RK ARCHIVE - Webb campaign looked into bloggers?

The question I have regarding accusations that the Webb campaign looked into bloggers (including bloggers on RK) is whom the campaign looked into, why they did it, and what information they gathered. And since I am a bit nosey what did they learn ;-) Just kidding.
I am not naive enough to believe that this doesn't occur in campaigns - that said it does feel "big brotherish".

I don't want to beat a dead horse - considering that I am late on the topic - but what's up with this?

I should point out that I have not seen any actual proof of this. Not Larry Sabato says it is the case - no offense but at this point I feel uneasy even posting this given the lack of evidence.

Also, (if this really occured) I suspect that some people actually feel good that the Webb campaign considered them enough to check ;-)

In the future - I think they could simply ask. If I were supporting a candidate and was asked for permission to do a background check, I would probably agree to it. I would prefer them coming direct as opposed to secretly.

Comments

This is a non story, not a false story (Terry85 - 12/20/2006 1:37:54 AM)

"I should point out that I have not seen any actual proof of this. Not Larry Sabato says it is the case - no offense but at this point I feel uneasy even posting this given the lack of evidence."

No, there's proof, it is indeed true. However, you'll notice that neither Shaun Kenney NOR NLS followed up on this "non story" because this type of thing has become common campaign practice. Think about it, how ridiculous would a political campaign look if a blogger is putting out damaging information against it, and they know NOTHING about said blogger....?

It depends . . . (JPTERP - 12/20/2006 9:09:25 AM)

if the search is relevant.

For example, if someone writes a letter to the editor for a local newspaper, I might be tempted to see if he or she has given money to a candidate.

If someone says "I was going to vote for candidate X, but I won't now that I know [blank]", and it turns out that the random voter has been giving thousands of dollars to candidate Y since 2000--I think that is a relevant detail.

As it pertains to bloggers--if someone is working WITH the campaign I would want to know about any criminal details or other publicly available information.

Otherwise, I think it's mostly a waste of time and resources.

I think this all depends on what information was gathered (relawson - 12/20/2006 8:51:42 PM)

Public information should be fair game. I don't think you need my permission to go on the open secrets website and see who I have donated money to, for example.

Criminal background checks - not sure on that one. I guess if the information is publicly available and you aren't required by law to get my permission to look at my records, that is fine. People who commit crimes should think about that factor before doing the crime - some things will follow them for life.

Personal financial information, such as bank statements and phone records - in my view are not fair game. Pretexting in most states is a felony. A credit check is also not appropriate without my permission.

So in conclusion - and I think we can put this issue to rest if the Webb campaign didn't violate any laws - my line in the sand is public information vs private information.

Information available to the general public - fair game. Pretexting - sounds like something a Republican would do (or the Board of Directors of HP).

I don't know the details so I can't make a judgement on what the Webb campaign did.