Gavin Newsom just loves Twitter.
And the media just loves to report on Newsom’s tweets and his Twitter milestones.
Yes, the Newsom for California campaign has added hundreds of thousands of Twitter followers in the past several months.
Gavin Newsom Twitter stats provided by twittercounter.
This astonishing growth isn’t due to the Gavinator’s good looks and popularity, or the organic evolution of a real Internet audience.
Twitter actually gives these followers to Newsom when new Twitter users sign up.
They do it through their controversial Suggested User List (SUL) feature.
This is Gavin Newsom on Twitter's suggested user list.
You may have recently read some news stories and blog posts about Twitter’s SUL.
Through this feature, Twitter is aggregating and building an online audience that the Newsom for California campaign would otherwise have to pay to create, in the same way Newsom’s campaign today buys eyeballs and clicks from Google, Facebook, etc. to ultimately drive traffic to his campaign website.
But since Twitter is giving this non-monetary service to a registered political campaign without its value being disclosed, Gavin Newsom is violating California’s campaign finance law, you know, as he tweets.
California law states that a contribution can be defined as:
§18215(b)(3) Any goods or services received by or behested by a candidate or committee at no charge or at a discount from the fair market value, unless the discount is given in the regular course of business to members of the public.
Does being on Twitter’s SUL constitute a non-monetary contribution? YES.
Twitter is providing this free service to Gavin Newsom, a declared candidate for governor. Newsom uses Twitter to send his Twitter followers links to his campaign website and to campaign news stories promoting his candidacy.
Is this Twitter service discounted and given to members of the public in the regular course of business? NO.
The SUL is not for sale or accessible to the general public. Twitter is a private company so there is no knowing if they’ve been selling the service. Twitter publicly says they don’t charge for the service.
Recent news stories put Twitter’s SUL cash value around $250,000. And when you analyze Twitter’s SUL, it’s not random, and it doesn’t look like any member of the public can ask to be put on the list, or even pay to be on the list.
Essentially, being featured on the Twitter suggested user list is a corporate black box decision and benefit provided to select customers that is not available to the general public though Twitter’s regular course of business.
In the opinion of a campaign treasurer consultant:
Twitter is giving Gavin Newsom privileged access and promotion on its proprietary online network through the company’s suggested user list feature, an Internet media service that is not accessible or for sale to members of the general public. Therefore, the Newsom for California campaign is receiving a non-monetary contribution from Twitter that must be valued, declared and disclosed to come into compliance with California’s government code and Title 2 regulations as enforced by the FPPC.
When a non-monetary contribution like Twitter’s is received, the fair market value of the goods or service must be reported as required by California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).
Has Newsom reported such a contribution from Twitter? NO.
Now all Newsom has to do is have Gary South send Twitter a missive, ask them how much their SUL contribution is worth, and then go file FPPC Form 460, which is required by all official candidates for public office to disclose monetary and non-monetary campaign contributions of value.
If not, this cozy business relationship will continue to violate campaign finance law.
So, what’s the big deal anyway — I mean besides all this stuff being illegal?
Newsom hasn’t raised enough money to stay competitive and he’s lagging in all polls.
But he claims a formidable “online following” as a testament to his campaign strength.
Newsom has been accumulating Twitter followers primarily due to his campaign accepting a non-monetary contribution from Twitter – a contribution with significant value that legally must be reported.
But if Twitter pulled Gavin Newsom off their SUL, he’d be in for a rude surprise.
That’s right.
No more weekly “earned” media stories about Gavin being tech-savvy.
Except that by this same argument, the Chronicle is contributing to Newsom’s campaign every time they write an article about him. (They’re raising his name awareness, which he would otherwise have to pay for TV ads to do.)
Wil,
That’s a great point, but News organizations are often very careful about providing equal coverage especially regarding elections.
If they gave EXTREMELY unequal coverage, which is the case here, then I’d bet someone would complain and maybe even bring up charges.
@Wil the Chronicle is a bona fide news organization as defined by California Shield Law, Twitter is not.
I’ve provided pro bono legal counsel to a number of local political candidates, although I can’t claim to be a campaign finance expert since this is not my legal specialization.
This post, however, raises a very interesting legal question and one that I imagine that the FPPC has not even explored because no one has ever raised the issue until now.
This is not equal time issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule
This is also not an issue of a media outlet covering a “news event” by a candidate over another candidate.
This is an issue of a private company – Twitter – providing something of significant FINANCIAL value unavailable to average people to a campaign that a candidate committee must disclose as a non-monetary gift.
For example, if a campaign uses Gmail that is not considered a gift since it’s free and anyone can utilize that service. But if Google provides a campaign (if corporate donation is allowed) discounted or free sponsored ads, then the value of that gift must be reported.
If Candidate X is benefiting from Twitter’s Suggested User List and not paying for that service from a private company unavailable to the average person, then that candidate is gaining legions of followers without having to pay for this benefit.
From my perspective, I think this post is raising a very legitimate question that can only be settled by a formal complaint to the FPPC and then the FPPC will issue a ruling.
Interesting…
Are corporate contributions allowed in CA gubernatorial elections?
If Newsom or Twitter is breaking campaign finance laws, I support their right under the Constitution to do that. I used to think that those against campaign finance reform were hyperbolating when they said restricting monetary contributions was a limitation on free speech. I saw that excessive money from narrow special interests was a problem in politics (and I still think it is) and I thought that regulating it was the answer. However, I see now that opponents of campaign finance regulation were not hyperbolating. It has now sunk to a gross violation of free speech–a company can’t make a recommendation to it’s users (that might be as much entertainment as political) without violating campaign finance laws. That’s just wrong. When the government is telling you who or what you can or can’t recommend, we have a serious, serious problem on our hands.
Obviously you can put a dollar value on any bit of speech that has either political or commercial ramifications, but that’s irrelevant to the fact that freedom of speech is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
I might add that you can’t have it both ways. You either believe money = speech or money != speech. If the former, any kind of campaign finance regulation is verboten by the Constitution. If the latter, you can regulate money, but you cannot regulate speech on the idea that influential speech is worth money.
Did you see this news story? Interesting take on your post:
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=7065375