|
What's
all this blogflogging about?
You
know what I'm talking about ... those darn political
blogs! The
Washington Post has
described the trendy Web logs as a
"soul-baring, anything-goes, free-for-all
phenomenon" on the Internet.
Blogging
is free expression on the electronic-digital
network, but some individuals have lost their jobs
and been sued for while expressing their
blogflogging constitutional rights. In the end, it's
all about politics and the attorneys.
A
short time ago, Elizabeth, whom I would describe as
a conservative Virginia 'Pub, contacted me about
researching Democratic blogs. She she was hoping I
could refer her to a few Blue Dog political blogs
that discuss national issues. She's what you might
call a blogophile -- an individual who is virtually
obsessed with Web logs.
What's
a blogophile, you say?
The
Blue Dog searched for days with no luck for
Elizabeth the 'Pub, but I did discover many
varieties of political dog bloggers along the way.
Most have volunteered to play in the Blue Dog's
pound with occasional interviews (see next Monday's
column).
Last
month, a Libertarian acquaintance also contacted me
about blogflogging on a
Democratic-Libertarian website.
Hmm
... the Blue Dog knows a few Republitarians
(Republican-Libertarian) in the Shenandoah Valley
and in other regions of the state, but has never
come across a single Demotarian
(Democratic-Libertarian) website.
Thomas,
the expatriate Libertarian morphed into a Demotarian,
wrote, "I'm writing to you because your name
came to mind in relation to a political odyssey of
my own. You're a Blue Dog Democrat who took a good
look at libertarianism in print during the campaigns
last year and had nice things to say about it and
its advocates.
"I'm
a long-time Libertarian Party activist who took a
good look at the Democratic Party after the November
election ... and decided to come back to it."
At
the present time, things are hopping in Virginia
politics with the 2005 state elections. The
statewide races are going to be more fun than a
barrel full of donkeys and elephants and rhinos.
As
a consequence, the Blue Dog told him, "I'll
look at this ... in a few weeks, maybe months, err
... perhaps, next year?" Because I have a full
dog dish in the Commonwealth to deal with.
The
down and dirty side of blogging
Political
discussions are great on blogs, but what about
outright blogging for a political candidate's
campaign?
Paid
campaign consultants are excessively blogging. But
probably should have said ... Virginia Democrats are
excessively blogging for their statewide
candidates.
Don't
read me wrong, I'm all for Democratic free speech. What
I'm saying is, several General Assembly and
statewide candidates are using blogging as a
campaign tool. According to a GOP blog posting, the
Democratic Party of Virginia held classes on setting
up Democratic campaign blogs.
Legal
Question: Why are these political blogs not
considered an in-kind contribution, or third-party
contribution? The Blue Dog questioned an attorney wannabe and GOP
legislative assistant.
He
promptly wrote back, "You make some really good
points. I need to check the (state) code and
cogitate on it.
"Personally,
I hope it's not illegal. I think most
campaign-finance regulation cuts too far into First
Amendment freedom. I'm all for disclosure,
disclosure, disclosure."
I
love disclosure, too ... but the law is the law, Mr.
Attorney Wannabe.
I
believe political blogflogging is like third-party
push polling. Both parties push poll along with
special- interest organizations, but at least they
report the polls donations.
It's
more than apparent that Internet blogflogging has
replaced telephone push polling. On the 'Net,
the Blue Dog calls that practice political
dogfooding, or the spreading rumors and
falsehoods about opponents for political gain. In
other words, it's packaged, produced and marketed by
those campaigns in order to distort their opponents'
positions and sell their candidate as the political
alternative.
Most
are going to say, "Lighten up, Mr. Blue Dog.
It's call political satire ... and more so,
freedom of the press, such as the Blue Dog's often
dimwitted political column."
But,
but, but ... hold it one second!
If
Democrats and Republicans are connected with a
candidate and the campaign, shouldn't the blog pages
have the State Board of Elections disclaimer for the
candidate?
The
Virginia State Board of Elections told the Blue Dog,
"All Web sites are included in the definitions
of the 'Stand By Your Ad' state laws, section
24.2-941 to 24.2-944.
"If
it looks like an advertisement, then it probably is
an advertisement," said the SBOE. "At
the least, there should be a disclaimer versus a
campaign acknowledgement."
According
to the SBOE, under the heading 'Definitions':
-
Advertisement: Any message appearing in the
print media, on television or on radio that
constitutes a contribution or expenditure under
Chapter 9 (24.2-900) of this title.
"Advertisement does not include novelty items
authorized by a candidate including, but not limited
to, pens, pencils, magnet and buttons to be attached
to wearing apparel."
-
Conspicuous: So written, displayed or present
that a reasonable person ought to have noticed it.
-
Print Media: Billboards, cards, newspapers,
newspaper inserts, magazines, mass mailings,
pamphlets, fliers, bumper stickers, periodicals, Web
sites, electronic mail and outdoor advertising
facilities. A "mass mailing" is a mailing
with more than 500 pieces.
The
Stand By Your Ad law mandates, "In a
print-media advertisement, the disclosure statement
must be written, displayed or presented in a
conspicuous place so that any reasonable person
should notice it."
For
more information, go to the SBOE
website.
The
SBOE advised the Blue Dog to notify the county-city
Commonwealth's attorney concerning a specific blog
(that was locally produced) and then log a complaint
to start an investigation of an election-disclosure
violation.
It's
ironic that our local Valley Democrats have
complained about push polling, but are blogflogging
GOP members like Del. Chris Saxman, Del. Steve
Landes and 26th District candidate Matt Lohr on a
daily basis.
British
essayist Logan Pearsall Smith once wrote, "Most
people sell their souls, and live with a good
conscience on the proceeds." Isn't that the
Democratic Party of Virginia's slogan of the day?
Some
of the local Republican General Assembly members
might want to address the issue of blogs and SBOE
guidelines for the next session as well - before
things get to out of hand.
It's
not so much the occasional hot link that directs you
to the campaign Internet page, but the sidebar
advertisements for the candidates and campaigns that
need the red-flag disclaimer.
Such
advertisement-like postings are nothing more than
direct links to Web sites for Tim Kaine or Jerry
Kilgore for governor along with other statewide
candidates.
And
I personally believe that posting a campaign
advertisement should be considered an in-kind
donation to the statewide candidate, considering the
new technology and Internet advancements.
And
if we're blogging anonymously for a candidate,
that's a problem in Virginia.
A
big problem.
Junius,
the first anonymous political blogger?
"The
ruin or prosperity of a state depends so much upon
the administration of its government, that to be
acquainted with the merit of a ministry, we need
only observe the conditions of the people." Letters
of Junius, Jan. 21, 1769
Have
you ever read any of Letters of Junius?
An
environmental advocate I met back this fall sent me
a few letters by Junius after commenting that my
political writing style resembled the 18th-century
pundit and especially because of the way I poke fun
of Gov. Mollycoddle (a.k.a. Mark Warner) and his
youthful, energetic and misguided administration on
the Richmond Third Floor.
The
Letters to Junius are a wonderful historical
sidebar from the 18th century in Britain.
According
to www.factopia.com,
"The author, Junius, attacked several leading
members of the ministry, denouncing them for
inefficiency. He showed that he was intimately
acquainted with their private lives and with the
proceedings of Parliament. He had the gossip of
court at his fingers' ends and lashed his enemies
into a perfect fury of resentment."
Wow!
I'm guessing the Blue Dog is a reincarnation of the
famed pundit. (OK,
OK, OK ... so I'm pushing my claim to fame, but you
never know.)
Who
wrote those letters of Junius? The
most likely author of the letters (1768-73) is
thought to be an English aristocrat and government
bureaucrat, Sir Philip Francis. But the Junius
author is still subject to debate amongst literary
and historical scholars.
Was
Junius the first anonymous blogger? Sort of ...
The
Cambridge History of English and American Literature
describes
Junius "as the pseudonym of a writer who
contributed a series of letters to The London
Public Advertiser, from the 21st of January 1769
to the 21st of January 1772."
"The
name was chosen in all probability because he had
already signed Lucius and Brutus, and wished to
exhaust the name of Lucius Junius Brutus, the Roman
patriot. Whoever the writer was, he wrote under
other pseudonyms before, during and after the period
between January 1769 and January 1772.
"He
had written variety of subjects, some of a purely
personal character, as for instance the alleged
injustice of Viscount Barrington the secretary at
war to the officials of his department. But the
letters of Junius had a definite object to discredit
the ministry of the duke of Grafton."
Junius
wrote, "Without much political sagacity, or any
extraordinary depth of observations, we need only
mark how the principal departments of the state are
bestowed, and look no farther for the true cause of
every mischief that befalls us.
"The
finances of a nation, sinking under its debts and
expenses, are committed to a young nobleman already
ruined by play."
Is
this Blue Dog Déjà vu time, or what?
Because
the Blue Dog believes Junius might have been writing
about Gov. Mollycoddle.
It
sounds like another episode for the Commonwealth's
"Twilight Zone" political show.
--
March 28, 2005
|
