Among the many innovations that social media tools have brought to the world of campaign politics are new ways to conduct opposition research.
Like any employer, political candidates have a vested, if indirect, interest in how staff members express themselves on personal social media sites such as Facebook or Twitter.
But in the hypersensitive and competitive world of campaigning, the question is especially sharply felt: How many degrees of separation are there from a legitimate campaign issue and a campaign staffers personal views posted on their personal social media page?
That question arose last week after the National Republican Congressional Committee circulated a press release attacking Tennessee Democratic House candidate Roy Herron for observations that appeared on the Twitter page of his senior adviser.
Among the ultra-liberal views that the NRCC hit veteran Tennessee Democratic operative Carol Andrews for was a tweet supporting gun control legislation and another that appeared to endorse the end-of-life provision that caused so much controversy in the early months of the health care debate.
When contacted about the press release, Andrews dismissed it as not being newsworthy. She also pointed out that, although she included a link to the official campaign Web site on her Twitter page, the campaign maintains a separate official Twitter account.
I was not employed in this state or [by] anyone in it when I made those personal observations on my personal page, she wrote in an e-mail just hours before taking down the Twitter page in question. If you have a real question for this campaign, please pose it.
Andrews certainly has sympathizers among those who consult in the realm of social media and politics.
It doesnt seem to me that a staffers personal views expressed in another forum are relevant, said Brent Blackaby, a partner at Trilogy Interactive, which helps set up and manage social media pages for Democratic campaigns.
However, once youre on staff on a campaign you have to assume anything you say or write or publish or tweet or post on Facebook can come back to the campaign, he said. Whether its fair or not, people will be looking for opportunities ... to embarrass a candidate. You just have to be cognisant and careful.
As it has been since the dawn of the professional campaign team, senior staffers and communications directors have the most to worry about in the world of social media, as it can be easy to blur the lines between when those staffers are speaking for the candidate and when they are expressing their personal views.
In January, California Senate candidate Chuck DeVore was lambasted on some liberal Web sites for being insensitive to the disaster in Haiti after his spokesman, Josh Treviño, posted a tweet in the wake of the massive earthquake that said the best thing the intl community can do is tend the wounded, bury the dead, and then LEAVE. That includes all UN and charity.
Treviño later explained that he was not speaking for the campaign when he posted the item, but DeVore still had to walk back his spokesmans Twitter post.
It was very foolish to make that argument after a devastating earthquake thats killed tens of thousands of people, DeVore told the Mercury News.
James Jones, communications director for DC Vote, tapes a "DC Constituents Service Day" sign on the wall as he stands with other DC residents outside of Rep. Andy Harris's office on Capitol Hill to protest Harris' actions against D.C.'s marijuana laws on Thursday, July 24, 2014. DC Vote encouraged DC residents to bring their complaints about city services to the Maryland congressman.