Friday, January 9, 2009

Eli Pariser's excellent Dec. 28 Outlook article -- "Will He Bring Change.gov We Can Believe In?" -- skipped over an important issue that most online enthusiasts are missing: the limits on what government officials may legally do to promote their agendas.

It is illegal for federal agencies to use appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda in the United States. As explained in a March 21, 2005, report by the Congressional Research Service, "publicity or propaganda" is defined by the Government Accountability Office to mean (1) "self-aggrandizement" by public officials, (2) "purely partisan" activity or (3) "covert propaganda."

It is unclear how this might apply to a White House-driven online effort to garner support for the president's agenda. Weekly radio or YouTube messages are, of course, permitted. Not so clear will be maintaining a massive database of "supporters" and calling them to action in support of the president's agenda.

Even if legal, such governmental action would raise serious democratic issues. The White House does not run ads in swing congressional districts when it wants a bill passed. That private groups that support the policies do so is fine. It seems to me that YouTube videos and calls to action via e-mail will not be fine.

A thoughtful study of the appropriate use of new technologies by the government to promote agendas seems to be in order. We need guidelines, and in my view those guidelines need to err on the side of conservative use of online media in promoting government policies. The government needs to hear from everyone, and there are legal frameworks for those public comments to be evaluated.

Going outside of those mechanisms raises serious policy issues.

SAMUEL A. SIMON

McLean