Cambridge University Elections

Cambridge University Elections

Cambridge University was first granted two MPs in 1615. The vote was given to all members of the senate. Between 1784 and 1806 one of Cambridge's MPs was William Pitt. In the general election of 1826, 1,295 persons voted. In the general election of 1831, the number of voters had increased to 1,450. The poll was as follows: William Peel (Tory): 816; H. Gouldon (Tory): 813; William Cavendish (Whig): 650; Lord Palmerston (Whig): 618. Lord Palmerston, who had held the seat since 1811, was defeated as a result of him supporting the proposed Parliamentary Reform Act.

1626 University of Cambridge Chancellor election

The election for the Chancellorship of the University of Cambridge, 1626, chose a new Chancellor of the University. There were two candidates for the post, George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, supported by the king, and Thomas Howard, 1st Earl of Berkshire, a son of the Chancellor who had just died.


The University of Cambridge is rich in history – its famous Colleges and University buildings attract visitors from all over the world. But the University's museums and collections also hold many treasures which give an exciting insight into some of the scholarly activities, both past and present, of the University's academics and students.

The University is one of the world's oldest universities and leading academic centres, and a self-governed community of scholars. Its reputation for outstanding academic achievement is known worldwide and reflects the intellectual achievement of its students, as well as the world-class original research carried out by the staff of the University and the Colleges.

Many of the University's customs and unusual terminology can be traced to roots in the early years of the University's long history, and this section of our website looks to the past to find the origins of much that is distinctive in the University of today.

Department of Politics and International Studies (POLIS)

Professor Jude Browne looks at how we tackle the concept of responsibility post-pandemic on BBC Radio 4's Podcast Rethink. Rethink is a show about how the world should change after the coronavirus pandemic. Thoughts from leading thinkers from across the globe give share their route maps to a better tomorrow. You can listen.

LISTEN>> The Good Robot Podcast

The Good Robot Podcast Join researchers Eleanor Drage and Kerry Mackereth as they ask the experts: what is good technology? Is ‘good’ technology even possible? And what does feminism have to say about it? Each week, they invite scholars, industry practitioners, activists, and more to provide their.

ALUMNI>> Rea Eldem

It is the intersectional understanding of gender that was highly stressed at the multi-disciplinary Gender Studies program that has informed my work at IN-VISIBLE the most. As the gender equity discourse is just starting to establish within the corporate world, it is important to make managers.

NEW>> Academic staff joining POLIS

We are delighted to announce we have 11 new colleagues joining POLIS this year "Dear Colleagues, this year marks a major expansion of the Department, please do welcome and get to know our new colleagues as they join throughout the course of 2021." - Jason Sharman, Head of the Department Bill Hurst William Hurst Chong Hua.

LISTEN>> Public Policy Student Podcast

Cambridge Policy Shop A bi-weekly podcast run and produced by students of the MPhil in Public Policy programme at the University of Cambridge This podcast looks at contemporary policy issues from around the globe and explores possible solutions through conversations with experts, academics and.

PRIZE>> Peter Sloman wins prestigious Pilkington Prize for teaching excellence

Congratulations to Peter Sloman on winning a 2021 Pilkington Prize The Pilkington Prizes are awarded annually to members of staff in recognition of their contributions to teaching excellence. The awards were initiated by Sir Alastair Pilkington, who believed that the quality of teaching was crucial to the University's.

WATCH>> The 2021 Alcuin Lecture

This year's talk was given by Professor Lucio Baccaro of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies Professor Lucio Baccaro will look at three ongoing research projects. The first has to do with Italy's economic stagnation of the past twenty-five years (Baccaro and D'Antoni 2020). It is argued that Italy's.

List of University of Cambridge people

This is a list of University of Cambridge people, featuring members of the University of Cambridge segregated in accordance with their fields of achievement. The individual must have either studied at the university (although they may not necessarily have taken a degree), or worked at the university in an academic capacity others have held fellowships at one of the university's colleges. Honorary fellows or those awarded an honorary degree are not included and neither are non-executive chancellors. Lecturers without long-term posts at the university also do not feature, although official visiting fellows and visiting professors do.

The list has been divided into categories indicating the field of activity in which people have become well known. Many of the university's alumni/ae have attained a level of distinction in more than one field. These individuals may appear under two categories. In general, however, an attempt has been made to put individuals in the category for which they are most often associated with.

Cantabrigians is a term for members of the university derived from its Latin name Cantabrigia, a medieval Latin name for Cambridge.


Cambridge Analytica was established as a subsidiary of the private intelligence company SCL Group that was active in military and political arenas. The men who ran Cambridge Analytica and its parent SCL were described as having close ties to the Conservative Party, royalty and the British military. [7] Cambridge Analytica (SCL USA) was incorporated in January 2015 with its registered office in Westferry Circus, London and just one staff member, its director and CEO Alexander James Ashburner Nix (also appointed in January 2015). [10] Nix was also the director of nine similar companies sharing the same registered offices in London, including Firecrest technologies, Emerdata and six SCL Group companies including "SCL elections limited". [11] Nigel Oakes, known as the former boyfriend of Lady Helen Windsor, had founded the predecessor SCL Group in the 1990s, and in 2005 Oakes established SCL Group together with his brother Alexander Oakes and Alexander Nix SCL Group was the parent company of Cambridge Analytica. [12] Conservative minister and MP Sir Geoffrey Pattie was the founding chairman of SCL Lord Ivar Mountbatten also joined Oakes as a director of the company. [7] As a result of the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal Nix was removed as CEO and replaced by Julian Wheatland before the company closed. [13] Several of the company's executives were Old Etonians. [14]

The company's owners included several of the Conservative Party's largest donors such as billionaire Vincent Tchenguiz, former British Conservative minister Jonathan Marland, Baron Marland [15] and the family of American hedge fund manager Robert Mercer. [16] [17] The company combined misappropriation of digital assets, data mining, data brokerage, and data analysis with strategic communication during electoral processes. [18] [19] While its parent SCL had focused on influencing elections in developing countries since the 1990s, Cambridge focused more on the western world, including the United Kingdom and the United States CEO Alexander Nix has said CA was involved in 44 U.S. political races in 2014. [20] In 2015, CA performed data analysis services for Ted Cruz's presidential campaign. [17] In 2016, CA worked for Donald Trump's presidential campaign [21] as well as for Leave.EU (one of the organisations campaigning in the United Kingdom's referendum on European Union membership). CA's role in those campaigns has been controversial and is the subject of ongoing inquiries in both countries. [22] [23] [24] Political scientists question CA's claims about the effectiveness of its methods of targeting voters. [25] [26]

In March 2018, multiple media outlets broke news of Cambridge Analytica's business practices. The New York Times and The Observer reported that the company had acquired and used personal data about Facebook users from an external researcher who had told Facebook he was collecting it for academic purposes. [27] Shortly afterwards, Channel 4 News aired undercover investigative videos showing Nix boasting about using prostitutes, bribery sting operations, and honey traps to discredit politicians on whom it conducted opposition research, and saying that the company "ran all of (Donald Trump's) digital campaign". In response to the media reports, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) of the UK pursued a warrant to search the company's servers. [28] [29] Facebook banned Cambridge Analytica from advertising on its platform, saying that it had been deceived. [30] [31] On 23 March 2018, the British High Court granted the ICO a warrant to search Cambridge Analytica's London offices. [32] As a result, Nix was suspended as CEO, and replaced by Julian Wheatland. [33]

The personal data of up to 87 million [34] Facebook users were acquired via the 270,000 Facebook users who used a Facebook app called "This Is Your Digital Life." [35] By giving this third-party app permission to acquire their data, back in 2015, this also gave the app access to information on the user's friends network this resulted in the data of about 87 million users, the majority of whom had not explicitly given Cambridge Analytica permission to access their data, being collected. The app developer breached Facebook's terms of service by giving the data to Cambridge Analytica. [36]

On 1 May 2018, Cambridge Analytica and its parent company filed for insolvency proceedings and closed operations. [37] [38] Alexander Tayler, a former director for Cambridge Analytica, was appointed director of Emerdata on 28 March 2018. [39] Rebekah Mercer, Jennifer Mercer, Alexander Nix and Johnson Chun Shun Ko [zh] , who has links to American businessman Erik Prince, are in leadership positions at Emerdata. [40] [41] The Russo brothers are producing an upcoming film on Cambridge Analytica. [42] [43] [16] In 2019 the Federal Trade Commission filed an administrative complaint against Cambridge Analytica for misuse of data. [44] In 2020, the British Information Commissioner's Office closed a three-year inquiry into the company, concluded that Cambridge Analytica was "not involved" in the 2016 Brexit referendum and found no additional evidence for Russia's alleged interference during the campaign. [45]

Publicly, parent company SCL Group called itself a "global election management agency", [46] Politico reported it was known for involvement "in military disinformation campaigns to social media branding and voter targeting". [17] SCL gained work on a large number of campaigns for the US and UK governments' War on Terror advancing their model of behavioral conflict during the 2000s. [47] SCL's involvement in the political world has been primarily in the developing world where it has been used by the military and politicians to study and manipulate public opinion and political will. Slate writer Sharon Weinberger compared one of SCL's hypothetical test scenarios to fomenting a coup. [17]

Among the investors in Cambridge Analytica were some of the Conservative Party's largest donors such as billionaire Vincent Tchenguiz, former Conservative minister Jonathan Marland, Baron Marland, Roger Gabb, [48] the family of American hedge fund manager Robert Mercer, [15] and Steve Bannon. A minimum of 15 million dollars has been invested into the company by Mercer, according to The New York Times. [49] Bannon's stake in the company was estimated at 1 to 5 million dollars, but he divested his holdings in April 2017 as required by his role as White House Chief Strategist. [50] In March 2018, Jennifer Mercer and Rebekah Mercer became directors of Emerdata limited. [51] In March 2018 it became public by Christopher Wylie, that Cambridge Analytica's first activities were founded on a data set, which its parent company SCL bought 2014 from a company named Global Science Research founded by Aleksandr Kogan and his team present across the world [52] who worked as a psychologist at Cambridge. Dr Emma Briant published evidence through the British Parliament's Fake News Inquiry indicating that Cambridge Analytica did work for the UK's LeaveEU Brexit campaign during the 2016 EU Referendum which they denied. [53] The Information Commissioner's Office in February 2019 decided to audit the campaign, and its funder Arron Banks company Eldon Insurance for unlawful marketing involving repurposing of data. [54] In November 2020 the Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham MP wrote that she "found no further evidence to change [her] earlier view that SCL/CA were not involved in the EU referendum campaign in the U.K." Denham also said she found no evidence of Russian involvement in the referendum. [55] During Boris Johnson's tenure as foreign secretary, the Foreign Office sought advice from Cambridge Analytica [56] and Boris Johnson had a meeting with Alexander Nix in 2016. [56] [57]

Aftermath Edit

Following the downfall of Cambridge Analytica, a number of companies have been established by executives who had also been involved with Cambridge Analytica. [58] [59] In July 2018, several former Cambridge Analytica staff launched Auspex International, a company intended to influence politics and society in Africa and the Middle East another company called Emerdata also had substantial overlap with Cambridge Analytica. [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] According to the Associated Press, Data Propria, a data analysis firm launched May 2018, is run by former officials at Cambridge Analytica. [66] [67] [68]

CA's data analysis methods were to a large degree based on the academic work of Michal Kosinski. In 2008, Kosinski had joined the Psychometrics Centre of Cambridge University where he then developed with his colleagues a profiling system using general online data, Facebook-likes, and smartphone data. [69] [70] He showed that with a limited number of "likes", people can be analysed better than friends or relatives can do and that individual psychological targeting is a powerful tool to influence people. [69] Psychological targeting describes the practice of extracting people’s psychological profiles from their digital footprints (e.g., their Facebook Likes, Tweets or credit card records) in order to influence their attitudes, emotions or behaviors through psychologically informed interventions at scale. [71] It is defined by two interrelated components: (1) psychological profiling refers to the automated assessment of psychological traits and states from digital footprints, and (2) psychologically informed interventions describe the attempt to influence people’s attitudes, emotions or behaviors by speaking to their fundamental psychological motivations. [72] Research in fields such as psychology, marketing and health communication has shown that interventions aimed at influencing and changing human behavior are most effective when they are tailored to individuals’ psychological states and traits. [73]

A large amount of data can be extracted from the record of the trace of almost every step we take online — a digital footprint of human behavior. [74] Whether it is our Facebook profile, Tweets, Google searches or GPS sensor, our digital footprints create extensive records of our personal habits and preferences. [75] CA would collect data on voters using sources such as demographics, consumer behaviour, Internet activity, and other public and private sources. According to The Guardian, CA used psychological data derived from millions of Facebook users, largely without users' permission or knowledge. [76] Another source of information was the "Cruz Crew" mobile app that tracked physical movements and contacts and according to the Associated Press, invaded personal data more than previous presidential campaign apps. [77]

Today in the United States we have somewhere close to four or five thousand data points on every individual . So we model the personality of every adult across the United States, some 230 million people.

The company claimed to use "data enhancement and audience segmentation techniques" providing "psychographic analysis" for a "deeper knowledge of the target audience". The company uses the Big Five model of personality [20] [8] Using what it calls "behavioral microtargeting" the company indicates that it can predict "needs" of subjects and how these needs may change over time. Services then can be individually targeted for the benefit of its clients from the political arena, governments, and companies providing "a better and more actionable view of their key audiences." According to Sasha Issenberg, CA indicates that it can tell things about an individual he might not even know about himself. [16] [78]

CA derived much of its personality data on online surveys which it conducts on an ongoing basis. For each political client, the firm would narrow voter segments from 32 different personality styles it attributes to every adult in the United States. The personality data would inform the tone of the language used in ad messages or voter contact scripts, while additional data is used to determine voters' stances on particular issues. [79]

The data would get updated with monthly surveys, asking about political preferences and how people get the information they use to make decisions. It also covered consumer topics about different brands and preferred products, building up an image of how someone shops as much as how they vote. [80]

Channel 4 News investigation Edit

Channel 4 News, a news programme broadcast by the British public service Channel 4, conducted a four-month investigation into Cambridge Analytica starting in November 2017. An undercover reporter posed as a potential customer for Cambridge Analytica, hoping to help Sri Lankan candidates get elected. Video footage from this operation was published on 19 March 2018. [81] From the footage, Cambridge Analytica executives say they worked on over 200 elections across the world. [82] Alexander Nix was recorded in this investigation, talking "unguardedly about the company's practices". [83] Nix said that his company uses honey traps, bribery stings, and prostitutes, for opposition research. [84] For example, Nix offered to discredit political opponents in Sri Lanka with suggestive videos using "beautiful Ukrainian girls" and offers of bribes, even if the opponents did not accept the offers. [85] He also said he uses "Israeli companies" to entrap political opponents with bribes and sex, the Wall Street Journal confirmed that it was referring to Psy-Group. [86] [87] Zamel signed a memorandum of understanding for Psy-Group with Cambridge Analytica on 14 December 2016. [87] [88] [86]

Cambridge Analytica said that the video footage was "edited and scripted to grossly misrepresent" the recorded conversations and company's business practices. Nix said that he had "entertained a series of ludicrous hypothetical scenarios", but insisted his company does not engage in entrapment or bribery. [89]

In the third part of the series, Nix also said that Cambridge Analytica "ran all the digital campaign" for Trump. Nix stated they used communications that would be self-destructive, leaving no incriminating evidence. After the news segment was broadcast, the board of Cambridge Analytica suspended Nix as chief executive officer, and Julian Wheatland became the new CEO. [90] [2] The company also released a statement that the allegations did not represent the ethics of the company, and an independent entity would investigate Nix's statements. [91]

The investigation also raised questions regarding campaign finance law. During the 2016 election, the company was employed both by Trump's campaign and Robert Mercer's Make America Number 1 Super PAC which supported Trump. While PACs are not limited in the amount of funds they can spend on behalf of a candidate, they are not allowed to coordinate strategy with the campaigns they are supporting. Nix's statements in the recorded video describe how the Trump campaign itself could "take the high road" and "stay clean", while the negative attacks were handled by the firm and the Super PAC, in a way which makes it "unattributable, untrackable". These statements potentially suggested unlawful coordination between Trump's campaign and the PAC, although Cambridge Analytica has denied this. [92]

Assessment of impact Edit

Some political scientists have been skeptical of claims made by Cambridge Analytica about the effectiveness of its microtargeting of voters. [25] [93] They believe that access to digital data doesn't provide significantly more information than from public voter databases, and the digital data has limited value over time as the preferences of voters change. [25] While studies have shown that personality does impact political preferences, [94] [95] [96] some political scientists still believe that it is hard to infer political values from personality traits. [25] On the other hand, a paper by Stanford professor Michal Kosinski and colleagues confirms that it can have a significant impact with a sample base of 3.5 million users [97]

Research discussed by Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth College showed that it is extremely hard to alter voters' preferences because many likely voters are already committed partisans as a result, it is easier to simply mobilize partisan voters. [25] [98] Tufts University political scientist Eitan Hersh, who has published on microtargeting in campaigns, has expressed strong skepticism about Cambridge Analytica's methods and their purported effectiveness, saying, "Every claim about psychographics etc made by or about [Cambridge Analytica] is BS." [99]

In 2017, CA claimed that it has psychological profiles of 220 million US citizens based on 5,000 separate data sets. [100] In March 2017, The New York Times reported that CA had exaggerated its capabilities: "Cambridge executives now concede that the company never used psychographics in the Trump campaign." [22] Trump aides have also disputed CA's role in the campaign, describing it as "modest" and noting that none of the company's efforts involved psychographics. [22]

According to an aide and consultant for Ted Cruz's presidential campaign, their campaign stopped using CA after its psychographic models failed to identify likely Cruz supporters. The Cruz campaign ceased access to all of Cambridge's data after the South Carolina Republican primary on 20 February 2016 when Cruz came in third after Trump and Rubio. [22] [101]

Privacy issues and investigations Edit

The use of personal data collected without knowledge or permission to establish sophisticated models of user's personalities raises ethical and privacy issues. [76] CA operated out of the United States its operations would be illegal in Europe with its stricter privacy laws. [77] While Cruz was outspoken about protecting personal information from the government, his database of CA has been described as "political-voter surveillance". [77]

Regarding CA's use of Facebook users, a speaker for CA indicated that these users gave permission when signing up with the provider, while Facebook declared that "misleading people or misusing information" is in violation of Facebook's policies. [76] In 2015, Facebook indicated that it was investigating the matter. [76] In March 2018, Facebook announced that it had suspended the accounts of Strategic Communication Laboratories for failing to delete data on Facebook users that had been improperly collected. [102]

Alexander Nix suggested that data collection and microtargeting benefits the voters – because they receive messages about issues they care about. However, digital rights protection groups raised concerns that private information is collected, stored, and shared while individuals are "left in the dark about [it]" and have no control. [103]

Significant backlash against Facebook came to light in March 2018, resulting in controversy as well as a $37 billion drop in the market capitalization of Facebook, as of 20 March. [104] Due to the scandal of enabling monetization of Facebook personal data, one assessment was that only 41% of Facebook users trust the company. [105] On 26 March, the US Federal Trade Commission announced it is "conducting an open investigation of Facebook Inc's privacy practices following the disclosure that 50 million users' data got into the hands of political consultancy Cambridge Analytica." [106] In March 2019 Facebook acknowledged it had concerns about “improper data-gathering practices” by CA, months before the previously reported onset-of-alert at December 2015. [107] In December 2019 the Federal Trade Commission also filed a complaint against Cambridge Analytica for its practices, while filing settlements with CEO Alexander Nix and app developer Aleksandr Kogan. [44]

In 2020 the BBC reported that the group Facebook You Owe Us had filed a lawsuit against Facebook for failing to protect users' personal data in the Cambridge Analytica breach, involving the misuse of information from almost one million users in England and Wales. [108]

Australia Edit

In Australia, Cambridge Analytica set up an office. Allan Lorraine, a friend of Alexander Tayler who was a former director for Cambridge Analytica and later appointed director of Emerdata, set up SCL (the parent company of Cambridge Analytica) in Australia. Representatives of Cambridge Analytica had a private dinner with Dan Tehan when he was then the minister responsible for cyber security, and Liberal party executives. [109] The business name "Cambridge Analytica" was registered in Australia to the Lorraine Family Trust in June 2015. SCL Group, promoted Mr Lorraine online as its head of Australian operations. [110] Alexander Nix spoke at an Australian data-driven advertising conference run by the Association for Data-driven Marketing and Advertising and met with Liberal Party officials. [111] [112] Cambridge Analytica was scoping both political as well as commercial work in Australia. [111] Cambridge Analytica's managing director of political operations said in a video recorded by Channel 4 that "We’ve done it in Mexico, we’ve done it in Malaysia, we’re now moving into Brazil, Australia, China." [113]

More than 310,000 Australian Facebook users were among the millions globally who may have had their information improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica, to be sold and used for political profiling. [114] [115] [116]

India Edit

In India, Cambridge Analytica had been used by the Indian National Congress (INC) to carry out "in-depth electorate analysis" and influence voters, including in the 2010 elections to the Bihar Legislative Assembly. [117] [118] 355 Indian Facebook users installed a Cambridge Analytica app, exposing the data of 562,455 users. [119] In addition, Christopher Wylie, the Cambridge Analytica whistleblower, alleged that the company had offices and staff in India, and that the INC party was a major client. [120] A BBC documentary clip showing a poster of the INC in ex-CEO Alexander Nix's office went viral in India, sparking accusations that the company was manipulating both mainstream and social media in order to subvert Indian voters away from the Bharatiya Janata Party and towards the INC as part of a neocolonial effort to undermine Indian politics in favor of vested interests. [121] In early 2018 Cambridge Analytica made a 50-page proposal for the INC for both the upcoming 2019 general election in India and their upcoming electoral campaign for the Indian states of Karnataka, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh state elections in 2018. [122] The Indian National Congress, however, lost the elections by a sizable margin, winning not even enough seats to be the official opposition party in India. [ citation needed ]

Kenya Edit

CA ran campaigns in secret during Kenya's 2013 and 2017 elections. [123] [124] In 2018, a CA employee said that his predecessor at the company had been found dead in his hotel room in Kenya while working on Uhuru Kenyatta's 2013 campaign. [125] The company claimed on its website to have conducted a survey of 47,000 Kenyans during the 2013 elections in order to understand "key national and local political issues, levels of trust in key politicians, voting behaviours/intentions, and preferred information channels". According to verified sources, CA worked with 360 Media, a company formed by Simon Gicharu (founder of Mount Kenya University) and Tom Mshindi (Editor-in-Chief of Nation Media Group). 360 Media developed online campaigns in the 2017 Kenyan elections portraying "Raila Odinga as a blood-thirsty individual who is also sympathetic to Al-Shabaab and having no development agenda," whilst portraying the incumbent President Kenyatta as "tough on terrorism, and being good for the economy." [126]

After the revelations in March 2018, where CA staff boasted of their power in Kenya, opposition figures called for an investigation. Norman Magaya, an official of the National Super Alliance, accused CA and the ruling Jubilee Party of committing a crime and called for an investigation. [127] The Jubilee Party downplayed CA's role, saying it had hired the firm's parent company, to assist with branding. [128]

Malta Edit

In its Disinformation and 'fake news' inquiry, published on 29 July 2018, the UK Parliament's Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee noted that it is believed that CA, or its associated companies, worked with the Labour Party in Malta, on the 2013 Maltese general election campaign. [129] Several sources claim that CA had close relationships with Henley & Partners who would immediately after the election introduce and run a lucrative Citizenship by Investment Program in Malta. [130] [131] The Maltese Government issued a press release denying the claims and calling the report and its sources "fake news". [132] Henley & Partners denied any wrongdoing. According to Henley & Partners, there was never a formal working relationship with CA. [133]

The Final Report by the UK Parliament's Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, published on 18 February 2019, took note of the Maltese Government's submissions (including through PR agency Chelgate's services) but determined that compelling evidence shown to the Committee confirmed that:

"SCL certainly had meetings in Malta, that Christian Kalin of Henley & Partners was introduced by SCL to Joseph Muscat in 2011, and that Christian Kalin met with both political parties before 2013". [134]

The Maltese Government later issued a further denial decrying the use of "unnamed sources" and "confidential documents". [135]

Mexico Edit

After the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal, Forbes published that the British news program Channel 4 News had mentioned the existence of proof revealing ties between the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) and Cambridge Analytica, suggesting a modus operandi similar to the one in the United States. According to Channel 4 News' Guillermo Galdos, CA worked for the PRI at least until January 2018. [136] [137] [138] An investigation was requested. [139]

In 2017 the company had reached out to the PRI, Mexico's ruling political party, in order to bolster the party's presidential campaign during the largest-ever political elections of 2018. The party decided that it was sufficiently equipped to mess with the election on its own, but still paid Cambridge Analytica to prevent it from working with rival parties. [140]

United Kingdom Edit

Many donors to the UK Conservative Party reportedly have connections to the parent company of Cambridge Analytica. [141]

CA became involved in the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum (Brexit) supporting "persuadable" voters to vote for leaving the European Union (EU). [142] Articles by Carole Cadwalladr in The Observer and Guardian newspapers, respectively published in February and May 2017, speculated in detail that CA had influenced both the Brexit/Vote Leave option in the UK's 2016 EU membership referendum and Trump's 2016 US presidential campaign with Robert Mercer's backing of Donald Trump being key. They also discuss the legality of using the social data farmed. [143] [144] [145] CA is pursuing legal action over the claims made in Cadwalladr's articles. [143]

No campaign contributions, in cash or in kind, by Cambridge Analytica were reported to the UK electoral authorities. Both CA and Leave.EU refused to comment on any donation of services. [146] On 23 March 2018, it was reported that a former employee, Brittany Kaiser, who was the company's former director of business development, revealed that the company misled the public and MPs over its links with Leave.EU and the analysis of data which had been provided by the UK Independence Party (UKIP). She said she felt she had lied by supporting Cambridge Analytica's company line that it had done "no paid or unpaid work" for Leave.EU. "In my opinion, I was lying. In my opinion I felt like we should say, 'this is exactly what we did'". [147] The following day, it was reported that the company claimed that it would be able to affect the outcome of the Referendum and that it had produced a 10-page document headed "Big Data Solutions for the EU Referendum", claiming it could single out 'Brexiteers' among voters, donors, politicians and journalists. [148] In a 2019 interview with France 24, Kaiser said that democracy is under threat from the influence of groups like Cambridge Analytica, and that she does not believe social media users are more protected from this than in 2016. [149]

During a committee hearing in March 2018 Christopher Wylie told UK lawmakers that AggregateIQ, a firm linked to Cambridge Analytica, helped the official Vote Leave campaign circumvent campaign financing laws during the Brexit referendum. [150]

United States Edit

Laurence Levy, a lawyer with the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani, advises Rebekah Mercer, Steve Bannon, and Alexander Nix on the legality of their company, Cambridge Analytica, being involved in Elections in the United States. He advises that Nix and any foreign nationals without a green card working for the company must not be involved in any decision making regarding any work the company performs for any clients related to U.S. elections. He further advises Nix to recuse himself from any involvement with the company's U.S. election work because he is not a U.S. citizen. [151] [152]

2014 midterm elections Edit

CA had entered the US market in 2012 [153] (or 2013), [16] and was involved in 44 US congressional, US Senate and state-level elections in the 2014 US elections. [153]

The company worked with the John Bolton Super PAC (political action committee) on a major digital and TV campaign focused on senate races in Arkansas, North Carolina and New Hampshire and helped turn out voters for the Republican Party candidates in those states. Two of the Republican candidates backed by the Bolton Super PAC, Thom Tillis in North Carolina and Tom Cotton in Arkansas, won their Senate bids, while Scott Brown lost in New Hampshire. The PAC ran 15 different TV advertisements each in North Carolina and Arkansas and 17 in New Hampshire, mostly online with some targeted directly to households using Dish Network and DirecTV. All were intended to push Bolton's national security agenda. [154]

CA also supported Thom Tillis's successful campaign to oust Kay Hagan as a senator for North Carolina. The firm was credited for its role in identifying a sizeable cluster of North Carolinians who prioritised foreign affairs, which encouraged Tillis to shift the conversation from state-level debates over education policy to charges that incumbent Kay Hagan had failed to take ISIS's rise seriously. [155] Tillis's campaign and the North Carolina Republican Party paid Cambridge Analytica $345,000 for these services. [156]

CA sent dozens of non-U.S. citizens to provide campaign strategy and messaging advice to Republican candidates in 2014, opening the firm and individuals to prosecution under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, for being foreign agents having not registered through the United States Department of Justice as such. [157]

2016 presidential election Edit

CA's involvement in the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries became known in July 2015. [17] As of December 2015, CA claimed to have collected up to 5,000 data points on over 220 million Americans. [8] At that time Robert Mercer was a major supporter of Ted Cruz. [16] [158] The Mercer family funded CA directly and indirectly through several super-PACs as well as through payments via Cruz's campaign. [76]

Cruz became an early major client of CA in the 2016 presidential campaign. Just prior to the Iowa Republican caucuses, the Cruz campaign had spent $3 million for CA's services, [159] with additional money coming from allied Super-PACs. [159] After Cruz's win at the Iowa caucus CA was credited with having been able to identify and motivate potential voters. [160] [161] Ultimately the Cruz campaign spent $5.8 million on work by CA. [162]

Ben Carson was a second client of CA his campaign had paid $220,000 for "data management" and "web service" as reported in October 2015. [20] Marco Rubio's campaign was supported by Optimus Consulting. [163] Meanwhile, the third competitor, Governor John Kasich, was supported by rivalling firm Applecart. [164]

After Cruz dropped out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination in May 2016, Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah Mercer started to support Trump. [165] In August, it became known that CA followed their allegiance and worked for Trump's presidential campaign. [162] [165] Trump's campaign also worked with digital firm Giles Parscale. [162] In September, the Trump campaign spent $5 million to purchase television advertising. [166] The Trump campaign spent less than $1 million in data work. [167] [ failed verification ]

In 2016, the company said that it had not used psychographics in the Trump presidential campaign. [168] Cambridge Analytica targeted potential voters with bespoke messages. Cambridge Analytica's data head, Alexander Tayler said, "When you think about the fact that Donald Trump lost the popular vote by 3m votes but won the electoral college vote, [t]hat's down to the data and the research." [169]

The head of Cambridge Analytica said he asked WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, for help finding Hillary Clinton's 33,000 deleted emails. [170] [171] [172]

On 18 May 2017, Time reported that the US Congress was investigating CA in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. The report alleges that CA may have coordinated the spread of Russian propaganda using its microtargetting capabilities. [173] According to the Trump campaign's digital operations chief, CA worked "side-by-side" with representatives from Facebook, Alphabet Inc. and Twitter on Trump's digital campaign activities. [174]

On 4 August 2017, Michael Flynn, who is under investigation by US counterintelligence for his contacts with Russian officials, amended a public financial filing to reflect that he had served in an advisory role in an agreement with CA during the 2016 Trump campaign. [175]

On 8 October 2017, Brad Parscale, who was the digital media director for Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, stated in an interview with Lesley Stahl from CBS News on 60 Minutes that Parscale was able to utilize Facebook advertising to directly target individual voters in swing states. [176] Parscale cited the example in which he was able to target specific universes (audiences) who care about infrastructure and promote Trump and his message to build back up the crumbling American infrastructure. [177] Although he hired Cambridge Analytica to assist with microtargeting, and Cambridge Analytica stated that it was the key to Trump's victory, Parscale denied that he gained assistance from the firm, stating that he thought Cambridge Analytica's use of psychographics doesn't work. [178] He also denied any assistance with links to Russia. [178] According to Parscale, the Clinton campaign turned down assistance from these platforms. [178]

On 25 October 2017, Assange said on Twitter that he had been approached by Cambridge Analytica, but that he had rejected its proposal. [179] Assange's tweet followed a story in The Daily Beast [180] alleging that Cambridge Analytica chief executive Alexander Nix had proposed a collaboration with Wikileaks to find the 33,000 emails that had been deleted from Clinton's private server. CNN said it had been told by several unnamed sources [181] that Nix intended to turn the Clinton email archive released to the public by the State Department into a searchable database for the campaign or a pro-Trump political action committee.

On 14 December 2017, it was revealed that Robert Mueller had requested during the fall of 2017 that Cambridge Analytica turn over the emails of any of its employees who worked on the Trump campaign, as part of his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. [182]

In 2018, following disclosures that the company had improperly used the personal information of over 50 million Facebook users while working on Trump's presidential campaign, The Times of Israel reported that the company had used what Nix had called "intelligence gathering" from British and Israeli companies as part of their efforts to influence the election results in Trump's favor. [183]

Other countries Edit

Cambridge Analytica's executives said in 2018 that the company had worked in more than 200 elections around the world, including in India, Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia (CA's website stated that it supported Prime Minister Najib Razak's Barisan Nasional coalition), [184] Colombia, Cyprus, Zambia, South Africa, Romania, Italy, Lithuania, Trinidad and Tobago, Nigeria (Nigeria's 2015 presidential election), [184] the Czech Republic, and Argentina. [82] [185] During the investigation it was admitted that the company has been contacted from a famous Italian party to manage the electoral campaign in Italy but the name of the party was not revealed.

In the Philippines, Cambridge Analytica was also involved in the 2016 presidential election with reports citing it helped Rodrigo Duterte win the race. [186] Duterte's camp denied this association. [187] The SCL Group, Cambridge Analytica's parent company, claimed that it rebranded the politician's image to target voters who they found are swayed by qualities such as toughness and decisiveness. [188] During the election cycle, Facebook confirmed that its data of more 1 million Filipino users were improperly shared with the communications company. [189]

On 4 January 2020, a release of more than 100,000 documents showed how Cambridge Analytica worked in 68 countries. [190] A global infrastructure with operations to manipulate voters on "an industrial scale". The release of documents began on New Year's Day from an anonymous Twitter account called @HindsightFiles, that published material on elections in Malaysia, Kenya and Brazil (and next days so more countries). This documents came from Brittany Kaiser, an ex-Cambridge Analytica employee turned whistleblower, and were retrieved from her email accounts and hard drives. [191]

The Cambridge Analytica scandal changed the world – but it didn't change Facebook

I t can be hard to remember from down here, beneath the avalanche of words and promises and apologies and blogposts and manifestos that Facebook has unleashed upon us over the course of the past year, but when the Cambridge Analytica story broke one year ago, Mark Zuckerberg’s initial response was a long and deafening silence.

It took five full days for the founder and CEO of Facebook – the man with total control over the world’s largest communications platform – to emerge from his Menlo Park cloisters and address the public. When he finally did, he did so with gusto, taking a new set of talking points (“We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can’t then we don’t deserve to serve you”) on a seemingly unending roadshow, from his own Facebook page to the mainstream press to Congress and on to an oddly earnest discussion series he’s planning to subject us to at irregular intervals for the rest of 2019.

The culmination of all that verbosity came earlier this month, when Zuck unloaded a 3,000-word treatise on Facebook’s “privacy-focused” future (a phrase that somehow demands both regular quotation marks and ironic scare quotes), a missive that was perhaps best described by the Guardian’s Emily Bell as “the nightmarish college application essay of an accomplished sociopath”.

The so-called pivot to privacy is in many ways the logical conclusion to the earth-shaking (and market-moving) response to the Cambridge Analytica story, which plunged Facebook into the greatest crisis in its then 14-year history. After nearly a year of its critics demanding that it respect users’ privacy, here was Facebook saying: “Fine, privacy you shall have.” (More on whether what’s being offered is actually privacy later.)

But it’s worth thinking back to those five days of silence, when the contours of the scandal took shape and revealed themselves with an uncanny distinction: when it came to Facebook, the Cambridge Analytica story did not uncover anything new. The basic facts had already been reported, in the same publication, 16 months previously: Facebook had allowed someone to extract vast amounts of private information about vast numbers of people from its system, and that entity had passed the data along to someone else, who had used it for political ends.

What changed was how we saw those facts. It was as if we had all gone away on a long voyage, returned home to an uneasy sense that something was different, and were not immediately able to grasp that it was ourselves who had changed and not the rooms and furnishings that surrounded us.

Facebook’s PR machine spent much of the first 24 hours after the story broke engaged in a pedantic and self-defeating argument over whether or not what had occurred constituted a “data breach”. By information security standards, Facebook was correct that what occurred was not a “data breach” – as representatives wrote, “no systems were infiltrated, and no passwords or sensitive pieces of information were stolen or hacked”.

But a year later, and in the aftermath of an actual, vast data breach in October, it is apparent that a data breach would have been easier for Facebook’s reputation to weather. Almost every company has suffered a big data breach at this point only Facebook has endured such an existential reckoning. That’s because what happened with Cambridge Analytica was not a matter of Facebook’s systems being infiltrated, but of Facebook’s systems working as designed: data was amassed, data was extracted, and data was exploited.

At the end of 2018, Zuck debuted a new talking point, asserting that in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election and the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook had “fundamentally altered [its] DNA”.

Christopher Wylie, the Cambridge Analytica whistleblower, departs after meeting with House Democrats, on Capitol Hill in April. Photograph: Alex Brandon/AP

Whether Zuckerberg actually believes that is an open question, but it’s clear that few outside Facebook do. “While it appears that Facebook is suddenly ‘woke’ to privacy issues, it’s safe to assume it’s business as usual there,” said Ashkan Soltani, a former chief technologist for the Federal Trade Commission.

“They keep actually putting growth and profits above designing a platform that’s predicated on the needs of its users,” said Lindsey Barrett, a teaching fellow and staff attorney at Georgetown’s Communications and Technology Clinic. As a particularly blatant example of this mindset, Barrett cited Facebook’s insistence on using phone numbers that users provided for security reasons for non-security purposes.

Zuckerberg did make a number of specific promises after the Cambridge Analytica story broke. I asked the company for an update on a number of these, and can only offer the Harvard dropout an “incomplete”.

On 19 March 2018, Facebook said it was pursuing a forensic audit of Cambridge Analytica and other parties involved in the data misuse, but it stood down after the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) began its own investigation. A Facebook spokeswoman said on 13 March that the company was still waiting for approval from the ICO to perform any such audit.

On 21 March 2018, Zuckerberg promised that Facebook would investigate “all apps that had access to large amounts of information” through the platform before 2014, audit any app with suspicious activity and ban any developer who misused personally identifiable information. Facebook provided regular updates on this investigation until 22 August 2018, when the company revealed in a blogpost that it had investigated thousands of third-party apps and suspended “more than 400”. Seven months later, a spokeswoman said that the investigation was continuing, but provided the same numbers: thousands investigated, more than 400 banned.

On 1 May, Facebook made its most ambitious promise – the creation of a “clear history” tool that would allow users to force Facebook to delete all the information it gathers about users as they browse the web. At the time, Facebook said the tool would “take a few months to build”. As BuzzFeed News pointed out in February, it’s been more than a few months. A Facebook spokeswoman did not provide a timeline for when the tool might actually be available, saying that it was taking time to get the tool right.

The other major promise – the big one – is the pivot to “privacy” announced this month. The actual details of this plan are much more mundane, and involve much less actual privacy, than Zuckerberg’s manifesto would like us to believe. The CEO is planning to integrate all three of his company’s messaging platforms – WhatsApp, Instagram and Messenger – into one, which will have end-to-end encryption.

The overwhelming consensus from privacy experts is that this plan has little to do with protecting privacy and everything to do with protecting market share. “They are incredibly adept at strategically using privacy as a justification for an anticompetitive strategy – and the shift to encrypted-messaging or ‘delete history’ makes sense when you consider the impending regulatory pressures around interoperability and data-portability,” said Soltani.

The most obvious of those impending pressures is the increasingly popular idea of taking anti-trust action against Facebook, an idea that has gone from the fringes of the thinktank world to the center of a major 2020 Democratic presidential candidate’s agenda with dramatic speed.

Who collected all that data?

Cambridge Analytica, a political data firm hired by President Trump’s 2016 election campaign, gained access to private information on more than 50 million Facebook users. The firm offered tools that could identify the personalities of American voters and influence their behavior.

Cambridge has been largely funded by Robert Mercer, the wealthy Republican donor, and Stephen K. Bannon, a former adviser to the president who became an early board member and gave the firm its name. It has pitched its services to potential clients ranging from Mastercard and the New York Yankees to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

On Monday, a British TV news report cast it in a harsher light, showing video of Cambridge Analytica executives offering to entrap politicians. A day later, as a furor grew, the company suspended its chief executive, Alexander Nix.

April 10, 2018 — Time to testify

Zuckerberg is scheduled to appear before a joint hearing of the Senate Judiciary and Commerce committees on Tuesday. It is one of two Capitol Hill appearances for the Facebook founder and CEO this week, with Zuckerberg due to appear before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday.

In prepared remarks, Zuckerberg said: "Over the past few weeks, we've been working to understand exactly what happened with Cambridge Analytica and taking steps to make sure this doesn't happen again."

Professor David Runciman

Professor Runciman became was Head of Department in October 2014 to October 2018. He gave his Inaugural Lecture on "Political Theory and Real Politics in the Age of the Internet" on Tuesday 24th February 2015, which can be viewed online here.

Professor Runciman also hosts the weekly politics podcast "Talking Politics".

More details can be found here.


Late-nineteenth and twentieth century political thought theories of the state and of political representation various aspects of contemporary political philosophy and contemporary politics.

Current research projects:

Conspiracy and Democracy: a five-year Leverhulme-funded research program based in CRASSH


Politics: Ideas in Profile (Profile Books, June 2014)

The Confidence Trap: A History of Democracy in Crisis from the First World War to the Present (Princeton University Press, 2013)

'Hobbes's theory of representation: anti-democratic or proto-democratic?', in Representation and Popular Rule ed. Ian Shapiro and Alexander Kirshner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)

Political Hypocrisy: The Mask of Power from Hobbes to Orwell and Beyond (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008)

Representation (with Monica Brito Vieira) (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008)
'The paradox of political representation', Journal of Political Philosophy 15, 1 (2007), pp. 93–114

The Politics of Good Intentions: History, Fear and Hyprocrisy in the New World Order (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006).

An archive of David Runciman's writing for the London Review of Books is available here: