What can and cannot be done on political campaigns is almost always dictated by campaign finance laws.  The Federal Election Commission (FEC) sets campaign finance laws for all federal elections; whereas, state legislatures make their own statutes for state and local campaigns.  One of the main objectives to campaign finance laws is to regulate campaign contribution amounts and campaign advertising.  Due to new internet technologies, these laws must be expanded on or interpreted to take into account changes in online communications and advertising.

We are all familiar with the requirements that most campaign ads must state who authorized and funded the ad.  This is to protect not just the candidate but disclose to the public who paid for the ad.  Usually the campaign pays for ads (of course those who contribute to the campaign are not disclosed) but occasionally an outside organization will pay for ads that attack a candidate’s opponent…can we all say “Swift Boat.”  These rules seem simple enough (opposed to the rest of campaign finance rules) and are easy to follow in television, print, website, and radio ads.

Do these rules apply to social media?  How about internet ads?  What if a candidate decides to create a Facebook game and post on their Facebook fan page…would the game fall under campaign finance rules as a campaign advertisement?

The social web, for the most part is free.  Setting up Twitter and Facebook accounts are simple and cost the user nothing except time.  Twitter has come up with a process to verify celebrity accounts, which should be used for politicians.  A social web faux pas can easily occur when another person posts comments and content in lieu of the actual user.  Social networking  is another form of communication, which is extremely affordable and is becoming an integral part of  political campaigns.

For the most part, activites on the social web do not offend federal or state campaign finance laws as no funds are being expended on purchase of social networking sites.  However, as mentioned above, some activities require design work like websites, blogsites, Facebook applications, and mobile applications.  Do these fall under campaign finance laws?  I argue yes, because they are being created for the sole purpose of promoting the candidate during a political campaign.

As to internt advertising, pay per click campaigns offer a cheap and easy way to drive internet traffic to a candidate’s websites.  Campaigns only pay for advertising after so many people have clicked on the ad, which is different than paying for an ad and then broadcasting it.  A recent article in the Wall Street Journal discusses this issue in the context of a Florida mayorial election.

The Florida Elections Commission decided that a mayoral candidate’s ads on Google and Facebook  violated the state’s election law because they did not include a disclaimer that indicates who bought them. Many other states, including Texas, Alaska, Connecticut and Ohio, also require similar disclaimers.  The candidate’s campaign argued that the messages in question were not technically ads, but rather links to ads, and that it doesn’t pay for them unless a Web user clicks on them and is taken to a Web site that provides the appropriate disclosures.

My question to the campaign is simply, why not include disclaimer information on the Google ads?  Disclaimer information is not only beneficial to voters but to the campaign.  If I were the candidate’s opponent I could buy up my own Google ads, use the candidate’s face and campaign message in the ad and then once a person clicked on the ad direct them to another website…anything from a porn site to another candidate’s site.  As a voter I wouldn’t know what just happened and would most likely be frustrated with the candidate’s whose face is on the ad…not knowing that someone else might have posted the ad.  Further, even though the ad had technically not been purchased until someone clicked on it, the campaign (or other entity) had to pay to create the ad’s content, this should be disclosed to voters.

The Florida case comes as digital media faces broader challenges in accommodating the same sort of disclosures required in traditional advertising. This spring, the Food and Drug Administration sent letters to major drug companies, telling them their search ads needed to include risk information about their drugs in the text of the ad. Separately, the Federal Trade Commission is reviewing whether bloggers and other Web publishers that receive products from marketers and write about it are doing enough to make those relationships known, under truth-in-advertising guidelines.

Regulators are catching up to the digital world but does it make sense to apply traditional rules to new internet technologies?  Should we be able to “click at our own risk” or take information in blogs with a grain of salt?  How much government hand holding should be happening online?  Disclosure is a powerful regulatory tool; consumers deserve to know all the facts but are we also required to implement common sense when using the internet?

Government transparency in the form of social media is a hotly contested issue.  Some say that blocking employee access to social media sites is great news as taxpayer money is not being wasted on using Twitter on White House time.  Of course this logic is slightly flawed for those of us living in the digital age can access Twitter via our mobile phones.  However, the message being sent by invoking this policy is strong; social media is vital on the campaign trail but dangerous when governing.

Can social networks be harmful to government?  Worse yet do they pose a security risk?

Before delving into those questions, lets take a look at identity manipulations issues on Twitter.  Now when I joined Twitter I used my favorite screen name and linked it to my email and full name.  I am who I  say I am.  This is not always the case on Twitter, especially where celebrities are involved.  Twitter profile fakes for celebrities such as Emma Watson, the Dhali Lama, and Tony LaRussa have gained huge followings.   In an effort to delegitimize these impostors Twitter has created verified account status, which can only be obtained by the celebrity or their agent.

In a more serious case, Michigan-based public relations firm Tanner Friedman was “brandjacked” when it found in March that a Twitter account, under the username @TannerFriedman, had existed for two months without the firm’s knowledge. It filed a lawsuit against the account owner, and, in June, the judge ordered Twitter to reveal the account owner’s IP address. The address was traced back to rival PR firm Marx Layne. Tanner Friedman eventually regained control of the account.

The above demonstrates how easy it is to create false accounts, aliases, and infiltrate competitors through Twitter.  The Federal Court in Michigan forced Twitter to produce confidential user information to determine who was falsely using the competitor’s name on Twitter, which sets a precedence for whistle-blower Twitter users. Should a court be able to force Twitter to produce this type of information?  In extreme cases like the protests in Iran, what would have happened to all of those people protesting against their government if Twitter would have been forced to give up their account information?  On the other hand, Tanner Friedman’s brand and good name were being fraudulently used on the social web, surely the person behind those false statements should be enjoined to stop their activities.

Given this information, is Twitter, Facebook and other social networks bad for government…do they pose national security risks?  Clearly if used wrong, these sites can cause an internal raukus; however, I’m not sure they will be the cause for leaking state secrets.

Social media is another mode of communication just like email, the telephone, and text messaging.  Social networks allow users to communicate quickly and attach media to their posts.  Social media can be used for good and act as a government watchdog.  Anyone who has worked for a government entity knows that their office has complete monitoring control over their PC, so posting false, dangerous, or inappropriate information onto your social network at work is NOT a good idea (no matter where you work, but especially if you happen to be at 1600 Pennsylvania).

Further, instead of banning social media sites the White House should invoke stricter usage policies  requiring employees to disclose their social network user names and agree to allow their employer access to their IP address and other registration information from social networks.

Employees can of course simply use their mobile devices to tweet and communicate from work but the message being sent from the White House by banning this technology is paranoid and restrictive.  Smart work place policies for government entities will keep employees from abusing social media tools and send a message of openness and transparency.

What are your thoughts?  What are your work place policies in regards to social media networking?

Facebook has hired an ex-Liberal Democrat MP to lobby the European Union on the company’s behalf.

Facebook also announced a similar role in Washington for Timothy Sparapani, a former lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.

“This sets off alarms with cultures concerned about privacy, as well as governmental agencies and task forces,” he added. “Expect privacy, and ownership over user data to be one of the top debated topics in the next few coming years.”

via Facebook hires EU lobbyist | IT PRO.