The No New Gas Tax campaign took Judge Christopher Wickham's dopey ruling to its illogical extreme yesterday and reported in-kind contributions not only from KVI, but from every media outlet that mentioned the No New Gas Tax campaign in its reportage, including the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
Every media outlet that is except for Sound Politics, several of whose contributing writers have expressed support for I-912 on this blog. If No New Gas Tax wishes to report our in-kind contribution to the PDC, I estimate its monetary value at $357,626.41, which is no more or less accurate than the calculation that, say, the Tacoma News Tribune's contribution is worth $750. And while I'm on this subject, if anybody from the David Irons for King County Executive campaign is reading, please report the affixture of an Irons bumpersticker to my automobile as an in-kind contribution worth $1,052.86
UPDATE: I just stepped out for a bit wearing an Elect David Irons T-shirt. Increase my in-kind contribution to his campaign by $23.07!
The Mayor of Auburn called Wilbur at KVI and told them that Foster, Pepper and Shefelman the law firm had not fully disclosed the extent of the law suit. That if he had know they where going to focus on the activities of KVI they would not have signed on. Foster, Pepper and Shefelman misrepresented to the City of Auburn the content of the suit.
Since Wickham is obviously partisan in this matter, some smart legal beagle should file to have him report the value of his rulings for the KWR crowd.
Posted by: JCM on July 14, 2005 12:53 PMI am now confused. Should I report my debating with customers at my job about the pros and cons of 912 as an in-kind donation? And if so, which side should I be reporting I donated to? I mean, while for the most part I debate the pros of 912, I have also done some really good debates on how to make 912 fail. Also, should I report my rantings against the new cigarette tax and Lady Gregoire as in-kind contributions to the Dino Rossi for Governor fund? And finally, when I think bad thoughts about politicians, be they Democrat or Republican, do I have to report that to the appropriate agencies?
This is a disturbing time. This justification of destroying our constitutional rights will be the downfall of of country, NOT attacks from without. (Sorry to seem a bit nihilistic, but Politics-wise, there is not much to be positive about as of late.)
Domo.
Posted by: Left Behind by the New Democratic Party on July 14, 2005 01:00 PMIt really demonstrates the true absurdity of the Judges ruling.
Posted by: Cliff Smith on July 14, 2005 01:03 PMAre we all waiting like Socialists for someone ELSE to do the work?
Posted by: Hank Bradley on July 14, 2005 01:13 PMThis could be serious! After all, a negative article or opinion might well be a positive contribution as more and more people realize that they are not a news organization but a propaganda machine for the left.
Thereofore, a negative contribution could really be a positive contribution and make the negative claim a false report. Whew!
Posted by: Ron A. on July 14, 2005 01:20 PMPoor judge. Doesn't realize the silly position he put himself into. Engaged in deep research & blinded by his deep hours of reading, the book was shown to him to be upside down the whole time. No wonder.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 14, 2005 01:21 PMWickman obviously cannot tell miso paste and human waste apart. (Korean expression, if anyone is curious)
Posted by: C. Oh on July 14, 2005 01:45 PMLike congress, lawyers and judges are excempt from their actions and rulings. Although there is hope that Justice Stevens will have his house taken for public use.
Posted by: fred on July 14, 2005 01:48 PMKeep in mind Wickham's contributors in that election will include the likes of your tax dollars from the violence against women funded organizations- you know the ones running PSAs on 1 in 3 women being assaulted in her life time (a bogus statistic that has never been proven- but is used to get more money) Along with this funding will be the slimy weasels you saw in the gas tax campaign...he knows where his bread is buttered and his rulings reflect it.
I'll point out that midway through his last campaign he was caught off gaurd when someone pointed out that his role as judge was not to carry on his freaking activist patronizing to special interests- he quickly stole one of the other candidates quotes on being "a gaurdian of the law." Gaurdian of parasites describes him more accurately.
again- if no one steps up- he's sitting there for life as an activist- or until he gets a bump up to the state supreme court.
Posted by: Andy on July 14, 2005 02:01 PMI believe it's Justice Souter's house that's been in the news.
Posted by: jimg on July 14, 2005 02:22 PMYour words are analyzed by sensors & microphones in your home & at work. Party & candidate names and initiative issues are logged as you speak. A tally is made. Presto! You are charged a fee for the total of each phrase on either side of the issue or party. The amount is deducted from your bank account. Electronic, wireless filing with the state PDC is done monthly & automatically. It's 99.98% accurate, too.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 14, 2005 02:25 PM
Pro Bono is from Latin meaning "for the good" or, more broadly, "for the public good." Pro Bono work is generally performed by professionals and, though most often used in context of the legal professon, it is not, to the best of my knowledge, restricted to that profession.
John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur at KVI radio are, again to the best of my knowledge, professional radio broadcasters. Their work in support of I-912 could be viewed as being "pro bono." (granted, this is separate from the free speech issue.)
Why would Foster, Pepper & Shefelman's work be considered pro bono yet Wilbur & Carlson's not? Both could be said to be offering their professional expertise without compensation; Foster, Pepper & Shefelman are not being paid (to the best of the public's knowledge) by KWR nor is Carlson & Wilbur being paid by the proponents of I-912.
Considering what lawyers charge, Foster, Pepper & Shefelman's "pro bono" contribution to KWR could be worth REALLY big bucks.
Maybe a legal-beagle can jump in and clarify this? I'm not a lawyer, nor have I ever played one on TV...but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Posted by: GMT on July 14, 2005 03:04 PMPro Bono is from Latin meaning "for the good" or, more broadly, "for the public good." Pro Bono work is generally performed by professionals and, though most often used in context of the legal professon, it is not, to the best of my knowledge, restricted to that profession.
John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur at KVI radio are, again to the best of my knowledge, professional radio broadcasters. Their work in support of I-912 could be viewed as being "pro bono." (granted, this is separate from the free speech issue.)
Why would Foster, Pepper & Shefelman's work be considered pro bono yet Wilbur & Carlson's not? Both could be said to be offering their professional expertise without compensation; Foster, Pepper & Shefelman are not being paid (to the best of the public's knowledge) by KWR nor is Carlson & Wilbur being paid by the proponents of I-912.
Considering what lawyers charge, Foster, Pepper & Shefelman's "pro bono" contribution to KWR could be worth REALLY big bucks.
Maybe a legal-beagle can jump in and clarify this? I'm not a lawyer, nor have I ever played one on TV...but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Posted by: GMT on July 14, 2005 03:05 PMPro Bono is from Latin meaning "for the good" or, more broadly, "for the public good." Pro Bono work is generally performed by professionals and, though most often used in context of the legal professon, it is not, to the best of my knowledge, restricted to that profession.
John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur at KVI radio are, again to the best of my knowledge, professional radio broadcasters. Their work in support of I-912 could be viewed as being "pro bono." (granted, this is separate from the free speech issue.)
Why would Foster, Pepper & Shefelman's work be considered pro bono yet Wilbur & Carlson's not? Both could be said to be offering their professional expertise without compensation; Foster, Pepper & Shefelman are not being paid (to the best of the public's knowledge) by KWR nor is Carlson & Wilbur being paid by the proponents of I-912.
Considering what lawyers charge, Foster, Pepper & Shefelman's "pro bono" contribution to KWR could be worth REALLY big bucks.
Maybe a legal-beagle can jump in and clarify this? I'm not a lawyer, nor have I ever played one on TV...but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Posted by: GMT on July 14, 2005 03:07 PMWhat this party hack judge did is nothing compared to what the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has done to the Constitutional rights of all men. WA state has VAWA inspired laws that are the worst in the country.
So, if you are a man, you not only have freedom of speech, you also do not have equal protection under the law or the right to due process.
There is not much left of the Constitution for us. Frankly, I don't know why any young men volunteer for military service and risk dying for a Constitution that does not apply to them.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on July 14, 2005 03:39 PMHi,
As required by current Washington law, I need to report my contribution in sup
port of the No New Gass Tax. Please record that on July 14, 2005 I Eric XXX of Olympia WA did contribute an inkind donation to the NowNewGasTax.com by voicing my opinion publicly. The total value of my contribution is $0.02
Thank You
Eric XXXX
Olympia WA 98516
If silence is indeed golden, and gold is at, what, $350 or so an ounce, and if each minute is worth an ounce of gold, then let's see... since May, I have spent two months saying absolutely nothing about KWR... two months is sixty days... one day is 24 hours... 24 hours is 1440 minutes... 1,440 x 60 days is 86,440 minutes... (this is campaign financing at its best, folks!)... 86,440 minutes times $350 per ounce... WOW.
Folks, by keeping silent about KWR, I have donated an estimated $30,240,000 in in-kind contributions, and they STILL LOST.
Just goes to show ya: a crappy liberal campaign with all that backing still can't beat the will of the people.
Posted by: ERNurse on July 14, 2005 05:01 PMEric is on to something. We really should start sending in all sorts of statements of the value of our contributions to the PDC.
Good one Eric!
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on July 14, 2005 06:31 PMI suggest that all of you send a notice of your $0.02 contribution whenever you post to the comment section of this blog.
To help us out, Shark should make the e-mail generation automatic. Whenever we push the "post" button, an e-mail should be sent to the PDC notifying them of our in-kind contribution to whatever cause the posting was about.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on July 14, 2005 06:38 PMAs far as knowing which special interest is behind one or another candidate, did you ever look at the tribes contributions. Usually, they are fined for being late and file several years after the election.
And then there are contributions that aren't reported. Believe me, I have been through it.
Posted by: swatter on July 15, 2005 06:31 AMThen they give the punch line, by informing us that they, being serious MSM journalists, only convey to their readers their disinterested, objective reporting of the news.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on July 15, 2005 09:00 AMI've mentioned previously about a back room meeting that has been going on discussing how much to jack up legalized extortion on child support (which has nothing to do with the cost of raising a child). The insiders around this committee have done their best to keep it a quiet and dark secret.
Wanna guess who is in this secret committee--- yep-your good friend CHRIS WICKHAM!
This should give you an idea of how big of a slimy business it is for the state to break up families and this where Wickham is getting his bread buttered.
I swear if the GOP took this anti father, anti family issue head on- Olympia would be redder a whole lot quicker.