, Chairman, X Strategies LLC, 

to Twitter Government & Politics (Aug. 19, 2020)). 

23 Compl. at 4, Attach. A (email from Twitter Government & Politics to Luna (Feb. 7, 2020); email from 

Twitter Government & Politics to Luna (Feb. 7, 2020)); Attach. B (email from Twitter Government & Politics to 

Luna (Mar. 6, 2020)); Attach. C (email from Twitter Government & Politics to Luna (June 11, 2020)); Attach. D 

(email from Twitter Government & Politics to Derek Utley, Chairman, X Strategies LLC (Aug. 19, 2020)). 

24 Id.; see 2020 Candidate Verification Policy. 

MUR783200086
MUR 7832 (Twitter, Inc.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 5 of 8 

during the 2020 election or why it remained unverified.25 The Complaint maintains that “Luna 

has satisfied all requirements to be verified on Twitter, and has not engaged in any conduct that 

would prohibit her from being verified on the platform.”26 The Complaint alleges that “by not 

verifying [Luna] . . . Twitter is providing something of value to Luna’s political opponents for 

the purpose of influencing the election in Florida’s 13th District.”27 

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

The Act prohibits corporations from making contributions to federal candidates, and 

likewise bars candidates, political committees (other than independent expenditure-only political 

committees and committees with hybrid accounts), and other persons, from knowingly accepting 

or receiving corporate contributions.28 Under the Act, a “contribution” includes “any gift, 

subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the 

purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.29 The term “anything of value” includes 

“all in-kind contributions.”30 In-kind contributions include “provision of any goods or services 

without charge or at a charge that is less than the usual and normal charge for such goods or 

services.”31

The Commission has long considered activity engaged in for bona fide commercial 

reasons not to be “for the purpose of influencing an election,” and thus, not a contribution or 

expenditure under section 30118(a).32 This is true even if a candidate benefitted from the 

commercial activity.33 In particular, the Commission has concluded that a commercial vendor 

25 Compl. at 4.

26 Id.

27 Id. at 1.

28 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a); accord 11 C.F.R. § 114.2(a), (d). 

29 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A); accord 11 C.F.R. § 100.52. 

30 11 C.F.R. § 100.52(d)(1). 

31 Id. (listing examples of goods or services, such as securities, facilities, equipment, supplies, personnel, 

advertising services, membership lists, and mailing lists). 

32 See, e.g., Factual & Legal Analysis at 4, MUR 6586 (World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.) (finding that the 

WWE acted with the “sole intent to defend its business reputation” and not for the purpose of influencing an election 

when the WWE’s senior vice president sent a letter to a newspaper seeking a retraction of a negative article about 

Senate candidate Linda McMahon, who owned and served as CEO of the WWE); First Gen. Counsel’s Rpt. at 13, 

MUR 5474 (Dog Eat Dog Films, et al.) (determining that distributors and marketers of Fahrenheit 9/11 film acted

“in connection with bona fide commercial activity and not for the purpose of influencing an election”) (Commission 

voted to approve no reason to believe recommendations); Advisory Op. 2018-11 (Microsoft Corp.) (concluding that 

commercially reasonable efforts “to protect [Microsoft’s] brand reputation” by providing election-sensitive 

customers with free account security services are not an in-kind contribution). 

33 See, e.g., Factual & Legal Analysis at 6, MUR 7024 (Van Hollen for Senate, et al.) (opining that the 

“question under the Act is whether the legal services were provided for the purpose of influencing a federal election, 

MUR783200087
MUR 7832 (Twitter, Inc.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 6 of 8 

providing services to political committees will not make a contribution for the purpose of 

influencing an election when its business activity “reflects commercial considerations and does 

not reflect considerations outside of a business relationship.”34 Moreover, a commercial vendor 

“need not make its services available to committees representing all political ideologies, but 

rather may establish objective business criteria to protect commercial viability of its business 

without making contributions to the committees that meet those criteria.”35

The Complaint alleges that Twitter made prohibited in-kind corporate contributions to 

Luna’s primary and general election opponents when it declined to verify Luna’s account while 

verifying her opponents’ accounts.36 In response, Twitter contends that the official reason for 

denying Luna’s verification was the fact that “she had previously violated Twitter’s User 

Agreement, including the Twitter Rules and incorporated policies.”37 Twitter points to its 2020 

Candidate Verification Policy and multiple emails to Luna, which stated that “if a Twitter 

account engaged in, or has engaged in, activity that violates the Twitter rules, it may be 

ineligible for verification.”38 

Regarding the more specific issue of Twitter’s denial of Luna’s verification request, 

Twitter has refuted the Complaint’s assertion that “Luna has satisfied all requirements to be 

verified on Twitter, and has not engaged in any conduct that would prohibit her from being 

verified on the platform” by providing information indicating that she had previously violated 

Twitter’s terms of service.39 Twitter states that prior to her becoming a candidate, it “[had] taken 

disciplinary action against Ms. Luna for her actions on the platform” and that “internal logs 

reflect that Ms. Luna was disciplined for posting abusive content on August 4, 2019.”40 Twitter 

also points to other activities by Luna outside of Twitter that have contributed to what it 

not whether they provided a benefit to Van Hollen’s campaign,” and concluding there was no contribution given the 

“absence of any objective or subjective indication” respondents acted for the purpose of influencing the election).

34 See, e.g., Advisory Op. 2012-31 (AT&T) at 4.

35 Advisory Op. 2017-06 (Stein and Gottlieb) at 6 (concluding that entity offering contribution processing 

services to contributors may limit the possible recipient committees to which users can make contributions to 

committees of one political party); see Advisory Op. 2012-28 (CTIA – The Wireless Association) at 8-9 (“A vendor 

may establish and apply eligibility criteria to political committees in order to protect the commercial viability of the 

vendor’s program.”); Advisory Op. 2012-26 (Cooper for Congress, et al.) at 10 (concluding that limiting political 

committees’ participation in a text message fundraising program “does not result in an in-kind contribution where 

the selection is subject to ‘objective and commercially reasonable’ criteria”); Advisory Op. 2006-34 (Working 

Assets) at 5 (concluding that a proposed affinity program between a wireless telephone services provider and select 

political committees did not result in a contribution to those political committees where selection into the program 

was based on “commercial viability determined by common commercial principles”). 

36 Compl. at 1, 6.

37 Resp.at 1-2.

38 Id. at 9.

39 Compl. at 4. 

40 Resp. at 9. 

MUR783200088
MUR 7832 (Twitter, Inc.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 7 of 8 

characterizes as a “history of provocative statements” and “larger pattern of controversial social 

media posts.”41 These predicate Twitter Rules violations, including the suspension, pre-dated 

Luna’s candidacy, and therefore — even absent the compelling commercial interest Twitter 

explains as the basis for its verification policy — undercut the Complaint’s allegation of an 

electoral purpose behind Twitter’s determination that Luna violated its Rules prior to becoming a 

candidate. 

By contrast, the Complaint lacks specific factual support for the assertion that Twitter’s 

decision to deny Luna’s verification was for the purpose of influencing Luna’s elections, and it 

does not appear that Twitter’s refusal to verify Luna differed in this case from similar decisions 

the company made as to other candidates and non-candidates with prior Twitter rules violations. 

In conclusion, Twitter has supplied credible bona fide commercial explanations for both 

its verification program generally and its specific decision to deny Luna verification in light of 

her pre-candidacy violations of Twitter’s Rules. Twitter credibly asserts that it determined, in its 

business judgment, that Luna’s tweet and other activities violated its rules and that verification of 

her account and perceived endorsement thereof would have a detrimental effect on its brand and 

ability to maintain and attract advertisers. Furthermore, the Complaint does not provide a 

sufficient factual basis for its assertion that Twitter’s decision not to verify Luna’s account was 

made for the purpose of influencing a federal election. Therefore, we voted to find no reason to 

believe that Twitter violated 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a) by making prohibited in-kind corporate 

contributions. 

____________________________________ __________________________ 

Shana M. Broussard Date

Chair 

____________________________________ __________________________ 

Allen Dickerson Date

Vice Chair 

____________________________________ __________________________ 

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III Date

Commissioner 

41 Id. 

2FWREHU

October 26, 2021

October 26, 2021

MUR783200089
MUR 7832 (Twitter, Inc.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 8 of 8 

____________________________________ __________________________ 

Steven T. Walther Date

Commissioner 

____________________________________ __________________________ 

Ellen L. Weintraub Date

Commissioner 

2FWREHU

MUR783200090