Online campaign ads questioned

If Scott Wagman's online campaign ads were wrong, there may be no way for him to make them right.

Wagman, one of 10 candidates for mayor of St. Petersburg, was promoting his candidacy until recently by advertising on Google and Facebook. He stopped after the Florida Elections Commission notified him last month of a citizen complaint that his ads violated state law.

The problem: The ads didn't indicate who paid for them.

State election law requires such a disclaimer on all campaign print ads. It's not so clear, however, about the kind of online "click" ads that Wagman was running, which tend to be so short there's no space for a disclaimer.

The case already is attracting widespread attention - a story about it appeared in Monday's Wall Street Journal - as other states facing similar questions could follow Florida's lead. Some in the advertising community are sounding the alarm, fearing that precedent set in the case could limit political advertising across a variety of Web sites.

"We think this is a huge infringement on First Amendment rights, freedom of speech," Wagman said. "The Internet is where most people now get their voter information regarding candidate backgrounds, issues and history, so by eliminating that kind of a link, you're taking away a huge opportunity for voters to be educated."

There's a simple reason for not including the disclaimer, says the Wagman camp.

"Google AdWords are limited to 68 characters; a disclaimer is at least 98 characters," said Mitch Kates, Wagman's campaign manager. "By law, you have to write a political disclaimer in a specific way."

Wagman and Kates argue that the ads are not really ads at all, but glorified links, which lead the user to a Web page containing the full disclosure statement.

The complaint about the ads, or links, comes from Peter Schorsch, fired campaign manager for mayoral candidate Jamie Bennett. In 2006, Schorsch was fined more than $66,000 for election law violations relating to his involvement with a political committee called Take Back Tampa Bay.

The elections commission has not yet investigated Schorsch's complaint against Wagman or issued any kind of ruling, but Wagman says the very threat of an investigation is suppressing his free speech.

Wagman has the option of settling the issue by paying a $250 fee this month and not contesting the complaint. Or he can defend the ads and let the commission's investigation proceed.

He hopes the state might treat this form of online advertising the same way it treats T-shirts and bumper stickers, which are exempted from the disclosure rule. It's a risky bet, however, since Wagman could face thousands of dollars in fines if he loses, on top of legal costs.

Voters also need to understand clearly who is paying for campaign advertising, said Florida State University professor Steve MacNamara, who teaches political communications.

"I would think that any sort of Web advertising would be treated like any sort of print advertising," MacNamara said. "I think the candidates ought to err in favor of the spirit of the law."

The case illustrates the challenge for state lawmakers and agencies to keep up with rapidly developing technology.

"When the law was created with respect to requiring disclaimers, it had no conception of Google Adwords or Facebook links," said Mark Herron, a Tallahassee-based lawyer and expert on election and ethics issues."

"Maybe the Legislature needs to maybe tweak the statute a little bit," he said.