if one is not paid, then it is up to one's disgression.  But the second you are being paid for writing about a candidate or a campaign, anytime you write anything about the source of your income or the issues of that race or the opponent, I think readers are entitled to know the relationship.

Now, if I am being paid by candidate X, and I write about a different race, or a policy not part of that race or a movie or a book, then the disclosure is not necessary - there is no possible perceived conflict or bias.

But that's me.

Oh, and no one has ever paid me for my blogging, except that I sometimes get books for free because people hope I will write about the books.

a disclaimer in every single comment or diary?  For instance, Eric and I are paid by Jon Bowerbank and have disclosed this numerous times.  Do you believe we should have a standard disclaimer in every post we write that touches on the 2009 LG race?  In 2006, I had a disclaimer on every post that I was a paid official of the Webb campaign (starting in July 2006), although i'm not sure that really helped matters any...

1) on this site, in stories, it is not necessary to print a disclaimer on every story.  It might be appropriate to do so periodically.

2) diaries on other sites which you do not control, for example Daily Kos - I would think a disclosure is required on every diary

3) comments are a different story - it depends where, and in response to what.  Clearly a comment in a thread on a diary where you have already disclosed is redundant.  A comment which corrects a factual misstatement or asks a non-threatening question in a diary by someone else might not require it.  But engaging in a colloquy with someone opposing your candidate or supporting an opponent, the first such comment in the thread probably requires the disclosure.

Let's presume that I were paid by Perriello - I am not.  Were someone to post a diary praising Goode and made a factual misstatement, it would be appropriate for me to link to a site that corrects that misstatement without having disclose my paid affiliation.  Were I to engage in discourse about the nature or meaning of Goode's actions or words, I would think disclosure would be required on the first such comment.

I tend to be in favor of disclosure if there is any doubt about why I might be posting.

If this site endorses a candidate, then I do not think it is required to continue to disclose even though you might be paid staff.  Let's take Bowerbank - Eric and you do not represent a majority of the board.  If the board as a whole decides to endorse, in that endorsement it would be appropriate to note the fact that several board members were paid by the campaign, but that a majority of the rest of the board came to the conclusion - that is, that in such a case the endorsement was not purchased.   Does that make any sense?  If we had a list of RK endorsed candidates on the front page, perhaps hotlinked to the story in which the endorsement was announced, I would think that would cover those situations.

I think you have done a good job of disclosing your paid relationahips.  My remarks were not directed at you, but were rather of a general nature.

By the way, one reason I have turned down paid jobs in politics is to have my freedom of expression:  once I am paid I know that anything I say, even on unrelated topics, can be used by opponents of my candidate to attack her or him.  That's me.  

Peace.

I very much appreciate your thoughts on this issue.

"no one has ever paid me for my blogging," are you saying that you think this is preferable, or just stating it as a matter of fact, or what?  Would you have a problem being paid to provide netroots consulting or whatever for a candidate, as long as you fully disclosed what you were doing?

and I have periodically disclosed my voluntary affiliation when I have posted - for example on Webb's race.  Usually rather than a disclaimer I would make that clear within the context of the diary - that is, talking about my own volunteer efforts.

these are the guys (and I do mean guys) whose nominee for President can't even use a computer.  They're not against blogging, or paid blogging, they just want to own the discussion.  Look at the conservative trolls who pop up on this and other sites.  It offends them deeply that people disagree with their views, to the point that they engage in illogical threats and even cyber-stalking.  See, for example, this little exchange:   "That's what I thought. You made a mistake and I will find out who you are. I don't care if you are male or female."  Along with a sick fascination over people's identity, location, and children (ahem, Kirwin).

The response to all of this is that this is America.  Ironically, those who claim to be the most patriotic, and wrap themselves in OUR flag, often show a profound ignorance of what makes our country the special place that it is, starting with the First Amendment.

My feeling is, the truth always wins.  Sometimes it takes awhile, but it will happen.  The internet and blogs have brought about a great leveling of the playing field, so that ordinary citizens of all beliefs can communicate on a mass scale without the financial and social barriers that previously existed.  Whether you disclose, or don't disclose, whether you are paid, or not paid, anyone can respond to the substance of what you are saying and agree with or refute it.  The process may be messy, disturbing, and sometimes infuriating to those who previously controlled the message, but eventually the best argument, the true facts, will win out.

I just hope you're right about the facts winning out, but idiotic/brain dead editorials like the one in the Roanoke Times the other day make me wonder...

...I can ever remember that Lowell and I actually agree on something.

While it's true I was a consultant on the Jeff Evans campaign, I fully disclosed that even before the job was taken, and essentially suspended the "I'm Not Emeril" blog during the campaign.

I was not, however, paid for what I wrote.

I do not agree with Lowell that it is conservatives who are making the most noise on this issue. Dan Rademacher ain't no conservative. He made quite a bit of noise just a short time ago.

only conservatives.  We are getting the more of the flack from conservatives, but I can certainly think of a few true blue dems who have complained in a similar manner.

I'm curious - you say that you suspended your blog while being paid.  Do you feel that should be the standard or is disclosure is sufficient?  

There are also a fair number of bloggers who work on issue campaigns.

For me, the big thing is simply disclosure. If you work on a particular issue or for a candidate and you write about them, they just make sure people know that. If that step is taken, I don't see anything wrong with bloggers making money.

Do you have any examples of that among Virginia bloggers, just out of curiosity?  

...Elaine from VB Dems works for the Sierra Club (which focuses on environmental issues) and I work for Working Families Win (which focuses on economic justice issues).

In my case, my blogging is something that I do on my own free time and is independent from my work. Especially since many people do know me through my blogging, this independence when it comes to blogging is something that I stress to people I speak with about issues.

Lowell, I appreciate this discussion and your treatment of the issue.  Still, I think the issues are both more complicated and subtler than you might think.

Disclosure is extremely important and I think RK has been good about that.

A trickier question is that of balance.  Obviously, while RK and other good blogs try to be journalistic in the sense of getting the facts right, blogs are quite openly biased, basically what they used to call "yellow journalism" (something very common in earlier stages of American history).

No one expects RK to be balanced between Dems and Repubs.  But the real question is, when 2 Dems are opposing each other in a primary, and one is paying you, can you be appropriately balanced between them?  So, for example, now that Jon Bowerbank has a primary opponent, Jody Wagner, will she get her due on RK?  

I don't question the motives of anyone on RK, but when it comes to ethics issues, appearance matters almost as much as the reality of the situation.  Every journalist, politician, etc. vehemently and often sincerely (in their eyes) maintains that they are not influenced by any money or favors they may receive from whomever.  But it often looks different from another's perspective.

Bottom line: I'm glad you're keeping these issues out in the open, and the most important thing is that RK continues to do so.

Adam Sharp (VAYD 6th CD Blog, VAYD.org, Daily Whackjob, Raising Kaine): Bruce Elder, Karen Schultz, Bruce Roemmelt, Drew Richardson

I have always supported overt and continual disclosure. If candidates have to stay "on message" because voters may not have heard the 19,758 previous times the candidate said s/he was for "X" and against "Y", a blogger should assume visitors have never seen previous disclosures.

I think the spirit of Virginia's campaign finance laws should apply to blogging: When in doubt, disclose. Teacherken's advice is excellent.

but I'll be happy to add you to the list anyway! :)  Thanks.