Bloggers, email lobbyists catching eye of regulators

Don't expect bloggers to go quietly into the night on this fight. If there is a fight.

The state Public Disclosure Commission held an around-the-table discussion with “stakeholders” yesterday about the thorny question of when to require lobbyist-activity reporting by groups that mainly sent out emails or do advocacy on blogs or on web sites.

Is there a cost? Is anyone paid to do the chores? What about web site services and what about the possibility some large moneyed interests could hire someone on the sly to engage in what appears to be low-cost lobbying through mass emails?

There were plenty of questions.

It was far from clear after a nearly two-hour discussion — much of which I listened to — what recommendations the commission’s staffers will send to the five-member citizen commission at its Dec. 4 meeting.

PDC lawyer Nancy Krier and agency executive director Vicki Rippie spoke of existing requirements that lobbying be reported if it exceeds $500 in costs in a month or $1,000 in a three-month period.

A number of people raised interesting points from a lot of perspectives. They included blogger David Goldstein of horsesass.org, Michael Reitz of conservative Evergreen Freedom Foundation, Jim Oswald of Service Employees International Union’s state council, media consultant Jay Arnold, Associated General Contractors’ lobbyist Van Collins and contract lobbyists Steve Gano and Nancee Wildermuth.

Gano gave a hypothetical example of a large group that might engage in nearly invisible lobbying by avoiding any physical contacts at the Capitol but would hire someone to do low-cost email campaigning that would not be reported. He questioned whether that might need to be disclosed, so people could know the lobbying was being carried out.

He also wondered why the names of “members” of such a group could not be disclosed as well as the money spent.

Gano said he’s heard from many people in the last legislative session who were noticing a lot of emails from the left-leaning advocacy group Fuse. Fuse has a political action committee, Fuse Votes, but is not registered as a lobbying firm.

Goldstein, who openly championed Democrats in the recent elections cycle, cautioned any move to encroach on bloggers who, he argued, are blurring the lines between advocacy and journalism. He warned that any meddling with Internet activity could “open a Pandora’s box.’’ And he questioned why he would not qualify for a media exemption given to mainstream press outlets, whose editorial pages and columnists take positions.

Goldstein said any “tips” or donations made to his site from supportive readers were done as a general nod to his overall effort — and should not be construed as a payment for any one thing he might have written.

The PDC waded into a similar issue a year ago about campaigning via the Internet, but backed away from writing regulations. Its five members did offer a few guidelines, but it took a hands-off approach to partisan bloggers like Goldstein who might champion a candidate but are not paid for that.

The PDC did decide that paid Internet ads had to be reported as campaign expenditures, or contributions in cases when a web host waives its normal ad fees.

Doug Ellis, assistant director of the PDC, said a 1970s-era court ruling on the PDC’s jurisdiction could be the guiding light for how and whom to regulate.

“The court basically said if they are getting paid if there is compensation involved, then the state has the ability to regulate. Looking at that, we’ve always been ‘follow the money,’ ‘who’s paying for what?’ ” Ellis said after the late morning discussion.

He said he expects PDC commissioners weighing in on the subject on Dec. 4 would “stick to the money piece.’’