When I first read the press release announcing Correct The Record was splitting off from American Bridge and that they intended to coordinate with the campaign and DNC committees, it piqued my curiosity about this notion of coordination. Here's the sentence where that is disclosed:

Correct The Record, though a SuperPac, will not be engaged in paid media and thus will be allowed to coordinate with campaigns and Party Committees.

The article most-cited about this is from the Washington Post: How a super PAC plans to coordinate directly with Hillary Clinton’s campaign

To discuss the concept of coordination, usually cited is some portion of the following from this article:

That befuddled many campaign finance experts, who noted that super PACs, by definition, are political committees that solely do independent expenditures, which cannot be coordinated with a candidate or political party. Several said the relationship between the campaign and the super PAC would test the legal limits.

But Correct the Record believes it can avoid the coordination ban by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs, is off limits from regulation. The “Internet exemption” said that such free postings do not constitute campaign expenditures, allowing independent groups to consult with candidates about the content they post on their sites. By adopting the measure, the FEC limited its online jurisdiction to regulating paid political ads.

The part which seems much more interesting to me is:

However, the FEC rules specify that online activities are exempted from campaign finance rules if they are conducted by "uncompensated" individuals, campaign finance lawyers noted. It is unclear how Correct the Record, whose staff will be paid, plans to navigate that restriction.

"The moment anyone is paid to engage in Internet activity it falls outside of that exemption," said Jason Torchinsky, an election law attorney who represents many conservative groups. "If you are a super PAC paying people and coordinating your activities with the campaign, you are not covered by the individual Internet exemption and are making impermissible in-kind contributions."

And then there is this coda without real explanation:
Update: Correct the Record officials say they are not relying on the individual Internet exemption, but rather a related exemption in the definition of coordinated communications.

So what's the related exemption? Never have seen a reference to it.

* * *

I'm putting it here because it may or may not be interesting (by showing earlier thought and his own personal interest) with respect to the further declarations of intolerance for discussing whether a person is PAID to post on TOP.

Today, when I was searching the FEC site on the topic of coordination, I found this:
http://sers.fec.gov/fosers/showpdf.htm?docid=36747#search=coordinating%2...

It is a COMMENT from June 2005 submitted to the FEC by an attorney for Kos and a couple others regarding Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: The Internet: Definitions of "Public Communication" and "Generic Campaign Activity" and Disclaimers

Beginning on page 13:

we believe that the FEC should not generally require bloggers to disclose payment from candidates, and that bloggers should instead be treated the same as any other vendor paid by candidates for legitimate services rendered, whether in terms of separate advertising or the provision of editorial content.

Snip

...we return to the principle of parallelism. Unless circumstances dictate otherwise, the Internet should be regulated no more stringently than any other medium. The fact is that all payments to bloggers are already disclosed on the “other end” of a transaction, as part of a campaign's disbursement filings, just as payments to any other vendors. (Footnote references that to determine who is being paid one would have to go through un-searchable 3500 page documents which may indicate payment for research consulting as opposed to editorial services, something which appears to be a knock against the comment rather than promoting it.)

Snip

On a factual level, it is worth noting to the Commission that most payments to bloggers come through paid advertising not paid editorial content. Such advertising by its nature discloses its source, and there is no need to double the disclosure requirements by forcing private citizens to reveal what the campaign has already done.

In short, the argument includes saying that bloggers who DO submit paid editorial content should be exempt from some kind of disclaimer about their work being sponsored because if the blogger is getting funds from a campaign or a PAC, that organization would have to list the expenditure at some point when required to file about disbursements. Of course, this means reporting could happen AFTER the election (long after the blog post is posted) depending on when the work was done and filing deadlines. And if there is a third party involved (say, bloggers are hired by a PR or other firm), then the name of the blogger may not be documented anywhere ever at all.

This does not appear to me to be consistent with transparency.