Last week (or the week prior) Prof. Goldman noted the folly in Utah's new "search ad" law.  The story was slashdotted and things sort of took off from there.  (See Prof. Goldman's catalogue of bad Utah internet laws here.)

Utah Senator Dan Eastman responded to the critics on the Utah senate's blog.  This response was followed up by a response from Matthew Prince, CEO of Unspam.  Someone named Voice of Utah commented on the blog, voicing some concerns about Prince's involvement:

Ouch--your guest "law professor" not mentioning his business interest in this legislation? Cringeworthy...
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5635042

The Senate Site (could have been Prince, Eastman, or a site moderator or something – I'll leave you to figure out who it was most likely) responded:

Thanks, VoU, for the link.

Matthew Prince works for UNSPAM. He has confirmed that UNSPAM has no plans to bid on the contract. Not sure they'd be allowed to, anyway. Not sure what his plans are, but if he, or anyone else wants to get involved as private individuals, more power to them.

Although Unspam was involved in the child protection registry (and runs it) it had no apparent involvement to the key word law.  Indeed, Prof. Goldman asked: "If this law isn't generating profits for Unspam, it's very generous of Unspam to give Matthew so much time to write lengthy legal memoranda." 

Since then several stories are adding fuel to the fire.  From KUTV:

Eastman and Clark said they were approached by Unspam Technologies Inc., a Utah company that maintains a state database of children’s e-mails kept off-limits to adult advertising. Unspam operates a similar database for Michigan, and critics say the company is angling to maintain Utah’s new trademark registry.

At first, Unspam Chief Executive Matthew Prince denied his company was involved, but the legislative sponsors said Unspam Vice President Erin Barry, who also is a registered lobbyist, pushed the legislation.

Ask for clarification, Prince said Barry was freelancing when she talked up legislators about “ways this could benefit Utah.”

“We wear different hats,” Prince wrote Monday by e-mail.

 More here:

Eastman said he believes Unspam is interested in fulfilling that service for the state, but Prince stressed otherwise. "Unspam has no financial interest in this legislation…. Unspam has no plans to bid on that contract, but that doesn't say I won't be involved at some point," he said. Prince assisted in drafting the legislation, and stressed his connection to it is on a separate basis as a lawyer who has studied the use of trademarks in keyword advertising, not as CEO of Unspam. Prince said he began consulting with the state in January on the new legislation.

Some of this stuff was probably worth disclosing when "guest-blogging" to defend the law . . . .