« REPUBLICAN LEADERS TO FILE CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLAINT AGAINST REPRESENTATIVE DENISE DITTRICH #2 | Home | OSTROW STAFFER RESIGNS OVER ANONYMOUS EMAILS »
A NEW PAGE ON MDE
By Michael Brodkorb | August 31, 2006
I've been working on a new page on Minnesota Democrats Exposed labeled "Disclosure". It will be up in the next 24 hours and will list my resume and which campaigns have paid me directly for any services.
Campaign finance reports are public, but I wanted to create a spot on my blog near the top where people could get all the information they would ever need. Hey – I've got nothing to hide.
Minnesota Democrats Exposed is not created, endorsed, sponsored, or authorized by any political party, candidate, or candidate's committee. It's all me and always will be and I am very proud of Minnesota Democrats Exposed.
But since I started using Google Ads again, I've been less than thrilled that campaigns I don't support are advertising on my blog. I don't get much money from the ads, but it still helps pay the bills.
I am not now, nor have I ever been paid to blog. I am under no legal obligation to disclose a professional business relationship with a campaign on my personal blog. But my ethics are not governed by legal interpretations.
Bloggers in Minnesota do a great job of policing other bloggers with undisclosed professional connections to campaigns. But the ultimate responsibility lies with each individual blogger to ensure they operate their blog without an inherent conflict of interest. As I am a Republican operative who exposes Minnesota Democrats, I am continually aware of my responsibility to disclose any conflict that could tarnish the effectiveness of my blog.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 8 Comments »
August 31st, 2006 at 9:55 PM
While I applaud the idea, this won’t really set aside any of the concerns that I have had. As a consultant for Weber Johnson, we all know that you get paid by them and not by the candidates. So, I will assume this page will contain Mark Kennedy as your primary freelance client. But, you have made it abundantly clear that you work closely with John Kline and Norm Coleman, even if they pay you through Weber Johnson.
September 1st, 2006 at 12:57 AM
Michael, this will help answer that nagging question that keeps popping up in the back of my mind as I read your posts: “I wonder if he’s really non-partisan, or if he favors one party over another? I mean, if he doesn’t actually TELL me, how would I ever hope to figure that out? He could, like, take horrible advantage of my sweet naivete’ – it would CRUSH me to find he had a hidden agenda, after assuming all this time that he was just completely neutral.”
Maybe if you renamed the blog, too – you could maybe give it a name that at least gives readers a hint of your leanings. That would only be fair.
September 1st, 2006 at 7:54 AM
Nothing’s ever good enough for Roving Reporter with MDE. Maybe RR should give us the skinny on where his (her) income is derived and how. If there is any integrity available from the DFL spin machine.
No guts, no glory.
September 1st, 2006 at 9:30 AM
I noticed you seem to be supporting fringe Democrats and Criminal Defense attorneys in your advertisement yet, your meat and potato threads (60plus comments) are about you slamming a criminal defense attorney. Irony?
September 1st, 2006 at 9:58 AM
The reason I am skeptical of this is that Michael has removed repeated references to Norm Coleman, all the while denying that he has any financial stake in that office. And yet, his employers seem to proudly list him as a client.
I will give this idea the benefit of the doubt until I see him announce that he only works for Mark Kennedy.
September 1st, 2006 at 10:35 AM
Michael,
I applaud your continued efforts towards increased disclosure. Nothing but good things can come from it.
However, you bring up google ads. I’ve noticed that many of these ads are from DFL candidates like this guy (who has advertised on your site in the last month):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1189507195648227342
My question is: do you exercise any specific control over which ads appear on your site, or does google screen them for you as part of their service?
Also, contrary to what DJZ thinks, if you are taking ads from legitimate parties who want to spend the money, I don’t think it is you who are supporting the “fringe Democrats and Criminal Defense attorneys” who advertise on your site, but it’s the other way around.
September 1st, 2006 at 11:52 AM
When will Roving Reporter give full disclosure on itself including full name?
October 27th, 2006 at 11:51 AM
Randall
Hate not at the first harm…