Complaint Filed Against B&S
I was just informed of this:
A Monica Sitter filed a complaint today with the elections board because of the “Blogs for Ziegler” tag on B&S. Her complaint says it must have a disclaimer.
Fun!
I’m going to start writing down license plate numbers when I see political bumper stickers… the FEC, MEC, and the local elections board will have a good laugh!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 1830 hrsWhat a maroon.
Posted by Jed on March 27, 2007 at 1834 hrsHer complaint says it must have a disclaimer.
Such as?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 1839 hrs
May I copy the blog button please?
What an ignoramus….
Posted by Pete Fanning on March 27, 2007 at 1856 hrsWhat an ignoramus
Boy thats an understatement….Now watch she’ll probably file a complaint, or better yet a lawsuit because we are talking about her!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 1904 hrsPete,
Of course! Copy away! This is going to turn into some sort of Spartacus thing
BTW, this is not just a B&S issue. Take a walk through the liberal blogs and you’ll see plenty of buttons without disclaimers.
Posted by Owen on March 27, 2007 at 1905 hrsWhat is the disclaimer supposed to say?
Respond with this: If this was your website, you could add disclaimers all over the place. But IT IS NOT YOURS - SO YOU CAN’T!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 1940 hrsThat’s because blogs are exempt from the rules. We have a get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to express advocacy.
Kinda silly but true.
Posted by james Wigderson on March 27, 2007 at 1942 hrsThere’s a bit of an irony: Today is the birthday of netroots freedom.
As far as I know, there are no state guidelines on this, but at least as far as the FEC is concerned, this kind of activity is a-ok. I asked My State Representative about whether we needed clearer rules for state and local races, and he said I shouldn’t worry about it. Well.
I suppose if you were willing to be the guinea pig, we could clear this up. I have a hard time believing the state election folks would adopt a much tougher stance than the feds.
Posted by folkbum on March 27, 2007 at 2036 hrsOn second thought, this could be interesting because I think the exemptions are all on the federal level.
Posted by james Wigderson on March 27, 2007 at 2044 hrsThe complaint wouldn’t be against you, it would be against Ziegler’s campaign, wouldn’t it?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 2052 hrsI’d need to pull the campaign manual and state statutes but I recall that items such as buttons, pens and the like are exempted from the “disclaimer” requirement. It’s my guess that the blogger tag would as well be exempt purely on the practicality of the addition of such a disclaimer and the impact of the advertisement.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 2201 hrsWendy, it would depend on whether there was coordination in the placement of the ad. If they can allege coordination, then the complaint would be against both Boots & Sabers and the Ziegler campaign. If the complaint is only that Boots and Sabers made an undeclared independent expenditure, then only the publishers of Boots and Sabers are on the hook. Given what the site charges for an ad as prominently placed, it could be reasonably argued that someone from B&S should have filed with the SEB an independent expenditure.
Posted by james Wigderson on March 27, 2007 at 2217 hrsRULE REGULATING THE SIZE AND CONTRAST OF SOURCE IDENTIFICATIONS (DISCLAIMERS) ON POLITICAL COMMUNICATIONS -March, 2005
(fm) This subsection does not apply to communications printed on pins, buttons, pens, balloons, nail files and similar small items on which the information required by this subsection cannot be conveniently printed. The board may, by rule, specify small items not mentioned in this paragraph to which this subsection shall not apply.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 2241 hrsHi Owen,
As someone who works in the industry, here’s what I know:
The FCC does not oversee internet ads, so their rules don’t count. Those are the rules most people know.
The FEC does oversee internet political ads. The only rule on the books so far is that it must say “Paid for and sponsored by” or something to that effect. This tag should be placed on creative that you are running if it was not created by you, even if you are running the ad for free.
Let me know if I can help you out with any questions. That come up pertaining to this.
Posted by Cantankerous on March 27, 2007 at 2251 hrsI should get some sleep. Now I am writing. Incomplete sentences.
LoL
Posted by Cantankerous on March 27, 2007 at 2253 hrsWelcome to the world, the fight for blogger first ammendment right protection has been ongoing by national blogs for quite some time.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 2257 hrs
Along with the fairness doctrine trying to take down talk radio it’s a fight we’re all in.
Glad to have you bright literate folks on board.
We need warriors anywhere we can find them. Kinda like when we fought that pesky second ammendment rights thing in the eighties. They will stop at nothing. I’ve been through the wars.
It’s all fun and games until an ammendment gets repealed.Dammit. I have idiot-syndrome tonight.
Here’s the point I’m trying to make: The rules are very loosey-goosey right now. However, if you’re taking creative that was made by a campaign, then that campaign should tag it.
If you, of your own accord, make an ad that was not sponsored by a campaign, then you’re in the clear.
(You haven’t said who created that button, so I don’t know which situation applies.)
Whether you take money for the ad or not, the creation of the ad was paid for by someone when it’s coming from a campaign. Hence the reason this woman has an issue.
Currently, not many precedents have been set as it pertains to political or issue internet advertising. But, as my legal counsel put it to me, do you want your website to be the reason congress debates the need for internet law?
Maybe you do
Posted by Cantankerous on March 27, 2007 at 2300 hrs
That would be kinda cool, now that I think about it. The only rule on the books so far is that it must say “Paid for and sponsored by” or something to that effect.
Boy that rule seems WIDE open to interpretation. Because paid for and sponsored by, seems to imply that Owen is being paid to run the button, (which he is not).
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2007 at 2303 hrsBecause there are so few rules to date, the ones we have are pretty open to interpretation.
I’ve got the actual legal document that explains it at work. I’ll dig it up tomorrow and post the relevant details.
Posted by Cantankerous on March 27, 2007 at 2336 hrsAlright, here’s what I got for ya. Good luck making sense of it. I underlined what I think applies here (if the ad is paid for).
Final Rules
Public Communication
While the new regulations continue to exempt most Internet communications, those placed on another person’s web site for a fee are now considered “general public political advertising” and, therefore, qualify as “public communications.” By contrast, unpaid Internet communications, including blogs, e-mail and a person’s web site, are not.
Disclaimer Requirements.
Under the new rules, political committees must include disclaimers on their web sites and their widely-distributed e-mail, i.e., more than 500 substantially similar messages, regardless of whether the e-mail messages are solicited or unsolicited. Others are not required to include a disclaimer on their own web site or e-mail messages. Persons other than political committees need only include disclaimers on paid Internet advertising that qualifies as a “public communication” and then only if the communication includes certain content such as a message expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate. 11 CFR 110.11.Uncompensated Individual Internet Activities.
Online campaign activity by uncompensated individuals or groups of individuals is exempt from the definitions of contribution and expenditure. 11 CFR 100.94. This exemption applies whether the individual acts independently or in coordination with a candidate, authorized
committee or political party committee. Exempt Internet activities
include:
• Sending or forwarding election-related
e-mail messages;
• Providing a hyperlink to a campaign
or committee’s web site;
• Engaging in campaign-related blogging;
• Creating, maintaining or hosting an election-related web site; and
• Paying a nominal fee for a web site or other forms of communication distributed over the Internet.
Posted by Cantankerous on March 28, 2007 at 1115 hrs
I have some other documents on the matter that I’m trying to track down. But, this should answer some of your questions for now. Or, just confuse everyone. LoLOwen, I know what I’d do.
I’d TRIPLE the size of the tag.
That’ll learn ‘em.
Posted by mickey on March 28, 2007 at 1121 hrsThanks, Cantankerous. Well, it’s unpaid, so screw ‘em.
Posted by Owen on March 28, 2007 at 1124 hrsHey when you got nuthin’ else….
why no complaint against Jay for his Clifford for Justice link?
Can you say hypocrite?
Sure, I thought you could. (not you Jay, the dimwit who filed the compaint)
Posted by Fred on March 28, 2007 at 1232 hrsSo…..does this mean Fred has to pay me?
Posted by still Unreal... on March 28, 2007 at 1339 hrs
‘cause that’d be cool…Check is the mail my piasan….
Posted by Fred on March 28, 2007 at 1348 hrsI don’t know why some people are bringing up federal law, it’s a race for the STATE Supreme Court, following state election law; federal election laws don’t apply.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 1412 hrsThe FCC does control the entire internet. It’s a communication system. They do have authoroity, now as far as rules go; this is new territory. but I have no doubt that some other commerce and regulatory laws override the current perceptions. Let this go to court. It will only clarify it. Right now, every post is based on assumptions of what is right and wrong.
It has to be clarified.I do see one thing:
“...Paying a nominal fee for a web site or other forms of communication distributed over the Internet.”
If this nominal fee is paid for, by a political party funding the webstie that may be the issue at hand. Does B&S get money from GOP organizations, political campaigns, etc?
That might be a question that puts B&S into a different FCC perspective.But we don’t know yet. I am sure there are lawsuits, in court right now, over the 2002, 2004 and 2006 campaigns trying to answer these very questions.
But let’s not assume right or wrong. It only makes the GOP look dumber than the current leadership in DC. And there is no doubt that the GOP leadership is an incompetant mess.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 1531 hrsFrom what I understand, the complaint is just that, a complaint. I have confidence that the SEB will find that the complaint is without merit and that will be the end of it.
I doubt the SEB wants to be at the center of a nationwide debate on this issue.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2007 at 1549 hrsWell, I am, in fact, a little bit jealous. I mean, Owen gets a weekly op-ed in a real newspaper, and I’m writing 400 words a month for the free Bay View monthly. Owen gets WPR “week in review” shows, and I get stuck calling Ben Merens’s open line. Owen gets election complaints filed against him, and my advocacy goes unnoticed.
Always a bridesmaid . . .
Posted by folkbum on March 28, 2007 at 1554 hrs
Posted by Jed on March 28, 2007 at 1559 hrs
The FCC does control the entire internet. It’s a communication system. They do have authoroity, now as far as rules go; this is new territory. .
Hi goofticket. For the record, I’m not making assumptions. I’m quoting law. Also, according to the WBA (Wisconsin Broadcasters Association) the FCC does not govern political advertising on the internet.
C-12 (Cantankerous)
Posted by Cantankerous on March 28, 2007 at 1759 hrsWould this count for something?
It is at the bottom of your blog.“Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).”
Especially if you created the button.
Posted by Andy on March 29, 2007 at 0743 hrs
I suspect that you have since there is not a button like it available at AnnetteZiegler.com.Years ago we forgot to put “auth and pd for by” on our yard signs. we had to spend two days running around with little stickers putting them on the signs. Means a fine of $50 for campaign if they rule on it.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2007 at 1018 hrsDohnal,
Were there regs on the size, font type, and colors of the stickers, too?
Posted by Marcus Aurelius on March 29, 2007 at 2133 hrsHow dumb! I support B&S!
Posted by Asher on March 30, 2007 at 0028 hrsI move we institute the Owen Robinson Legal Defense Fund!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2007 at 1825 hrsWhat ever happened with this?
Posted by Andy on April 16, 2007 at 1209 hrsNothing yet. We haven’t received any official notice. It could be that they just discarded the complaint without action because it lacked merit, or that they are just very slow.
Posted by Owen on April 16, 2007 at 1210 hrs
Total Entries: 15519
Total Comments: 86210
Total Trackbacks: 1036
Most Recent Entry: 07/03/2009 02:12 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 07/04/2009 01:28 am
Total Members: 631
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 37
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 07/04/2009 06:14 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).