I think it really depends on how the campaign manager reacts once a site officially scams. If a site scams then the manager attempts to get participants to continue to advertise the (what is now a) scam site, then the manager should be at least partially responsible. On the other hand, if they are neutral or encourage people to leave the campaign then I don't see any reason to blame them for something they have no control over.
There are a number of companies that have advertised via signature ads, and most likely many more will advertise in the future. Some of them will turn out to be a scam.
I assume this is about the "yahoo" situation involving ormine. I'm not sure if negative trust is appropriate in his situation, although I don't know much about the situation beyond that he was running their signature campaign. Unless there is evidence that he knew they were planning a scam, or if he tried to get people to continue to advertise after they scammed (like EvilPanda) then I would not leave negative trust.
I would agree there is not a cut and dry we can say yes they are or no. I think it really depends on how they acted and what knowledge they had. With being campaign manager I think you do have the responsibility as a ambassador for lack of better term to be in talks with the company and know how it is going. You should know if buisness looks good or hearing things that are scary.
Now if business said all the right things and kept paying for campaign, and there was nothing to point to scam. It's harder to blame campaign manager. Also if everyone is paid or not I think is a factor. If all that were part got paid... then it again leans to manager doing job right. If they have anyone who was not paid... then it leads twords possible reason for neg as they should be keeping track of if they are able to pay everyone.
So i guess it comes down to if you trust the campaign manger did not see the signs of it coming, and was out of that loop. Which I think is hard to prove in a lot of cases.
