Wow, it looks like our boy Scott Wagman is better at getting press than we previously thought. This from today’s Wall Street Journal:

For State, Local Office Seekers, Web Ads Present Potential Pitfalls

Looks like that pesky disclaimer that all political ads are required to display was missing from ads the Wagman campaign placed on Google and Facebook and the Florida Elections Commission was none too happy about it.

I’m pretty impressed that the WSJ is saying “the Florida dispute is likely to set a precedent for how state and local politicians advertise on the Web.” If nothing else I’m just happy our boy Scott has put us on the map without a python having to kill a baby.

Wagman’s team is trying to insinuate that the ads aren’t actually ads, but instead links to ads and the ads (which are not ads, but links) that link to ads actually link to ads that contain the appropriate disclaimer. Yeah, I’m confused too. They get points for creativity, but it is pretty clear that they violated state law.

At this point it looks like they can either plead no contest and pay a small fee, or fight and end up with a much larger financial penalty. Based on Wagman’s spending so far I don’t think either of these is anything that will have a significant impact on his campaign. The interesting thing to me is that you can’t put the genie back in the bottle, the vast majority of people that saw the ads won’t see this story which means in the end he wins.

Tip of the hat to Peter Wahlberg for alerting us to the story.

UPDATE: Check out a story from the other Saint Petersblog that was posted in the comments to see the ads in question.