Professional bloggers and ethics

Should a person paid by a political campaign identify themselves as representing a campaign when they post on a blog?
I see people with low post numbers popping into DU with pro-candidate agendas. I don't want censorship,
but since candidates have to say "I approve this message" in television/radio ads, I wonder if this will eventually happen on the internet.

And they should have to do it here as well. I suspect there are some here.

I would call them "reverse trolls" :)

Hillary is going to put her money where her mouth is ... unfortunately, she's going to put her money where everyone else's mouth is as well ... instead of a campaign of ideas, we're going to be stuck competing with big money and whatever influence big money always can buy ... Hillary is a product being sold. and we are citizens being sold out.

anyone who stabs public campaign funding in the back is a traitor to democracy ...

http://cartoonbox.slate.com/hottopic/?image=2&topicid=131

to post here and other places. How do you feel about disclosure by bloggers as a general rule for all candidates?

I'm not sure how it could be implemented. What are your ideas?

I will disclose right now that I wish the General was paying me, but it's the other way around. :)

A couple ideas:

-Candidates could agree that if they employ bloggers to promote their agenda, they will ask them to identity themselves as "paid" (self-policing, if you will)
-The bloggers themselves could include a link to their own webpage stating their agenda

It's complicated. I don't have an answer, but I wanted to discuss it with people who are passionate about politics like I am! :hi:

first, how i really feel can be found here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3098394

as for disclosure, while i like the concept, i'm not sure it can be enforced in any kind of reasonable way. the problem is NOT just paid bloggers but supporters in general. money just increases the volume of posts.

I don't know to what extent the admins will allow a discussion of my views on this issue. if this post becomes "inappropriate", the mods should feel free to delete it. i think it's an important topic and frankly can see no reason it can't be openly discussed.

my view is that candidate advertising is, and will, turn DU into a giant billboard that blights the scenery along our highways. DU has been and should be so much more. we all know things are going to get much, much, much worse.

DU has offered candidate supporters their own little protectorates where they can find safe haven. i totally support that idea. but what safe haven is provided to the greater DU community from their constant cheerleading???

is that the mission of DU? is all we are a free billboard?

and i'll go further. if our eventual nominee buys the nomination, the DU rule about not criticizing the party's nominee raises some serious questions. many of us see our democracy being poisoned by big money. yes, of course we see that Democrats bring better policies than republicans. but without real democracy, all progress is ultimately illusory. we are poisoning our air and water to protect big corporations. we go to war to harvest oil and other resources for private commercial gain. we pass drug laws that benefit big pharma.

and then we are expected to remain silent as both Democrats and republicans play "political roulette" with our democracy as they eagerly hold out their hands to these same corporations? there are many true patriots in the Democratic party but, as we've already seen with a number of candidates, it's all about money.

so, anyway, for starters, rather than implement your disclosure idea (which i do NOT object to), i would rather see all NON ISSUE-RELATED candidate posts "quarantined" so that the rest of us can go about the business of focussing on things that matter.

You make alot of sense to me. I agree completely.

As witnessed throughout the recent house brouhaha. For some, the house didn't matter, it was all about attacking by opponent camps; for others, the house did matter, it raised extremely serious issues. You and I were both in what I thought was the most important thread of the whole bunch, but it quickly bit the dust, presumably because the issues raised weren't as important to the DU population overall or they weren't viewed as issues at all, but simply through the lens of candidates, as you rightly object to. But the other difficulty (I agree with you on the pure isn't our guy the greatest threads - they are too boring) is where to draw the line. A candidate's positions on issues presented in an article or transcript naturally brings in an OP by supporters; but some might see that as cheer leading, too, and object, if we begin with segregating candidate posts. I think one of the most important things we have to do as voting citizens is to vet our candidates, even if I also feel it's becoming sadly evermore meaningless, given the way the elections system is stacked against popular participation.

That's the problem. Here we have campaigning a year and a half ahead of an election. I doubt many candidates will be able to realistically accept public funding. Somehow we have to get this reform rolling very soon after an election, as it might have started say January 2005, not three years later when everybody gets to say they can't possibly run on public funding. It's stomach-turning, really it is.

what a colorful and appropriate phrase ...

i would say that it is never too late. this is exactly the problem i see with many, not all, candidate supporters ... they've got the whole thing back asswards ...

instead of the parade of Hillary suckups, to choose just one example, whining about those who criticize Hillary for trying to buy the next election, why don't they agree that all this money is poison to democracy.

but, nooooooooo, once the campaign starts, it's DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND ... admit nothing ... throw away your beliefs ... rally round the candidate ... let no criticism go unchallenged even if you would, in other times, have agreed with it ...

the hypocrisy boggles the mind ... you might say, it's, wellllllll, stomach-turning ...

and again, the point is NOT that people shouldn't support candidates; that's fine ... but we all, whether we support them or not, should lean hard on them to be more progressive and to fight for real democracy and the values we hold dear ... the rest is just bullshit cheerleading ...

Also colorful. And appropriate, because we, whether we are hypocritical candidate-supporters or not, always hold this off to the last minute instead of preparing for the future.

i am very cognizant and appreciative of the "issues focus" of almost all Clark supporters.

i apparently have some very deep and fundamental differences with Clark on the issues but his supporters almost always engage on what matters and not on trite candidate hyping or on personal assaults ...

so, there's my official kudos to DU's Clarkies ... truly, i hope he decides to run. it would be tragic to move forward without his voice in the main arena.

Hopefully you are not viewing the strong support of Obama as the work of a few bloggers. I am just an average US citizen that is very much in support of a particular candidate. I will rally around the eventual Dem nominee.

It would be difficult to sort out people like you, and those who are paid.

Just because I know who I am voting for already? Who is your candidate?

I hope I didn't offend you. By "people like you" I only meant that you are not a paid operative for a campaign, as you indicated in your post! This is what I am mulling over in this thread.

btw, I admire Mr. Obama, and I assume this is your candidate from your name. I am evaluating him and all other candidates closely before I decide who to vote for in the primary. In the general election, I will vote Democratic.