As campaign season heats up, we expect that people affiliated with political campaigns will post here with increasing frequency. That’s great — we welcome those contributions to the site, which are often well-informed and helpful to the kind of discussion and debate we encourage.
However, a request that we made back in 2006 bears restating now:
if you write a post, or leave a comment, either on this blog or elsewhere, about a candidate (or someone who is running against a candidate) with whom you have either a financial or a personal relationship, please disclose it. It won’t detract from the point you’re making – arguments on the merits stand or fall on their merits, not on the basis of those kinds of relationships. And it will be a positive step in the direction of establishing the internet as a credible source of information on politics and candidates. That benefits all of us.
Some of that (such as the bit about posting elsewhere) is obviously just a suggestion that we think will improve the integrity of blogging generally. We’d also prefer that you disclose personal relationships with candidates if you choose to comment about their campaigns here. But we’ve added the part about disclosing financial affiliations on this site to our Rules of the Road:
There is one exception to the “anonymity is OK” principle: if you write a post, or leave a comment, about a candidate (or someone who is running against a candidate) with whom you have either a financial or a personal relationship, please disclose it…. If we determine that you have failed to disclose a financial relationship of this kind, we may disclose it for you.
Astroturfing (the simulation of grassroots support by paid political operatives) is a very bad practice that drags down blogs and blogging. We will do what we can to root it out on this site. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
this isn’t a reaction to me! I think I’ve made it pretty clear that I’m working for Jason Lewis’s campaign (as of June 1 officially, though I volunteered beforehand). I’d like to think, though, that I’ve been part of this community a long enough time that people will realize I’m more than just somebody trying to sell a candidate.
“Personal relationship”? “Financial relationship”?
<
p>I mean, honestly, could that be more vague? (The “rules of the road” seem to offer little further explantion).
<
p>I honestly have no clue where you are going with this.
<
p>You mean I’m getting paid to blog about a candidate? Or more than that? What if I gave the candidate $25 once?
<
p>You mean that I am blogging only because of a “personal obligation”? Does the candidate have to know my name for us to have a “personal relationship”? Do I have to have been to the candidate’s house?
<
p>Seriously, I think some clarification is in order.
yes
also yes
no
<
p>
no
no
<
p>
<
p>It’s not that hard. If you have a relationship with the campaign above and beyond a donor of time or money… one that might undermine your claims, then disclose the relationship.
But still incredibly vague for the many of us here who work in politics.
<
p>For example, I “know” Mitt Romney. In the sense that I worked for and donated to a political opponent of his in 2002. I also “met” him maybe a dozen times out on the campaign trail.
<
p>Indeed, without donating time or money, I “know” many politicians and several candidates through the work I do in politics. Some I like, most I don’t.
<
p>I still have no idea whether these are “personal relationships” that might “undermine” something I might say about them in a blog.
<
p>It’s clear that if you currently are getting paid by a campaign, you should disclose that. If you are currently getting paid to blog (by almost anyone!), I think you should disclose that. I would also argue that if you “know” a candidate well enough that you chose to donate a lot of money or volunteer more than a few hours a week to work on their campaign, that should be disclosed.
<
p>In all honesty, my perhaps limited “common sense” leads me to few other examples of “relationships” that I think ought to be disclosed in a blog. But I could be wrong? Which is why I asked for a clarification of the original post.
Seems like a reasonable request…someone who is on a current campaign payroll should surely disclose the connection if posting about the candidate (or contest) he/she is involved in.
<
p>But, the part about “knows someone personally” is more iffy…many people on this blog most certainly know scores of candidates “personally” of they have been active in MA politics for many years. Many may have at one time or another been on a campaign payroll, given contributions in the past or been a volunteer. Does a bloggers whole history with any given posting topic need be disclosed? or just current status?
<
p>I think there is a difference between someone who is on a current campaign payroll and someone who may have known or been on a candidate’s payroll in a race 15 years ago…but do both need to be disclosed?
As we have often said. In general, don’t write things unless you are comfortable having your name publicized. That’s just a general piece of advice.
<
p>In my experience here at BMG, the internet is less anonymous than virtually any other media source: it is quite easy to find out the real name of people posting.
<
p>With respect to your questions, everyone writing here should assume that whatever relationship they have with a campaign will eventually become public information: if they donated, if they have been to their house, if they work on the staff, whatever.
<
p>The rules of the road are intended to be helpful, a guideline, and a statement of general principles, not comprehensive.
we request but do not require that personal relationships be disclosed. Just use your common sense, people. If you met someone once, or know them to say “hi” to, don’t worry about it. If you are related to a candidate or consider yourself a friend, you might want to disclose that.
<
p>As for financial relationships, I am not talking about giving money to a candidate. I am talking about money from the candidate’s campaign going to you. As in, you are a paid operative. stomv has it about right upthread.
about past vs. present campaign payroll: if you are presently on the payroll, yes, you need to disclose that. If you have been paid by a candidate in the past but are not being paid in a current campaign, I would leave that to your good judgment. Generally, I can’t see why you wouldn’t disclose that, but we won’t require it.
that makes sense.
a candidate or political figure for services rendered, but you yourself did not work on the project?
do you think it’s an issue that Diane Patrick works for a firm that represents casino-related interests?
but since you asked, no I don’t, but I don’t write the rules and was looking for clarification.
Lyndon Larouche, my boss, may not want me to.
<
p>As I said before, no one would probably want my endorsement or support! If by chance some candidate for re-election or nomination, heaven forbid, wanted to pay me I would decline.
<
p>I would be flattered though.
<
p>I will say I am not a great fan of Deval’s because I remain skeptical about his sincerity. Many of his supporters and fans are dedicated and sincere. I just don’t know whether he is worthy!
<
p>Also, I see tremendous inconcistancies between John Kerry’s votes and what he alllegedly stands for. If he actually stands for anything!
<
p>But to answer your question: No, I don’t have any personal or financial relationships with anyone. I always stand ready to consider offers.
<
p>Alas, I don’t imagine anyone could meet my high standards!
<
p>I may support Ed O’Reilly because I suspect he may believe in what he stands for. I think he is running for U.S. senator from Massachusetts and not additioning for a cabinet post!
<
p>
What a surprise!
<
p>Posters are staffers or on campaign payrolls?
<
p>I’m shocked!
<
p>
HERE on BMG we all aspire to the ‘Cos’ Standard.
<
p>Back when Cos was working for John Bonifaz, he altered his signature to say – I work for and support John Bonifaz, so even if he were posting on what Crayola colors should be in the box, the info that he was a Bonifaz campaign worker was omnipresent.
<
p>If ANY of you are astroturfing her, well, good luck. BMG has been good about this. The Three Amigos write that stuff about Deval because the poor lads BELIEVE it…not because they’re on the payroll.