It's always a good idea, of course, to know which bloggers are on the take, and which aren't, but with deception so easy to practice, how could one ever know for sure? As always, caveat emptor!
Oh yes, then there's that pesky thing about the First Amendment too.
Besides, how many campaigns have sufficient resources to pay out enough cash-money to sway any opinions among the bloggeratti? I doubt all that many. You'd think payments would have to be carefully-calibrated against political impact in the electorate, but how can one accurately-measure the (usually) ant-like impact of a blogger? If you are spending all your campaign cash buying ants, you may very well not have enough for other important purposes, like advertising.
For myself, my opinion is not-for-sale (but, then again, there have been no offers either). So, for now, I will pose as incorruptible (and hope I ever get a chance to prove it):
The leader of the state's political watchdog agency said Thursday that she wants bloggers to be required to disclose payments received from campaigns.
"The public should know about such a connection in the political arena so they can properly evaluate endorsements," Chairwoman Ann Ravel said.
The proposal is sure to be watched closely nationwide for targeting a mass medium known as a bastion of anything-goes free speech.
FPPC officials said they believe California would be the first state to place strings on political commentary.
Critics contend that government could be overstepping its bounds.
"I think if people are blogging an opinion, they have a right to do it," said Assemblyman Sandre Swanson, D-Alameda. "I just think a free press is fundamental, even if people are paid to (blog)."
Assemblyman Bill Berryhill, R-Ceres, countered that voters have a right to know who is getting paid to sway their opinions.
"Transparency is always good in government," he said.
Ravel said she initially will ask the FPPC to adopt guidelines asking bloggers to disclose before the November presidential election.
Her goal for future elections is mandatory disclosure, Ravel said.
"I think this is one of those issues that's extremely controversial, so it needs to be done incrementally," Ravel said. "But my view is, it should ultimately be required."
Payments to bloggers became a public issue in the 2010 gubernatorial election after a Placer County blogger, Aaron F. Park, was removed from a conservative website when it was learned that he was paid by a consultant for Steve Poizner.
Park said he did not hide his connection to Poizner's consultant – in fact, he personally disclosed that to the operator of the website, which was receiving money from Meg Whitman's campaign, he said.
"A lot of people out there that pilloried me and talked about what I dirtbag I was, they've all been on the take for years," Park said.
A Rocklin resident, Park now operates a conservative Republican website, rightondaily.com, that discloses its consultants are paid by Les Baugh's state Senate campaign.
"A lot of the bloggers out there are getting paid in one form or another," Park said. "Some of them do it by selling advertisements on their website and some actually take direct payments from campaigns."
Park said he opposes "government telling anybody to do anything, but if these idiots would start being ethical about what they're doing there would be no reason for government to be stepping in with more regulations."
...But Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, applauded Ravel's proposal.
"I think people should have the right to say whatever they want, in any format, on any platform, unless they're being paid by someone else to make those comments," she said. "And if that's happening, you need to identify who you are and who your donors are."
No comments:
Post a Comment