News - Local News

POSTED: Saturday, Nov. 15, 2008

Is a partisan blogger a lobbyist?

Regulators study whether to treat Internet campaign tools as expenses

The state Public Disclosure Commission is taking a go-slow approach to regulating the use of low-cost Internet tools in campaigns and lobbying.

Political operatives are making more and more use of e-mail, social networking sites, Web sites and the like, but the commission didn’t broach the topic until a month ago. Last week, PDC staffers followed up with an informal roundtable discussion with lobbyists, a prominent blogger and others who try to influence public policy.

At issue is how online communications – which can range from a Web site with information to a blizzard of e-mails sent to a legislator from members of an interest group – should be reported as a lobbying expense, if at all.

Also in the shadows of the debate: whether highly partisan bloggers who advocate for a candidate or an issue should ever be considered lobbyists, and whether their expenses are lobbyist expenses.

Blogger David Goldstein, who writes from a partisan Democratic view at horsesass.org, urged the commission to keep its hands off the Internet.

Michael Reitz of the conservative Evergreen Freedom Foundation was just as concerned about interfering with the free speech of outspoken people in what he calls “the new town square” of the Internet.

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 took a hands-off approach to partisan bloggers such as Goldstein who might champion a candidate but aren’t paid for doing so – except, perhaps, for donations from readers or “tips” sent as thanks.

Lobbyists who already report their expenses have noticed an increase in the use of e-mail or Web sites by groups that don’t register with the state.

Steve Gano, a contract lobbyist with high-profile clients that have included Wal-Mart, said he heard from many people in the most recent legislative session who noticed a lot of e-mails from the left-leaning advocacy group Fuse, which has a political action committee but isn’t registered as a lobbying firm.

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.

Toby Nixon, leader of the Washington Coalition for Open Government, said his group likely wouldn’t oppose any disclosure of its activities, but it operates on a low budget of $50,000 a year and would need help figuring out how to allocate its costs for lobbying separately from the general public education it does.

The PDC a year ago drew a clear line at paid advertising, saying that paid activities such as online ads would be reportable. The agency could well move in that direction again – putting its focus on the disclosure of spent money, which reflects its mission since voters created it by initiative in 1972.

The PDC plans a hearing Dec. 4 to consider the online lobbying issues. 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 in an interview.

He said he expects that PDC commissioners weighing in on the subject next month will “stick to the money piece.”

Goldstein cautioned against any move to encroach on bloggers who, he argued, are blurring the lines between advocacy and journalism. He questioned why his activities should be treated any differently, for instance, than those of a Seattle newspaper that runs pieces advocating the repeal of an estate tax, which its owner and friends happen to favor.