Today's Seattle Times editorial defends KVI and excoriates Thurston County Superior Court Judge Christopher Wickham for his ruling that John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur had to report their airtime advocating for I-912 as an in-kind contribution:
Two years ago, when the federal campaign-finance law reached the U.S. Supreme Court, dissenting justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas warned that something like this would happen. We doubted it; it seemed clear to us that the law applied to ads, not editorial content. We thought Thomas was over the top when he said campaign-finance law was leading toward "outright regulation of the press."I'd go one step farther. The voters of Thurston County also need to deny Judge Wickham another term on the bench. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 08, 2005 08:24 PM | Email ThisJudge Wickham has made a step toward just that. It is a dangerous, unconstitutional ruling. The losers need to appeal it and the appellate courts need to reverse it.
Talk about trampling all over civil liberties and the constitution!
Just a guess, but I'd say Judge Wickham is not a KVI listener!
Posted by: Joe on July 8, 2005 08:56 PMBoth true, as is the fact that the President should have vetoed McCain-Feingold in the first place, and the Supreme Court should not have let it pollute the Bill of Rights.
Only now the Times wakes up? "It seemed clear to us that the law applied to ads, not editorial content". My dear Editors, what the hell's the difference? They're identical, in that their intent is to influence the opinions of readers to the benefit of the writers. Unless somehow editors are just automatically holier than thou...
Figuring I'd never encounter this slimeball again-and to not be too much of a vengeful guy over the relatively small amount of money I lost-I let the effort slide after the primary. Now I see what happens when good men do nothing.
This ruling on the gas tax had nothing to do with the law- this was Wickham's way of greasing the skids for his next move through the government underbelly. He's issued similar bogus rulings for years as commisioner- tens of thousands of dollars later you could hopefully get them overturned at the Superior court level- for the laymen this was long after you were bankrupt. Most of the cases listed on that site are divorce/custody- but you can see that when a sewer nugget with power disregards the rights of some- they will easily do it to others (where have we seen this before?)
All of you need to encourage a candidate to step up and run against this sleeze ball in '08. Historically no one runs against a sitting judge in Thurston County- so unless someone steps up- he's going to continue his career of disgracing the law.
BTW- he ran unsuccessfuly once before in the '90s- he's basically spent the last decade trying to get into the seat.
I'll say it yet again- there is a lot of victims who will put $ into getting this bozo off the bench.
There is a lot more slime under his finger nails- for the sake of human decency I'll pull those punches- anyone local who knows to what I refer will happily state that it would make your stomach turn.
To the 'judge' I say this, here in the United States we take pride in the ability to say what we want and support what we want, without fear of goverment reprisal...you don't like that...then leave.
Posted by: Jason on July 8, 2005 10:28 PMWashington Association of REALTORS
AFL-CIO
The Boeing Company
Microsoft
Washington Mutual
Weyerhauser
Seattle Mariners
Pemco Financial
Sierra Club
Vulcan Inc
Puget Sound Energy
Bellevue Chamber of Commerce
Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce
WELCOME TO THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF WASHINGTON!!!!
Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on July 8, 2005 10:47 PMHe is the reason that some people would like to have a "none of the above" option on the ballot.
Of course, the political oligarchy that runs the state, headed by Queen GreGore, want nothing to do with giving voters the option to reject all of the candidates (or the single candidate) that they are presented with.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on July 8, 2005 11:13 PMI looked into why no one runs- here are some reasons.
1- for a worthwhile attorney its a big pay cut.
2- you've got to prove:
a. The current bozo is doing bad
b. You are a better bozo
3- It's non partisan position so you've got to raise your own money.
There is also some unsaid stuff about having to go in front of the incumbent judge you ran against.
A lot of the stuff I've posted here in past comments are things they like to keep secret for fear of reprisal- like who would admit that shopping exists? Who would admit that a commisioner would be out of control?
http://minuteofangle.us/archives/2005/07/05/thurston-superior-court-judge-chris-wickham/
Posted by: Difranco on July 9, 2005 12:07 AMThere is simply no end to the destructive stupidity that comes from activist judges.
Following this dufus' ruling there is no end to the court cases we will hear trying to appeal how much control the government has over contributions, speech AND THOUGHT!
I suppose a billboard will only be allowed to stand for a certain amount of time to limit the amount of traffic that may view it...
Posted by: Baynative on July 9, 2005 06:52 AMThat's why David Goldstein at the HorsesAss.org is all for it.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 9, 2005 07:41 AMWhat we need is some legislators with guts. Start impeachment proceedings on Judges who make outrageous rulings like this. Probably wouldn't result in anything, but the message would be clear. That goes for the 5 SOCTUS nincompoops on the Kelo ruling.
It also makes clear the importance of the judicial nomination fight.
The judicial branch needs a hard yank on its chain a clear reminder that is a coequal branch no a superior branch of government.
The legislative branch should respond the types of rulings with immediate legislation to over rule the court. The executive branch should issue an EO that the ruling is out of bounds and that the Executive Branch will totally disregard the ruling.
Judges are not the ultimate authority, they are part of the balance.
Start by emailing the White House:
president@whitehouse.gov
and tell the GWB to nominate strict constructionists to the SCOTUS.
I think that he only served to rile up the voters even more so - as evidenced by more than 420,000 + signatures that were submitted for I-912. If the state government & judicial are going to continue their arrogant attitude and ways - it is time for the constituents to rise up and overthrow these bums !
Posted by: KS on July 9, 2005 11:10 AMIf the ACLU does not advocate all of citizens constitutional rights and continue to only acknowledge those that fit their agenda (ie. be Al-Qaeda's best friend - just because they hate the White House), then it that it is way past time for citizens to rise up and repudiate the ACLU for their apparent fascistic agenda.
There is more to this story - other views that are valid, but until I see evidence of the far left wanting to reason with opposing views, while appeasing terrorists - that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Posted by: KS on July 9, 2005 11:21 AMHowever, it seems that Judge Wickham has missed something in the Constitution:
ARTICLE II
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
SECTION 1 LEGISLATIVE POWERS, WHERE VESTED.
The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and house of representatives, which shall be called the legislature of the state of Washington, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature, and also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, Section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature. (a) Initiative: The first power reserved by the people is the initiative.
Pity he didn't give the PEOPLE as much deference as he did the legislature.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 9, 2005 01:15 PMI was thinking the same thing when I read the article. Unfortunately, I doubt that they will get challanged. None of the other advocates of the gas tax have been singled out. Every article you read in the MSM promotes the tax; yet, I'll bet none of them are declaring their articles as campaign contributions.
Posted by: Gil on July 9, 2005 04:47 PMHe doesn't need to get re-elected if he runs uncontested.
If no one steps up- he's in for life. Anyone running against him that(heaven forbid) loses is likely to have a very hard time running a law practice in Thurston County after the election since the other sitting judges here aren't exactly cream pies either.
Remember- this is the same set of activists who appointed him to be commisioner- and let him sit as commisioner while doing so much damage. It's quite a mafia.
Posted by: Andy on July 9, 2005 11:20 PMThurston County needs to stop that man at all costs.
Posted by: Sailor Republica on July 10, 2005 12:33 AMThis vote will not even be close! As was the case of this initiative signing. People are chomping at the bit to send a clear message to the democraps in Olympia that we don't approve of your emergencies, screw the tax payer over and over mentality!
Posted by: GS on July 10, 2005 01:05 AMCheck out this site - which is about the only place I am aware of where you can report abuses you have experienced in the hands of a judge:
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on July 10, 2005 01:15 AMHe's a judge, he's smarter than you. Obviously you can't read between the lines where it says...
Except conservative, and white males.
That's why he is a judge, he know what's best for us, and won't let 225 year old papers written by dead white guys get in the way.
Posted by: JCM on July 10, 2005 06:47 AMIf the hacks in Bellevue and at Fischer Broadcasting have a problem with agendas not dominating the PUBLIC airwaves, perhaps they should switch to sattelite radio.
Free speech is one thing, but these media mergers, aquisitions and especially all of the consolidations so that dumploads like Rupert Murdoch (this guy is NOT CONSERVATIVE) own all the microphones, mandate there be some limitations on political activity. The guy's not even American!!
This isn't a free speech issue, it's all about ELITISM. I realize most of you in here are too ignorant to figure that out on your own.
Posted by: Jim on July 10, 2005 07:36 AMRadio is market driven, not agenda driven. If no listened to KVI they would be off the air.
When the founders wrote the first amendment (which you obviously haven't read) the only media was "press" material printed on a physical printing press, hence the term "press." Press at that time was actively, passionately, and many times vitirolically partisan. Yet the founders found it important to absolutely forbid restriction on the "press." Since you seem to hold the belief that only ink on paper printed on a machine which imprints the text on paper as press. Should we then limit the newspapers' Internet presence? It obviously in not "press."
Fast forward to today, there are many new forms of media. The founders intent was for unfettered political and religious speech.
What you are proposing is limiting political speech.
Justify your position using original texts.
Posted by: JCM on July 10, 2005 10:04 AMPerhaps if we're quiet, we can get him to squawk out a platitude like "Ingrates!" or "Americans are such hypocrites". Spoken like a true krell-boy.
Come on Jim, entertain us!
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 10, 2005 11:01 AMHe doesn't like Bellevue, KVI, Fisher or Fox.
He thinks that one-sided use of public airwaves should be condemned. I agree. NPR, ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS should all have to be more "fair". Report POSITIVE things about America and Americans.
Run stories that show our soldiers are not ALL child killers, rapists, murderers, torturers and sadists.
Run stories that show not ALL Republicans are racist homophobes.
Run stories that show that Democrats are just as infatuated with big money as Republicans - Trial Lawyers, abortion industry, teachers unions, etc.
Run exposes on government abuse and waste REGARDLESS of the party in power. I find the mantra, "We're the government watchdogs" to be false and self-serving.
Judge Wickham was wrong.
Carlson and Wilbur are entertainment, but they are also commentators. Daily, long-winded editorialists advocating one thing or another. No different than the editorial and opinion pages of newspapers, magazines or news broadcasts over PUBLIC and private broadcast media. There are other radio hosts that have supported other causes with as much, if not more, zealousness - should their time also be reported and regulated?
For every article or story designed to denigrate (or support) a specific candidate, should those producing the commentary be required to report? Should the government be allowed to regulate them?
As for not liking certain shows or points of view, turn it off or change the channel. Isn't this what "we" are told about broadcast and cable television? Why should conservatives (neo or otherwise) be the only ones always forced to turn it off or change the channel? Last time I accidentally tuned in to Air America and was offended, I turned it off - and felt much better.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 10, 2005 12:31 PMThe right to free speech does not mean the right to say anything you want anywhere. You don't get to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre and you don't
get to passionately promulgate your unorthodox political views at a dinner party (without being asked to leave) unless the host is cooperative.
Some minimal measure of fairness and an institutional limit on how much influence can be peddled is a very reasonable price to pay for being given custody of an outlet that BELONGS TO ALL OF US, but which only a very privileged few will ever be gifted to profit from.
To look at it a different way, we have every right as landlords to set rules regarding how our properties will be managed and lived on.
Broadcasters are given LICENSES, not TITLES or DEEDS or certificates of ownership. When you acquire a license you always agree to abide by certain standards of conduct, that's the whole point of a license.
The Soros comment is stupid. To my knowledge George has never been accused of endorsing candidates or propositions on public airwaves he owns.
BTW I don't necessarily think Scalia and Thomas were referring to the broadcast media in their dissent--which as I said has always been speech restricted by the Fairness Doctrine and such--but to restrictions on newspapers and other PRIVATE media enterprises which in fact would have a chilling effect on free speech and be egregiously unconstitutional.
Posted by: Jim on July 10, 2005 01:42 PMMaybe he'll tell us one about the big bad wolf...
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 10, 2005 02:11 PMYou missed the point of an FCC license-- broadcasters aren't given a license, they pay for it. All that license does is guaruntee that they may use a certain radio frequency at a certain power output, with a few other technical guidelines. Otherwise, you could have three different stations on the same frequency in the same area.
The standards apply only to decency while using public airwaves, not political speech. The First Amendment was written specifically to cover this sort political speech. No, you don't have the right to yell fire in a theater, but you do have the right to stand on a corner spouting your views, so long as you don't impede the rights of others or incite violence-- hence the term "standing on a soapbox," people used to literally stand on soapboxes on street corners spouting there views. All KVI's FCC license does is insure that they do it at a certian radio frequency (570), as opposed to KIRO's (710) or KTTH's (770), and that they aren't obscene in doing it.
It's no different then, say, Antioch Church renting out Lake Washington High School's gym for Sunday services or the AFL-CIO obtaining a parade permit for a rally down 4th Ave.
Posted by: Mike H on July 10, 2005 03:46 PMSoros spent millions on groups that love to yell fire in a crowded theater. He specifically stated he would spend his entire fortune to defeat a particular candidate.
Fox News, which I watch more than others, is on cable and therefore not affected by broadcast licensing. I must have missed all of the shows where Murdoch came on to push his position and I don't recall any of the news people starting with "Mr. Murdoch told us to tell you..."
If a minister stands up in church and expresses support for a prolife candidate, the IRS can swoop in and revoke tax exemption status. Some freedom of religion.
Broadcasters on the public airwaves have been letting more and more "less than decent" programming through and it is "allowed" by Congress and the FCC.
But when it comes to a stand on a specific political item like the citizens wanting to vote on the largest tax increase in state history, then there is a problem with free speech?
Gratuitous name calling and condescending obnoxiousness is hardly a good starting point for claiming the high ground on proper boundries of free speech.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 10, 2005 04:23 PMYeah I want ole Rupert to be able to say whatever he wants on every one of those stations 24-7! No question of elitism here! No oligarchy or anything.
Wake up man.
Posted by: Jim on July 10, 2005 04:39 PMYou see, he bought heavily into the tinfoil market and is committed to its liberal usage....
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 10, 2005 05:01 PMAs I have mentioned, his ruling was contrary to the extremely clear text of the Washington Constitution and this is troublesome.
I hope the I-912 group appeals. Washington should not become a Free Speech Free zone.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 10, 2005 05:25 PMI'm 27 and have been working in broadcast TV since I was 18, so I think I have enough experiance to know what the heck I'm talking about.
Let me share a little bit of reality with you about the braodcast business... if Murdoch said what ever he wanted on every one of Clear Channels stations 24/7, those stations would go under because no one would listen to them. Why do you think FOX News does so well? Because it has a market niche that it caters to. But if there were 10 FOX News channels, it would saturate the market and they would all suffer.
And why shouldn't Murdoch be allowed to do that? He invested the money into them, he paid the FCC fees and isn't obscene... oh wait, you apparently only support Freedom of Speech when you agree with it 100%.
Posted by: Mike H on July 10, 2005 05:45 PMserving the public is not always about filling a market niche.
Howard Stern gets very high ratings. Is he making good use of the airwaves?
If it were up to people like you folks, a few media moguls and well connected influence peddlers would be running the whole show... oh wait.
Truly ignorant.
Posted by: Jim on July 10, 2005 10:08 PMHoward's show is Howard's show. Nothing is going to meet your "good use" requirements. So what?
If it were up to me, you'd be sent to the showers for impersonating a human being without a license (but I guess that'll be my cross to bear)...
Truly moronic.
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 10, 2005 10:18 PMOr our newest, bestest buddy, that little ray of sunshine, not-a-liberal, liberal Jim truly finding religion (or at least cracking a smile ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 10, 2005 10:31 PMI know what must be going through his mind when he makes the hastiest of backstage bee-lines during commercial breaks on his show.
Consider this a commercial break.
Posted by: Jim on July 10, 2005 10:55 PMWhatever blows your skirt up.....
(My hero's have always been cowboys...)
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 10, 2005 11:08 PMI actually shoot wedding videos (along with other events, training videos, and other stuff) on the side. I work for KIRO as my regular gig, and KVOS before that. Last I checked, that counts as "broadcast TV"... which means I probably actually have some idea about what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to the broadcast industry... unlike you. I just didn't think COX Broadcasting would appreciate me using my work address on a political blog.
And all this misses the point. Carlson and Wilbur have the right to make whatever political statements they want on their radio programs without infringement, so long as they aren't obscene or inciting violence or a panic (the proverbial shouting fire in theater). Fisher Broadcasting paid the FCC license fee for the right to broadcast at that frequency and wattage. It's no different than getting a parade permit for a political rally in downtown for whatever your favorite cause is. They can spout their beliefs from their soapbox as much and as long as they want, as long as people will listen.
If you don't like it, go spend $100 million and start your own damn TV or radio station.
Posted by: Mike H on July 11, 2005 12:36 AMFisher Broadcasting really is a hypocritical outfit. These are the same shithacks who fired John Carlson a few years back when he did pretty much the exact same thing he's in trouble for now. Of course now that they have competition and by most accounts are getting their asses handed to them, they've decided to look at the rules a little bit differently.
For those of you lambasting the Judge, should KIRO TV news commentators be able to endorse candidates for office? And if so, why haven't they been doing it? Could it have something to do with, oh I don't know, THE LAW!
If your answer is no, Steve Raible should not be able to campaign for Ron Sims while broadcasting, then why the hell should John Carlson be able to use KVI as campaign central for the NO NEW GT initiative?
I support the initiative by the way, I just don't support using popular issues to consolidate more power in the hands of fewer people. Unfortunately too many elitists in the Halliburton party have made this a staple of their civic agenda (Patriot Act, media consolidation, corporate takeovers and buyouts etc.) and traditional conservatives are finally waking up to it.
Posted by: Jim on July 11, 2005 12:04 PMI'm wagering that you meant the "former", not the latter.
It is a moot point in any event.
This will go nowhere, and anyone who rails about elitism or an oligarchy run amuck is simply a barking moonbat.
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 11, 2005 01:46 PMActually, for years KIRO's General Manager did make political endorsements and editorials until I believe the early '90s, as did commentator Lou Guzzo. They quit for purely programming reasons. There is no law preventing Raible from endorsing and campaigning for one candidate or another (I have no idea what Steve's politics are)... only station management is stopping him. And I doubt he would want to even if they allowed him to. It is their view that to be percieved as fair and unbiased, they should keep their opinions to themselves. If we wanted to, we could change our format and become the TV equivilant of Air America or KVI and it would be all perfectly legal and within our rights. It's just a business decision not to. There are still other stations around the country in other markets that do offer editorial commentators.
KVI, on the other hand, is a news and opinion station. Their whole point for existing is to offer their opinion on the news of the day. They are free to do so, there is no law preventing them from doing that. And no, they are not getting their asses handed to them. They are doing quite well in the ratings... more or less tied with KTTH. But since they're drive time guys are all local, they're making more money since the ads area all local.
Also, Carlson was fired because he was using his show to promote his own initiative that he was running. He did nothing illegal-- station management felt that it was simply inapropriate and told him a couple of times to back off. He and Wilbur have gone to pains to not be directly involved in the I-912 campaign. They're merely heavily cheerleading from the sidelines. Yes, they talk about it a lot, but they've also invited the I-912 foes on to give the other side a chance. They've refused to go on.
This judge didn't admonish, but ordered them to report ALL on air time spent speaking as a campaign contribution. Personally, even though I'm in production and have nothing to do with on air content, this ruling scares me half to death. It's a slippery slope until all opinionated speech by the press will be regulated. Read the Seattle Times editorial, they do a wonderful job making the arguement.
Posted by: Mike H on July 11, 2005 02:40 PMThe judge didn't prohibit the speech anyway, he simply said that in the case of outright political advocacy, it had to be reported as an in-kind contribution. I have no idea what legal basis he's relying on other than the CFRA, but frankly it's far less stringent than what should probably be done.
Once again, broadcast televison and radio stations are not newspapers. They are not the internet. They are not cable or strictly satellite outlets. These other mediums are inexhaustible, meaning access is not restricted because of any physical limitation. They are not dependent on any PUBLIC entity to be viable. Ergo the public gets no say concerning the regulation thereof (other then by Constitutional Amendment).
Broadcasters are another story because of their domain, a PUBLIC domain.
As with any public domain, the utilization must serve the interests of all of the public not just those plebs who don't like high gas taxes.
This being a given, no broadcaster should be able to use the PUBLIC airwaves for naked political advocacy unless they give equal time to the other side. It seems to me there are FCC rules about that now, even if the Fairness Doctrine has gone the wayside. If there aren't there should be.
The very real potential of not only restricting access to the most widely dessiminated medium to about .001% of those scions in our society who possess the financial resources or wield the connections and entrepreneurial savvy to come up with $100 million, but on top of that allowing same the widest lattitude to exploit for their own purposes WHAT BELONGS TO THE PUBLIC however they will, is that a clique of monied interests could send us well on the way to a plutocracy for all intents and purposes. The only information you would get from the medium would be that which serves the interests of a small elite. Some argue this has already happened.
Maybe you don't care about that, but I sure as hell do. Would you like all the on-air propaganda to be of the same variety?
Do you want Nazi Germany? Soviet Russia? The Sudan? Do you want a choice between Investia and Pravda on the airwaves. Maybe we don't have that now, but you're certainly opening up the door to it. I know you're going to argue the market will prevent that. No my friend it won't. The Nazis were quite popular in their heyday, quite marketable from what I understand, and I assure you Joseph Goebells had his own John Carlsons and Kirby Wilburs.
Despite what you may have been lead to believe 27 year old Mike who is employed by KIRO television, America is not a fascist plutocracy. It is not one big corporation or simply a whorehouse for elitists.
America is a Republic (not Republican), meaning that the PEOPLE, all of the people--not Ken Hatch or Lloyd Cooney or Ken Schram or any other pimp of vapid talk or tele-tards masquerading as real journalists--get to decide how the airwaves are used. The First Amendment is only applicable when other rights are not infringed upon. In this case it's a property right; the airwaves belong to all of us, not simply those of a particular persuasion.
The Fairness Doctrine should be brought back, and enforced religiously in the case of talktards like Carlson and Wilbur. In fact they HAVE crossed way over the line.
I really hate agreeing with liberals, but freedom trumps free speech. Common sense trumps propaganda.
Posted by: Jim on July 12, 2005 04:02 AMThey're one in the same, Brainiac.
Regardless, if the listeners don't want to hear the opinions aired on a particular station, they leave. Advertisers soon follow, and the station either changes its programming or keeps right on tilting at windmills by its lonesome.
That's the ultimate fairness doctrine at work, and it doesn't take a pointy-headed bueracrat to decide what's OK for everyone else to hear. The kind of Ham-handed governmental regulation you're advocating will have the same effect on programming that you fear from strict corporate censorship.
Well, they probably won't be rounding up listeners and gassing them to death while quoting Pravda...
I can only hope this asshatted ruling is overturned on appeal, but with WA being a part of the 9th Circus, I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: Stewed Hamm on July 13, 2005 02:25 AM