soapbox

very interesting article about disclosure by bloomberg. it's kind of a hit piece against pro-gop independent expenditures.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-19/secret-donors-multiply-in-u-s-with-finances-dwarfing-watergate.html
I'm interested in the way the article uses the word "political'.
I've written to one of the guys quoted, asking him if that's actually what he said.
update:

Hi Robin---I never said anything close to " the ads weren't political in
nature " ; the reporter kept asking why we didn't file and I repeated
several times that we don't need to file , and the rules don't require us
to file . he attempted to get me to say something about the political nature
of the ads , and I told him not to put words in my mouth ; it was his false
assumption that we were absolutely required to file and I said that that
was his own biased interpretation , and simply we were not required to
file. he certainly was not an objective reporter. Thanks for the heads up
- Hide quoted text -
-----Original Message-----
From: Robbin Stewart [mailto:gtbear@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 8:26 PM
To: bleighton at arrival.net
Subject: wondering if you were misquoted in bloomberg

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-19/secret-donors-multiply-in-u-s-with-
finances-dwarfing-watergate.html

"Exemption Claim
Water for All didn't report its campaign expenditures to the FEC
because the ads weren't political in nature and "we don't need to
file," said Brian C. Leighton, the group's attorney. "The rules do not
require us to file." "

Hello. I'm an election law attorney and run an obscure blog. I was
wondering if you actually said "the ads weren't political in nature"
or something comparable.
I'm guessing the reporters don't understand the nuances of express
advocacy, etc. But maybe that was actually what you said. Wanted to
check in with you before publishing anything.
Thanks, Robbin Stewart.