It seems fairly clear to me that this doesn't regulate unpaid advocacy at all. I didn't follow up and check the definition of "payment" in the California code, but it would have to be fairly idiosyncratic to cover the vast majority of bloggers.
The biggest clue it's got nothing to do with bloggers: The provision only applies to campaign publications viewed by 500 or more voters or those elligible to vote, and there's a presumption in there that any broadcast or billboard meets the 500+ test. If they were trying to ensnare internet activism, there'd be a similar presumption for those.
This is typical "I'm-the-center-of-the-universe" blogger paranoia from Insty particularly-- he & whoever else said "look! there's an exemption for traditional media and not me! This must be anti-me!" No, they just weren't thinking about you.
On a routine basis, I get the impression that Insty does not read/comprehend anything in the way of detail when he writes and links. He's got something in his head-- in this instance "bloggers aren't traditional media and traditional media worries about us"-- that he imports into almost everything he reads, whether it's there or not.
anything that puts disclosure requirements on bloggers, rather than candidates, is a problem. And, I don't mean "disclaimer on web page" type disclosure - I mean the form filing, registering with government type...
It seems fairly clear to me that this doesn't regulate unpaid advocacy at all. I didn't follow up and check the definition of "payment" in the California code, but it would have to be fairly idiosyncratic to cover the vast majority of bloggers.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 04- 4-05 7:12 AM
The biggest clue it's got nothing to do with bloggers: The provision only applies to campaign publications viewed by 500 or more voters or those elligible to vote, and there's a presumption in there that any broadcast or billboard meets the 500+ test. If they were trying to ensnare internet activism, there'd be a similar presumption for those.
This is typical "I'm-the-center-of-the-universe" blogger paranoia from Insty particularly-- he & whoever else said "look! there's an exemption for traditional media and not me! This must be anti-me!" No, they just weren't thinking about you.
On a routine basis, I get the impression that Insty does not read/comprehend anything in the way of detail when he writes and links. He's got something in his head-- in this instance "bloggers aren't traditional media and traditional media worries about us"-- that he imports into almost everything he reads, whether it's there or not.
Posted by TomFreeland | Link to this comment | 04- 4-05 7:54 AM
Sponsor?
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 04- 4-05 9:48 AM
Indeed.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 04- 4-05 9:51 AM
Heh.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 04- 4-05 12:08 PM
Ghoul.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 04- 4-05 12:10 PM
anything that puts disclosure requirements on bloggers, rather than candidates, is a problem. And, I don't mean "disclaimer on web page" type disclosure - I mean the form filing, registering with government type...
Posted by Atrios | Link to this comment | 04- 5-05 4:32 AM
Agreed, but is anyone sure that this ordinance does that?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 04- 5-05 7:08 AM