If online political activism is a form of lobbying? If so, Washington state regulators might force some bloggers to disclose their finances. AP writes:
In a collision of 21st century media and 1970s political reforms, the inquiry hints at a showdown over press freedoms for bloggers, whose self-published journals can shift between news reporting, opinion writing, political organizing and campaign fundraising.
State officials are downplaying any possible media rights conflict, pointing out that regulators have already exempted journalistic blogging from previous guidelines for online campaign activity.
Off the top of my head, here are a few reasons for and against such disclosures:
Against: Bloggers, like unregulated pundits and journalists, offer opinions about everything.
For: Dare I say: Pundits (like Henry Siegman, who got money from, Saudi Arabia, Yasser Arafat's friends, etc.) and journalists (like Lauren Booth, now on Iran's payroll) may deserve scrutiny too.
Against: Kosher activist groups with tax-exempt status already disclose their funding to the IRS or the relevant government authorities in other countries. And the majority of legitimate bloggers only post as a hobby, or for professional reasons unrelated to advocacy.
For: Some blogs really are extensions of various organizations, or loosely affiliated with them.
For: What's wrong with holding bloggers to the same scrutiny they hold others?
Against: Regulation will inevitably lead to the unpleasant awareness that other forms of media, such as books and movies, are sometimes supported by funny money too.
