Slashdot Mirror
Judge: School's Facebook Post is a Campaign Contribution (coloradoan.com)
schwit1 writes: A Colorado judge has ruled that a Facebook post by Liberty Common School amounts to an illegal campaign contribution to a Thompson School District board candidate. In August, the Fort Collins charter school shared with its Facebook followers a newspaper article about a parent of a student running for a board seat in the neighboring school district. Liberty Common's principal, former Colorado Congressman Bob Schaffer, then shared the post and called candidate Tomi Grundvig an "excellent education leader" who would provide "sensible stewardship" of Thompson.
The campaign manager for Grundvig's rival filed a complaint, and it had to be settled by the courts. Administrative law judge Matthew E. Norwood called the violation "minor," and ruled that "no government money of any significant amount was spent to make the contribution." He also focused on the post to the school's specific page, not Schaffer's personal page. "The school's action was the giving of a thing of value to the candidate, namely favorable publicity," Norwood wrote.
The campaign manager for Grundvig's rival filed a complaint, and it had to be settled by the courts. Administrative law judge Matthew E. Norwood called the violation "minor," and ruled that "no government money of any significant amount was spent to make the contribution." He also focused on the post to the school's specific page, not Schaffer's personal page. "The school's action was the giving of a thing of value to the candidate, namely favorable publicity," Norwood wrote.
So when everyone in the US posts for or against a US presidential candidate every single one of the posts is a campaign contribution under this ruling. It will not matter if the post is positive or negative or if it is to one person in an email or to your family or to the world. This Judge has ruled that an online comment is considered a contribution to a campaign.
So much for free speech. It now all has value and that value has been weighed.
That makes me wonder... What do we do when Obama (just 'cause he's the sitting president) endorses a candidate while still accepting his salary? Every other president has gotten away with it, in one form or another. At least I'm pretty sure they have. He's a government official. Government officials, while employed as their sole source of income, often endorse candidates, I'm pretty sure?
A quick Google indicates this is true. How is this any different, really? The president is president 24/7 and a government official (and probably using government property).
I wonder... I've got a few dollars. To troll the nation or not? ACLU? Hmm... That would be the greatest troll ever, it's tempting. I'm not a fan of trolling but I do, grudgingly, admire creative trolls. You can't eat morals, right?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."