Blogging 4 Bucks

Could it? Would it? Did it? happen here? Editors on this site are fair game to those with an agenda and virtually unlimited funds. How would we know if any of us have been approached to promote an agenda? How do we know it hasn’t happened already?

Some of us are extremely passionate about certain issues.
It could be said that those so passionate wouldn't need to be paid to help promote an agenda.
It wouldn't necessarily have to be an editor.
Many who join the threads have very 'disciplined' ideas of how things should be and who should make them happen.

Is it really a bad thing to pay someone to promote an idea? Does it depend on who is getting paid? Is it in how they promote and the public access they have that makes the difference?
I heard a story about a blogger being paid $3,000/mth to help promote. (Sorry - I tried but can't find it.) Was this wrong if the person simply believed in a certain idea? Letting readers know about the money would be a good idea.

We could all be in trouble soon if new laws pertaining to blogging are passed.

Could this site, and myself, soon be fined for this:

The coming crackdown on blogging

A link to a story I am talking about? Probably not, BUT soon there may be laws that say we cannot link to websites belonging to Politicians themselves and we may not be able to display any type of information put out by any campaign.

A quote from the story linked above:
"Bradley Smith says that the freewheeling days of political blogging and online punditry are over.
In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign's Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate's press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines."

Another quote:
"The real question is: Would a link to a candidate's page be a problem? If someone sets up a home page and links to their favorite politician, is that a contribution? This is a big deal, if someone has already contributed the legal maximum, or if they're at the disclosure threshold and additional expenditures have to be disclosed under federal law.

Certainly a lot of bloggers are very much out front. Do we give bloggers the press exemption? If we don't give bloggers the press exemption, we have the question of, do we extend this to online-only journals like CNET?"

Another quote from the article:
"Then this is a partisan issue?
Yes, it is at this time. But I always point out that partisan splits tend to reflect ideology rather than party. I don't think the Democratic commissioners are sitting around saying that the Internet is working to the advantage of the Republicans.

One of the reasons it's a good time to (fix this) now is you don't know who's benefiting. Both the Democrats and Republicans used the Internet very effectively in the last campaign."

Where is all this going?
Will we have to stop bickering with each other over the issues because we may make a statement that sounds to much like the candidate?
From being paid to blog to being fined for blogging. Will these political websites have to close their doors?

Posted by Dawn at March 5, 2005 8:52 AM