Update, 29 March 2011. School District 5 placed the ad. Because it did not say “vote for the levy,” it was considered an informational ad, not a political ad, and there was no legal requirement for a “paid for” disclaimer. I think most people, myself included, considered it a vote for the levy ad, the absence of the magic words notwithstanding, but no campaign law was violated. Not attributing the ad to the school district was a political and public relations mistake, however, and it still is not clear to me whether that occurred by design or by accident.
And why didn’t the InterLake make sure that information was published? At this point, we do not know whether the people behind the ad were trying to escape credit for their deed, or whether the InterLake’s advertising department erred while composing the ad.
Knowing what happened matters, but not nearly as much as identifying the people who paid for the ad.