* This is not really what the bill says and it’s not at all clear that Dan Proft’s papers would feel any impact. Politico…
A bill has popped up in Springfield that would require partisan (or biased) news sites to disclose the money they spend featuring candidates and causes. Neither Proft nor his newspapers are named in the proposed legislation, but it’s clear they would be affected by its passage.
“Political action committees funded by billionaires are using propaganda to confuse and mislead voters,” Democratic state Rep. Rob Martwick told POLITICO. He’s sponsoring the bill along with Republican state Rep. Steve Andersson from Geneva. “The public has every right to know that an article that has been pushed in front of them is nothing more than political advertising and it’s our responsibility to ensure they are not duped.”
Proft calls the measure “thuggery masquerading as legislation,” saying in an email, “We do not ’spend money on candidates’ any more than the Sun-Times ’spends money on candidates’ to promote every leftist candidate in Illinois spouting cultural Marxist pablum.” He called the legislation “a thinly-veiled attempt to eliminate news and views that both the Chicago Democrat crime families and establishment surrender Republicans who run this catastrophe of a state don’t like. We’ll fight them and anyone else who thinks the First Amendment doesn’t apply to the state of Illinois.”
Andersson says Proft’s web sites lack journalistic integrity. “Proft would argue his newspapers are ‘real,’ (but) even a fairly cursory look at the articles would demonstrate the clear bias,” he said.
Not-so-coincidental irony: Martwick’s Nov. 6 opponent, Ammie Kassem, is backed by Proft.
Provides that any expenditure made by a news publication or an entity that owns a news publication for the purpose of supporting or opposing a public official or candidate shall be treated as an in-kind contribution for the purposes of the Code.
As used in this Section only, “expenditure” does not include normal publication costs associated with a news story, commentary, or editorial, but does include costs associated with advertising related to a particular news story, commentary, or editorial.
* Martwick is trying to regulate ads like this one that ran on Facebook…
As the Chicago Tribune reported earlier this year, sometimes Proft’s Liberty Principles PAC will pay Proft’s LGIS to print paper versions of its editions and mail them to voters. And sometimes Proft will feature an article from one of his papers in a TV ad, like this one for former Rep. Dwight Kay…
But there is at least the appearance of a firewall. And as long as that legal firewall exists, this bill will likely accomplish nothing.
…Adding… And, as some have rightly pointed out in comments, if it does apply to Proft, then any news media that promotes a column or negative news story would have to register, and that ain’t gonna fly. There’s still a 1st Amendment.
*** UPDATE *** From Rep. Martwick…
Thanks for writing about the recent legislation filed by myself and Rep. Steve Andersson. I admit that any time we seek to regulate speech, we must proceed carefully. This is a first attempt that will be extensively and fully vetted through many committee hearings, to ensure that we do not have unintended consequences. However, I believe our intention is just. Reading the “tin-foil hat” conspiracy rant that Mr. Proft made in response to this bill, is all the clarity I need to see that I’m headed in the right direction. Proft’s papers are propaganda, plain and simple. Everyone has the right to free speech, but that is not without regulation. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and you cannot libel someone. However, a better comparison is to the “articles” run on your blog, which carry the disclaimer “the following is a paid advertisement.” It is a permissible regulation to ensure the readers know that what they are reading is a paid advertisement, so that they are not duped into believing the advertisement is journalism. Why should political advertising be done any differently? Proft runs the PAC that supports candidates. He owns the “newspapers” that write the stories. Then he pays to have those stories pushed and promoted on social media and search engines. That expenditure is a political expenditure and should be reported as such. This will not stop him from publishing his propaganda papers. He can write all the fake news stories he wants. This will only require that he add a modicum of transparency to the reader. As you wrote earlier, Mr. Proft lost a suit he filed, which shows exactly his intention. He wishes to be able to spend as much money as he wants, without being subject to any type of transparency or disclosure. This is propaganda and history has shown that it leads to very very bad consequences. I realize that any attempt to regulate this will be difficult, but this is a struggle worth having.
I voluntarily label ads as ads. I don’t need or want the government telling me what to do. And those ads Proft is running are political in nature, but if you’re going to regulate that stuff as campaign expenditures then every promoted tweet of a newspaper’s endorsements would also have to be labeled as such and I think the Illinois Press Association would have words with the sponsor. For instance, if the Sun-Times put any money behind this tweet should they have to report it? I would say “No”…
The Chicago Sun-Times endorses @robertmartwick for Illinois House in the 19th District. "To stop middle- and working-class families from fleeing the state, Martwick is convinced Illinois must change the way it taxes income." #twillhttps://t.co/5im1I5GPe8
Ammie Kessem is supported by Proft’s liberty Priciples, and John Tillmans Illinois opportunity project. She has yet to reconcile those facts alongwith her “Pro-Union” working platform. As a public sector union member herself, When discussing proft and tillmans anti-union crusades and faced with answering for this, she has said “So what?, so I took some campaign support from Dan Proft. It doesnt mean I have to align my views with his or agreeing with him.
Says the unelected candidate. Get elected and see what happens when you don’t honor that support..
Disclosure and transparency is good, but do we really need this proposed law? Almost any paper you pick up today has a slant to it that is readily apparent to most readers …
Hold on a minute. So let’s say some online news site writes an article saying they like or dislike candidate X, then they boost the story by payment to Facebook or Google or whomever, which is common. You’re gonna count that as a contribution?
Last I checked “clear bias” and “journalistic integrity” are not mutually exclusive. You may not like the messenger, or the message, but that doesn’t make it ripe for legislation.
is is a negative story if it is true? Representative Martwick opposes freezing property taxes. Wonder why?The Martwicks’ clients saw their property values for tax purposes reduced by an estimated $248 million, and their property tax bills by an estimated $19.4 million.
The Martwicks’ clients saw their property values for tax purposes reduced by an estimated $248 million, and their property tax bills by an estimated $19.4 million.
Pretty scary that Representative Martwick wants to stifle speech that points out the hypocrisy of a millionaire property tax lawyer,that got that way by using political connections to shift the property tax burden from downtown skyscrapers to the bungalow belt.
What are the chances the “hardest working newspaper” would run that story?
When Illinois first passed legislation mandating disclosure of campaign contributions the State Board of Elections ran a series of seminars to explain the law. At one of those meetings a locally elected official asked this question: “The law requires me to report ‘anything of value,’ in my case the local paper always endorses any person who is running against me, but I win by over five to one at every election. Given that history, am I required to report the newspaper’s endorsement of my opponent as a contribution to my campaign?”
@Lucky Pierre, I know you are hopelessly partisan and are attacking him because he’s a Democrat, but no it’s not scary that some newspapers might have to report some of their expenditures. It doesn’t seem practical to me, or overly helpful, but to say filling out a form is scary is just a bald faced lie.
Martwick isnt fooling anyone with this phony legislation. His constant refrain for more taxes is the real issue in the race and he is going to choke on his own words and proposals. This is a silly smoke screen. The 4 votes in my house as well as dozens of my neighbors are going to his opponent.
@Regular democrat, you’re voting against math then. Martwick has focused almost solely on pensions, and the only legal way to deal with that problem is by increasing revenue, i.e. taxes. There’s lots of different ways to do that, but in the end it’s just another bill that the state has to pay.
This lifelong dem is voting against Martwick. Sure “he did the math” on pensions, but has consistently demonstrated poor judgement in those he associates with, in the hypocrisy of his property tax appeal practice, in the sleaziness of his side businesses, and he continues to be an insufferable arrogant pedant. Sure, Kessem is a disaster, but she’ll only be one representative in a field of 118. Perhaps we can get a quality pragmatist democratic candidate in 2020 to represent us instead these ideologues.
- walker - Monday, Oct 29, 18 @ 11:28 am:
A lot of today’s “legitimate” newspapers started as political broadsheets. Proft is part of a long tradition.
- Dome Gnome - Monday, Oct 29, 18 @ 11:32 am:
I’d rather Proft be at the terminus of that tradition.
- Texas Red - Monday, Oct 29, 18 @ 11:33 am:
Rep. Steve Andersson’s sponsorship of this bill goes with a grain of salt, he is not seeking
re-election so he is effectively a lame duck.
- Rick - Monday, Oct 29, 18 @ 11:34 am:
Ammie Kessem is supported by Proft’s liberty Priciples, and John Tillmans Illinois opportunity project. She has yet to reconcile those facts alongwith her “Pro-Union” working platform. As a public sector union member herself, When discussing proft and tillmans anti-union crusades and faced with answering for this, she has said “So what?, so I took some campaign support from Dan Proft. It doesnt mean I have to align my views with his or agreeing with him.
Says the unelected candidate. Get elected and see what happens when you don’t honor that support..
- Anonymous - Monday, Oct 29, 18 @ 11:37 am:
There’s got to be some kind of law we can pass to make Proft at least make his ads a little better. They are so painfully awful.
- Todd - Monday, Oct 29, 18 @ 11:44 am:
So I wonder what a Trib or sun-times endorsement is worth $20, $100 is there a sliding scale for state house/senate vs Governor or statewide races?
- jim - Monday, Oct 29, 18 @ 11:47 am:
Gee Rich, don’t you think that proposal might just be a bit unconstitutional?
- RNUG - Monday, Oct 29, 18 @ 11:51 am:
Disclosure and transparency is good, but do we really need this proposed law? Almost any paper you pick up today has a slant to it that is readily apparent to most readers …
- Ron Burgundy - Monday, Oct 29, 18 @ 12:00 pm:
Don’t like being in an ad with Berrios? Don’t take a selfie with Berrios.
- Driveby - Monday, Oct 29, 18 @ 12:02 pm:
Hold on a minute. So let’s say some online news site writes an article saying they like or dislike candidate X, then they boost the story by payment to Facebook or Google or whomever, which is common. You’re gonna count that as a contribution?
- Anon - Monday, Oct 29, 18 @ 12:04 pm:
Last I checked “clear bias” and “journalistic integrity” are not mutually exclusive. You may not like the messenger, or the message, but that doesn’t make it ripe for legislation.
- Lucky Pierre - Monday, Oct 29, 18 @ 12:22 pm:
is is a negative story if it is true? Representative Martwick opposes freezing property taxes. Wonder why?The Martwicks’ clients saw their property values for tax purposes reduced by an estimated $248 million, and their property tax bills by an estimated $19.4 million.
The Martwicks’ clients saw their property values for tax purposes reduced by an estimated $248 million, and their property tax bills by an estimated $19.4 million.
https://chicagocitywire.com/stories/511610504-analysis-state-rep-martwick-father-made-an-estimated-6-4-million-over-past-decade-lowering-clients-property-taxes-raising-others
- The Homer - Monday, Oct 29, 18 @ 1:46 pm:
=I wonder what a Trib or Sun-Times endorsement is worth?=
You can put it on a mailer or door-piece. That’s about it.
- Lucky Pierre - Monday, Oct 29, 18 @ 1:51 pm:
Pretty scary that Representative Martwick wants to stifle speech that points out the hypocrisy of a millionaire property tax lawyer,that got that way by using political connections to shift the property tax burden from downtown skyscrapers to the bungalow belt.
What are the chances the “hardest working newspaper” would run that story?
- Old Retired Guy - Monday, Oct 29, 18 @ 2:50 pm:
When Illinois first passed legislation mandating disclosure of campaign contributions the State Board of Elections ran a series of seminars to explain the law. At one of those meetings a locally elected official asked this question: “The law requires me to report ‘anything of value,’ in my case the local paper always endorses any person who is running against me, but I win by over five to one at every election. Given that history, am I required to report the newspaper’s endorsement of my opponent as a contribution to my campaign?”
- Perrid - Monday, Oct 29, 18 @ 3:59 pm:
@Lucky Pierre, I know you are hopelessly partisan and are attacking him because he’s a Democrat, but no it’s not scary that some newspapers might have to report some of their expenditures. It doesn’t seem practical to me, or overly helpful, but to say filling out a form is scary is just a bald faced lie.
- Regular democrat - Monday, Oct 29, 18 @ 4:06 pm:
Martwick isnt fooling anyone with this phony legislation. His constant refrain for more taxes is the real issue in the race and he is going to choke on his own words and proposals. This is a silly smoke screen. The 4 votes in my house as well as dozens of my neighbors are going to his opponent.
- Perrid - Monday, Oct 29, 18 @ 8:03 pm:
@Regular democrat, you’re voting against math then. Martwick has focused almost solely on pensions, and the only legal way to deal with that problem is by increasing revenue, i.e. taxes. There’s lots of different ways to do that, but in the end it’s just another bill that the state has to pay.
- Martwick Consituent - Tuesday, Oct 30, 18 @ 9:29 am:
This lifelong dem is voting against Martwick. Sure “he did the math” on pensions, but has consistently demonstrated poor judgement in those he associates with, in the hypocrisy of his property tax appeal practice, in the sleaziness of his side businesses, and he continues to be an insufferable arrogant pedant. Sure, Kessem is a disaster, but she’ll only be one representative in a field of 118. Perhaps we can get a quality pragmatist democratic candidate in 2020 to represent us instead these ideologues.