(Bumped - promoted by Matt Browner Hamlin)
Maura brought this classy piece of work to my attention, to be debated tomorrow at GAE, which will stop any
television advertising, Internet video or Internet audio, or radio advertising communication that promotes the defeat of any candidate's campaign for nomination at a primary (A) if such communication contains an altered or fabricated representation intended to promote the defeat of a candidate for public office, and (B) unless such communication includes a valid citation for each vote, quote or stated position or opinion ascribed to such candidate;
I wonder if editing a minute-long clip of a longer interview would qualify as "altering" the representation. Note also that this particular provision only impacts those making video or audio for non-federal primary elections.
The bill official title is "An Act Concerning Accountability In Campaign Advertising" - but I think its informal title will be the "Jimmy Amman Crushes his Competition Act of 2007."
Oh go on, you know it's worth seeing again. What's better, one of the original sponsors of the act is disgraced Liebercrat Bill Finch.
On a more serious note, it looks like one of the first election laws that really target campaign bloggers, giving legal challengers what I'd imagine is a legal standing to force campaigns to disclose conversations they have with bloggers.
The text of the (proposed) law makes several references to those making web-based appeals for donations or advocating for or against specific candidates in "consultation with" any given campaign, which would seem to require some level of official disclosure from anyone commenting for or against candidates online, or posting a donation link.
It'd certainly regulate how we do things around here, and political bloggers in CT would at the least be wise to consult a lawyer should this proposal become law. There'll probably be a lot more to say as this develops.
UPDATE 2: For those unfamiliar with Senator Finch's pro-Joe/anti-blogger bonafides, see his running fight with ConnecticutBlog, as well as this Dangerstein-like quote from last year's primary season:
While I believe that the internet is an amazing tool, I must admit it has it's drawbacks. Recently, someone contacted my office to make an inquiry into a particular position of mine in one of the upcoming primaries. When my aide responded in a timely fashion, accurately stating my position, he was quoted on a blog as me. While I support the efforts of my aide, I would have appreciated the opportunity to respond to something that was going to be quoted myself.
It is this type of deceptive, irresponsible use of the internet that will prevent bloggers from being taken seriously when it comes to getting information out to the media. My aide knows my positions, and does a good job of relaying them when asked. As a rule, however, if anyone wants an official quote, they should always contact the source of the quote instead of sandbagging a staffer by failing to disclose the true nature of the inquirers question. I will always answer questions in as forthright a manner as the questioner poses it.
This is what Bill Finch calls deception: reproducing a quote from a call to his office.
UPDATE 1: User mas notes in comments that the reference to regulating internet audio/video only in a primary is probably a drafting error that will be fixed if the bill goes forward, and notes this definition that I glossed over for some reason:
"(NEW) (29) "Altered or fabricated representation" means the visual or auditory representation of a candidate that is (A) altered such that the effect is to portray an individual other than such candidate or an image significantly different from that of such candidate, or (B) an individual, other than the candidate, who is posing as the candidate."
This would seemingly make video like the "Speaking for Bush" ad or audio like the "Sick Day / Impacted Wisdom Tooth" ad out of bounds, but from what mas describes, it'd be a stretch to apply this proposal to simple editing. |
MLN is powered by