NewtonForum.org has been purchasing Facebook ads to promote City Councilor Amy Sangiolo’s latest campaign ad. I’m not an expert in campaign finance laws but something tells me this may constitute an illegal or at least improper campaign donation.
UPDATE: In a comment below Newton Forum’s Chris Pitts reported late Monday that he has rectified this situation after consulting with the state election office. As a result the Sangiolo campaign will be reporting Newton Forum’s paid Facebook ads as an $30.00 in-kind campaign contribution in its next finance report.
My Facebook page has been bombarded with Facebook campaign ads for Fuller and Lennon for months. How are those any different?
Peter: Yes, I’ve been getting bombarded too. The difference is that those Facebook ads have been paid for with donations to the candidate’s campaign committee which is required by law to report both donations and expenditures to the state office of campaign finance.
This ad appears to be paid for by an outside organization, NewtonFourum.org, which unless it has registered as a political action committee, cannot spend money to promote a candidate (and “sponsored” on Facebook means it was paid).
However, even if NewtonForum was an organized PAC, I don’t believe it can spend money to promote an ad that was paid for by Sangiolo’s campaign (and this ad clearly states that it was paid for by her campaign).
I’m going to guess that this was an innocent mistake by NewtonForum.org but that doesn’t make it proper.
“Lock her up” !
@Blueprintbill whoa… out of bounds and truly not funny given the current national political divide – we are better than this. Amy is a delightful person and whether you agree or disagree with her political views, she is a woman running for office and should be applauded for her efforts.
Am I out of the loop? I’ve never heard of newtonforum.org–so I went to the website and there is no information about who runs it.
@Woody. I think you missed Blueprint Bill’s wry sense of humor. He’s solidly in Amy’s corner.
Just saw the preview of tomorrow’s ballot. Is there a simple reason why Lennon and Fuller have their positions noted on the ballot and Sangiolo doesn’t? Seems like a major bias that shouldn’t be allowed– everyone should just have names only. If no simple reason, could someone from V14 post a new thread opening it up for discussion?
@Bob Burke Humor has nothing to do with this. Nor is it whether Blueprint Bill is voting for Amy or not – I’m not voting for Amy although she would be fine as Mayor if elected. I am reacting to the “lock her up” comment which does not belong in this forum. We already have way too many privileged men, even in Newton spewing crap against women. – Call me too progressive but I think it is time to step up and cut it out. How about if we give all the women running a little slack?
@Greg
That headline is awfully inflammatory a day before the election– and its a completely speculative post.
Not cool.
Without coordination, it can’t be illegal on the candidate/campaign’s part. The headline should at least clarify that its a potential concern with NVA, not the candidate.
@Paul: Yes Newton Forum seems to have made the error but the illegal donation was to the Sangiolo campaign. I don’t see how the headline is misleading.
@Sue: Newton Forum is, or was, started by Chris Pitts.
Sorry– should say NewtonForum.org, not NVA.
@Paul – It is required by the current city charter. See here: —Section 8-4(d) “Every petition requesting the placement of the name of a candidate for nomination on the official ballot for use at a preliminary election, or for use at any special election for an office other than mayor, may state in not more than eight words the elected public offices which the candidate for nomination holds or has held. Against the name of any such candidate there shall be printed on the official ballot for a preliminary election, or any special election for an office other than mayor, the statement contained in the petition. ”
The proposed charter would remove this requirement and only keep the requirement that candidates for re-election are identified as such, which is also a requirement under state law.
The current requirement for preliminary elections is inadvisable both because it can be perceived to give an unfair advantage to elected officials and because it leads to ballot confusion – our ballot looks different in the September election than the November one.
Thanks Bryan- very clear.
Its a great proposed change! If only the charter proposal didn’t also strip Newton of local representation, contrary to the majority of other communities!
Definitely something to change via the petition process after November.
Well, there was a V14 post seeming to endorse a candidate (since taken down) and my response (also endorsing a candidate) has also since been taken down. Would those be considered similar? So confusing!
The problem here is not that Newton Forum is supporting a candidate, it is that it is paying (via a paid Facebook ad) to share a political advertisement for a candidate (and that ad was created not by Newton Forum but by the candidates’ campaign…or at least that’s what it says on the ad). That’s an illegal or at least improper campaign donation.
If Newton Forum, the TAB, Village 14 or any one of us as individuals posted that same ad on our Facebook page, placed a lawn sign on our lawn, wore a bumper sticker on our forehead, etc. that would be perfectly allowable. It’s the act of paying to give a campaign advertisement exposure that’s problematic.
It is also problematic that Newton Forum does not appear to be a legally registered PAC.
@Greg
Its not a donation to the campaign.
A donation is a contribution received by a campaign.
This was not. It was an activity that supported a candidate.
There is a meaningful difference, as the “campaign donation” implies some improper action by the campaign itself, even if unknowingly, because it would have needed to accept the donation. That did not occur here it appears.
@Paul:
Actually Paul, it is. Even Chris Pitt acknowledges that and that’s why, according to Pitts, the Sangiolo campaign will be reporting it as $30 in-kind donation.
@Greg. It would be great if your mention of my blog Newton Forum attracted more visitors to the site. Encouraging more visits to Newton Forum is what I’ve been trying to do for more than a year by purchasing Facebook ads highlighting blog posts about topics that might be interesting to potential readers.
You stated in your post at the top of this thread that:
NewtonForum.org has been purchasing Facebook ads to promote City Councilor Amy Sangiolo’s latest campaign ad.
That is untrue, and I would appreciate it if you would avoid making untrue statements about my blog. My blog, by the way, is not able to purchase ads, but I am. I, Chris Pitts, purchase ads to promote my blog, Newton Forum. The truth is – and I expect you know this since you seem interested in my Facebook ad purchasing habits – is that I’ve purchased Facebook ads featuring Newton Forum posts about a range of topics such as the “Artful Pianos”, jazz concerts in Newton, and the charter reform debate.
My intention when purchasing Facebook ads has always been to promote my blog, not the events or people that happened to be mentioned in the blog posts shown in the Facebook ads. It was the same with the Facebook ad that featured a blog post about Amy Sangiolo’s campaign videos. The blog post was about Sangiolo’s interesting videos, but the ad was about a post on my blog, Newton Forum – because I want people to visit my blog, Newton Forum, whether the topic being written about is a politician or a piano.
As you know, since you have built up this blog very successfully, it is a lot of work to generate fresh content and get people engaged with it. But because at Newton Forum, the policy is that we use real names and try to have dialogue without personal attacks and mudslinging, it’s harder for me to grow my blog than it was for you to grow yours. There’s no doubt, people enjoy reading lurid-sounding headlines like “Does this Facebook ad constitute an illegal campaign donation?”
The answer to that question, by the way, is “NO”. I purchased the ad, for a whopping $30, without thinking I needed to contact the Sangiolo campaign about it, because my intention was to promote my blog. When one of my friends suggested that it might be seen as a campaign contribution because it might be seen as helping the Sangiolo campaign, I phoned the OPCF and was told that to be on the safe side, I should consider it as an “in-kind donation” worth $30, and that I should tell the Sangiolo campaign so that they could report it. In-kind donations must be reported at the end of the annual reporting period, and it will be, so I haven’t missed any deadline knowingly or unknowingly and neither has the Sangiolo campaign, and there is nothing illegal or improper about my in-kind contribution.
I notified the Sangiolo campaign, and was graciously thanked for my legal, in-kind donation, which they are happy to report before the deadline. They really are very nice people at the OPCF, and at the Sangiolo campaign.
You also wrote above:
I’m not an expert in campaign finance laws but something tells me this may constitute an illegal or at least improper campaign donation.
You did state one true thing: you are definitely not an expert in campaign finance laws. Well, now you and your readers know that there is nothing illegal or improper about my in-kind donation, which I am happy to have made if it in any way makes up for any inconvenience your blog post caused to the nice people at the Sangiolo campaign. I just wanted to attract visitors to my blog, Newton Forum, and maybe this manufactured-fake-news-tempest-in-a-teapot will have done that. If so, thanks!
Hey Chris: Welcome to Village 14, where people with cool names like Fignewtoville, Native Newtonian, Meredith and Elmo engage in thoughtful, informative, constructive conversations with elected leaders and passionate, Newton citizens like Jane Frantz, Jack Prior, Gloria Gavris and Bob Burke. I’m not so sure that your real names policy is what holds back Newton Forum from more traffic. I personally think it’s your site’s limited ideology. But everyone is entitled to have their own narrative.
But I digress. A few comments:
1. Of course Newton Forum could purchase Facebook ads if you set up Newton Forum as a business or non-profit or PAC. There are good reasons for considering that in the future, which I won’t get into. But the reality is your ad on Facebook appears as if Newton Forum purchased it (it says “Sponsored Newton Forum’. And, in politics, appearances matter a lot.
2. I applaud you for checking with OCPF and doing the right thing AFTER you learned that your $30 Facebook ad did indeed constitute a donation to the Sangiolo campaign. And I applaud you for then contacting the Sangiolo campaign and arranging to have her campaign report it as the law requires.
All that said, the fact is YOU purchased the ad FIRST and asked questions LATER. So you were right to call OCPF and ask “Does this Facebook ad constitute an illegal campaign donation?” And I was right when I asked “Does this Facebook ad constitute an illegal campaign donation?” in my headline. (Ken Parker would call that “common ground!”)
3. Chris I respect your decision to create your personal blog for conversation and ideas in Newton. I really do. We need more voices, not fewer. But really, man, you erred when you purchased that particular ad, not me. It wasn’t an earth shattering mistake, but it was a mistake. Props to you for rectifying it! But penalty points for suggesting that I was wrong, when you were the one who messed up.
Can’t say I’m growing any fonder of this particular thread.
Seems like in retrospect the legal question here might have been better investigated through election expertise, not a public forum, especially since the candidate isn’t responsible in any case and the preliminary is imminent.
I am now more concerned about whiffs of “blog vs. blog” in the air, which might cloud more than this issue.
Let’s appeal to the angels of our better civic nature.
Nothing illegal/unethical/shady here as far as I can see.
Chris ran an ad for his blog, that could be construed as helping a particular candidate. He contacted the campaign and let them know so that they could report it.
It sounds to me like all I’s were dotted and T’s crossed for a very modest in-kind donation.
As far as I can see this is not materially different than if I mailed a $30 donation to Amy Sangiolo’s campaign.
“Actually Paul, it is.”
Sigh, Greg.
He was pretty clear. OPCF said it might be. And to be safe they should report it. That’s far from conclusive. Calm down.
I’ve got no idea whether or not this has been actually addressed in Massachusetts. But I’m pretty comfortable that if I did an online Google ad-words advertisement for one of the campaigns tonight, unknowingly, they would not be held accountable for reporting it in their filings.
Of course, if I had a blog and made a big stink about a “illegal campaign donation” for a candidate that I didn’t support…
@Paul: YOU have no idea which candidate I support or will vote for tomorrow. No one does. And friends of mine who I’ve discussed this with at length can verify that this is true.
@Jerry: Pretty much that’s my point. Chris ran an ad. It was a naive mistake and it was indeed exactly the same as mailing a candidate a donation which is why it needs to be reported as a donation by the campaign. Which is what is now happening. End of story.
PS Given that the situation has been rectified– can we have the headline and piece updated?
Also, folks can choose to believe this or not but if this exact same thing happened and the recipient was Fuller or Lennon, I would have written the exact same post with the exact same headline. That’s how I’ve always rolled at election time. Always. Campaigns and their supporters need to follow the rules.
I agree with Paul about changing the headline. There is no “illegal campaign donation”. A very small legal donation was made and duly reported well before any legal deadline. No rules were broken.
I happen to have been placed on a blog titled “WabanNewton”. I assumed it was another village listserv that addressed very local issues in the community. At no point – until this very minute – did I realize that it was an individual’s blog. In fact, I’ve never received a post from this blog until this week.
I’m active in the community and enjoy hearing the full range of public opinion. However, given its name, it never crossed my mind that WabanNewton was an individual person’s blog. When we communicated earlier this week, I was still under the impression that this was a listserve type of blog. In large part, it was my misreading of your message to me.
For a variety of reasons, I choose not to be included in blogs run by individuals. Life is just too short and there are countless blogs representing a particular perspective. So I’d ask that my name be removed from your personal blog.
Village 14 has a number of residents representing a range of opinions who present threads for discussion. I see that as a very different concept and why I choose to participate in some threads on it.
@Jane Frantz – NewtonForum was indeed started by an individual (Chris Pitts) but has a range of Newton residents that write posts (Peter Harrington, John Koot, Tom Davis, Bob Jampol, Lynne LeBlanc, Sallee Lipshutz, Anil Adayanthaya, Cyrus Vaghar).
In that regard, its no more a personal blog that Village 14
Jerry – I wasn’t concerned about NewtonForum. I began receiving messages from a blog called WabanNewton just this week. They are two separate entities. One is a forum type of blog similar to V14 and the other is an individual’s blog. I prefer the forum type of blog.
Chris Pitts, John Koots, and the rest of the Newton Villages Alliance folks,-judging by the yard signs, letters to the Tab editor, etc – are solidly behind Amy Sangiolo. I hope this “alliance” brings Amy more luck than it did their slate of candidates during the last election cycle…
I actually don’t think this was a big deal, and considering the low costs involved, wouldn’t have gotten too excited about it either way. This is sort of catnip for Greg though.
I will say to Chris that I used to occasionally read Newton Forum, but then the posts got few and far between, and it was the same 5 people commenting on said posts. Certainly was polite though. I don’t think you have a traffic problem, you have a content and participant issue. If the only posters willing to post (or authorized to post) are folks with the same mindset, it isn’t all that interesting to read. Although it does function as a great place for that subset of folks to talk amongst themselves.
I will say the blog is really well designed, and has great photos as background. I know how long that takes, so my sincere compliments on the hard work.
I’ve been trying to restrict my time wasting activities, so I read less online these days (and try and post less). But I do think Newton is well served for having various online sites, so I wish yours the best of luck.