* 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.

* From the bill’s synopsis…

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.

* Important exemption…

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…

The Proft ad linked to a negative story about Martwick in Proft’s Chicago City Wire. But the paper is owned by Local Government Information Services, which is not a campaign committee.

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." #twill https://t.co/5im1I5GPe8

— Chicago Sun-Times (@Suntimes) October 25, 2018