I feel like it's generally understood that when expert witnesses get called to the stand, they're being compensated for their time by whoever is calling them.
I edited it for you to see if you agree that what's good for the geese should be good for the gander. If that logic won't fly for Mommy blogger with the FTC, why should it fly with expert witness? The stakes are WAY lower in one than in the other.
To be clear, I'm not supporting the idea of the FTC giving fines to anybody. But the idea of rule of law is that laws should apply to everyone, which is clearly not the case.
Your argument BTW, feels weird. Why would you bring up the idea of 'generally understood' when that can equally apply to the other side? To me it feels like one of those subtle defenses for the current system that don't actually spell out a defense, but tries to remove criticism with offhanded comments.
Edit: I could see an argument that normal witnesses are not compensated for their time, and so a layperson might assume that an expert witness is not? But normal witnesses are appearing in their capacity as a witness; expert witnesses are appearing in their capacity as an expert. They're consultants; consultants get paid for consulting.
Bloggers... get paid for blogging. The issue, just like the expert witness, is by who. That is literally the whole point of disclosure for mommy bloggers, disclosing conflict of interests. Why not for witnesses?
Again, you keep putting out arguments that seem to be defending the current system without actually stating as much. If you feel the FTC should be as it is, then say so. These off handed contrarian comments with subtle defense of terrible things... is a kinda dishonest way to communicate.
I will say, you did spell out the rationalization of this. But a rationalization is just that: "the action of attempting to explain or justify behavior or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate.". Your logic can also be restated in a way that really highlights the issue I have:
People are not to assume someone in a commercial setting is getting compensated for endorsement. So therefore a disclosure is needed and strong enforcement.
People who are volunteering (jury) are to assume that things that happen in a non-commercial setting happen for money. Therefore, no disclosure is needed and no enforcement.
Also, the commercial setting has low stakes. The court setting has high stakes.
Which again, brings us back to: what's your point with these off handed comments?
Edit: Reading your other comments on this page, I think you didn't even read the article, which is why your comments are coming off so strange.
In the opening 'graphs of TFA the People should be paying experts, police officers and prosecutors, and the police and DAs should be deciding on the viability and priority of the case as they do for convenience store robberies etc.
Imagine if "Rich man" had a wife who was killed and a "Poor man" who he wanted to see convicted of the murder. Now you have police and DAs who are clearly on the take and the conviction can be funded by "Rich man". And "Rich man" can supply the "evidence" and the "experts" who explain it.
The second scenario you describe is clearly corrupt, but I don't see how paying a consultant for their time is the objectionable part; when you stack that against a DA on the take, a police force on the take, and a rich man fabricating evidence, that all seems like a larger problem to me than "the rich man can pay an expert to testify about their expertise", especially given that the testimony of the expert witness can be challenged.
TFA is "the fucking article."
It's derived from RTFA - "read the fucking article," something said when someone makes a comment that is addressed in the article. However "TFA" doesn't have the same rudeness that "RTFA" has and doesn't imply anyone didn't read the article.
For those of us that like to read and think and then comment, it can be frustrating talking with people who are just gratifying their ego by putting out words with no idea of what the topic even is.
