The revelation that the author of the pro-Obama “1984″ ad used to work for Obama makes the story that much more interesting. For one thing, as Powerline points out, it’s more evidence of a MSM double standard. This revelation will certainly fly below the radar. There will be no righteous indignation. There will be no acrimony, no demands for Obama to come clean.

Of course, if a Republican had tried to use YouTube to convertly massage the public discourse, we’d have congressional hearings. In fact, I don’t expect Hillary would’ve gotten off nearly so easily.

But the more intriguing aspect of this, is the development of YouTube as a campaign tool. In 2004, the Swiftvets attack Kerry by forming a 527, exempt from campaign finance regulation, and running a few provocative ads in a few minor media markets. During and throughout the election, many in the media and even some in DC, decried the existence of the “shadow” campaign entity capable of influencing the election without consequences for the candidate who may have benefited from their activities.

YouTube will likely be the preferred medium for “shadow” campaigns in 2008, which will likely raise all sorts of questions and calls for regulation. Does McCain-Feingold apply to YouTube? Should it? Will Congress extend the bill to cover the internet? If Congress can regulate the speech of private associations, is there any reason they cannot regulate the speech of private individuals using “YouTube” issue ads to influence the election 60-days out?

Of course, they never banned 527s (I don’t think) and I doubt they’ll crack down on YouTube. Mainly because politician quite like the idea of an outlet for mudslinging that cannot be tracked back to their campaigns.

But we’ll still have to watch for do-gooders, so obsessed with hygenic elections, they’re willing to throw out the first amendment.