Photo: James Tensuan, Special To The Chronicle Photo: Rich Pedroncelli, Associated Press

Who could have imagined in 2015 that Russian operatives would exploit the great modern tools of democratic discourse — social media, a free-flowing Internet — to meddle in our elections?

Ann Ravel, a member of the Federal Election Commission, not only imagined it. She said it out loud.

“Think of it, do we want Vladimir Putin or drug cartels to be influencing American elections?” she said at an October 2015 FEC meeting in which she was arguing for the commission to require greater disclosure on foreign contributions. Ravel had been a crusader for updating election law to include regulation of political advertisements on the Internet.

The FEC, hopelessly deadlocked, did nothing.

“They scoffed at me, of course,” Ravel, a Democrat, said of the three Republican commissioners. “They put out a statement saying how histrionic I was.”

Ravel said she did not have any particular suspicions about Putin’s intentions when she made that prescient remark.

“I just knew that he was evil,” Ravel said by phone from Washington, D.C. last week. “The thought of him intervening in our national election seemed so inappropriate. But apparently that did not sway my fellow commissioners.”

A commission assigned to design and enforce rules on the flow of money in politics has all but abandoned its responsibility. Ravel, a relentless advocate for transparency since her days as chair of California’s Fair Political Practices Commission, resigned from the FEC in February.

The absence of any meaningful regulation on Internet advertising was cast in high relief with revelations that Russian agents covertly bought ads on Facebook during the 2016 campaign. The social media giant acknowledged that it found $100,000 in purchases that were linked to Russian accounts that were designed to appear as if Americans were advocating on hot-button issues such as immigration and gun control.

The Russians had good reason to go through Facebook. Its ability to channel advertising in a highly targeted way could allow those political ads to reach particular voters. Unlike a television or radio ad, which would go to a broader community, those narrowly targeted ads were less likely to catch the vigilant eye of an opposing campaign that could fire off a response or journalists who might fact-check them.

Perhaps most enticing of all for a foreign operative trying to stay under the regulatory radar, political ads on the Internet are largely exempt from government oversight. The FEC voted unanimously in 2006 to stay out of the way of what was then a blossoming forum for public debate.

Subsequent FEC rulings maintained that hands-off approach.

For example, in a 2014 case involving political videos by a pro-coal group in Ohio, the commission did not take action against the group for failing to either report its online advertising spending or a disclaimer on its videos. Why? They were not deemed “electioneering communications” because the term applies only to “broadcast, cable or satellite” transmissions. Also, broadcasters must keep records on the political ads they run and who pays for them; there is no such requirement on digital ads.

This doesn’t make sense in 2017.

As Ravel wryly noted, “the smartphone hadn’t been invented” when the anything-goes approach was adopted in 2006.

Don’t look for change in FEC attitude anytime soon. President Trump has yet to appoint a replacement for Ravel’s Democratic seat. He filled a vacant Republican seat with a Texas lawyer, James Trainor III, who has made a career out of challenging disclosure laws. He has actually argued that disclosure of political contributors works against the public interest because voters then focus on the source of funding instead of the content of political messages.

As anyone who has followed American politics with any semblance of objectivity knows, the source of the money often is the message when it comes from an individual or industry with a vested interest in the outcome.

In the absence of a government watchdog, Facebook has been pledging to help cut through the smoke of clandestine political ads. It announced Thursday that it will turn over more than 3,000 of the Russia-linked ads to congressional committees investigating the Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign. CEO Mark Zuckerberg said on a Facebook Live talk last week that the company will be working on ways to make political advertising more transparent.

Congress may also get into the act. Sens. Mark Warner, D-Va., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., signaled their intent to introduce legislation to require greater transparency for online political ads.

For all the understandable focus on Russia, Ravel noted that local elections are no less vulnerable to foreign interference. A foreign company may have a stake in a city zoning measure or — to cite a 2012 case that reached the FEC — pornography companies with ties to Cyprus and Luxembourg may spend hundreds of thousands of dollars against a Los Angeles measure to require condoms in adult films.

There are plenty of delicate areas in trying to regulate political advertising on the Internet. But as more and more Americans see political advertising online, it only makes sense that such spots should include the same level of disclosure as those on television.

No one needs to remind the Russians that the regulatory gaps they exploited in 2016 have not gone away.

John Diaz is The San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial page editor. Email: jdiaz@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @JohnDiazChron

State Legislature moves to tighten disclosure laws

The Disclose Act (AB249) by Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, D-San Mateo:

Its overarching goal: To require forthright disclosure of the top three funders of political advertising from independent expenditures for or against candidates (not connected with the official campaign) or for or against ballot measures. It requires disclosure of donors who contribute $50,000 or more.

How it affects online advertising: It is covered. The bill requires that online political advertising contain easily readable disclosure on the source of funding — and offer links that would reveal the three top funders of an advertisement.

Final votes: The bill cleared the Assembly 59-14 and the Senate 29-9.

Next step: The bill now goes to Gov. Jerry Brown to sign or veto. He has yet to signal his intentions.