Full Disclosure ...

Somewhere in the midst of discussions about Republicans and conservatives in academe, I noted that Professor Jon K. Lauck of South Dakota State University's history department was among the conservative history bloggers. Yet, in gathering Cliopatria's History Blogroll, I didn't include his Daschle v Thune on our list. Its focus on a single United States Senate contest seemed narrow -- much narrower, in fact, than something like James Bender's Anglo-Dutch Wars, narrowly focused as it is. Nor am I inclined to include Lauck's new group blog, South Dakota Politics, with South Dakota attorney Jason Van Beek, on Cliopatria's History Blogroll. Again, the focus is narrow, but that isn't what disturbs me.

Only after November's election returns were in did we learn that John Thune's senatorial campaign subsidized Lauck's Daschle v Thune with $27,000 and Van Beek's South Dakota Politics with another $8,000. As Glenn Reynolds and Amy Sullivan have pointed out, there's nothing illegal in that, but it is dubious. Other bloggers who are subsidized are welcome on our blogrolls, but they make no secret of the subsidy. Professor Lauck's chairman or dean may wish to discuss with him professional conflicts of interest in the sources of his income. This one ranks with expert testimony in legal cases as ethical swampland for historians.

Update: At Informed Comment, Juan Cole has some related thoughts about blog trolling and subsidized blogging.