George Will highlights Washington's censoring speech by court order in Newsweek. He is not covering the State Public Disclosure Commission's announcement Thursday that the wrong people are financing campaigns. See Interest groups have taken over elections, panel fears. They are just warming up; watch them.
No. He is talking about the successful efforts last year by several cities to shut up talk radio hosts when they threaten tax revenues. Successful? Yes. After the judge ruled that their speech for I-912 counted as capaign contributions John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur were able to keep talking because it was an issue, not a candidate. There is no spending limit for issues (Will says there is during the last 3 weeks), but there is for candidates. So talk-show hosts are prevented from enthusiastically covering a candidate like Carlson and Wilbur did I-912. And he certainly slowed them down; a court order against one tends to cause caution.
Will:
SEATTLE--As the comprehensive and sustained attack on Americans' freedom of political speech intensifies, this city has become a battleground. Campaign-finance "reformers," who advocate ever-increasing government regulation of the quantity, timing and content of political speech, always argue that they want to regulate "only" money, which, they say, leaves speech unaffected. But here they argue that political speech is money, and hence must be regulated. By demanding that the speech of two talk-radio hosts be monetized and strictly limited, reformers reveal the next stage in their stealthy repeal of the First Amendment.And
This is the America produced by "reformers" led by John McCain. The U.S. Supreme Court, in affirming the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold speech restrictions, advocated deference toward elected officials when they write laws regulating speech about elected officials and their deeds. This turned the First Amendment from the foundation of robust politics into a constitutional trifle to be "balanced" against competing considerations--combating the "appearance of corruption," or elevating political discourse or something. As a result, attempts to use campaign regulations to silence opponents are becoming a routine part of vicious political combat.Posted by Ron Hebron at October 01, 2006 05:05 PM | Email This
I-912 was stupid and wasteful. But the lawsuit to abridge free speech was dangerous as well as really dumb. Carlson, Kirby and KVI are right to fight it.
Posted by: thor on October 1, 2006 07:45 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 1, 2006 08:07 PMPlease read the staute:
RCW 42.17.020
Section 15 (b)
(b) "Contribution" does not include:
(i) Standard interest on money deposited in a political committee's account;
(ii) Ordinary home hospitality;
(iii) A contribution received by a candidate or political committee that is returned to the contributor within five business days of the date on which it is received by the candidate or political committee;
(iv) A news item, feature, commentary, or editorial in a regularly scheduled news medium that is of primary interest to the general public, that is in a news medium controlled by a person whose business is that news medium, and that is not controlled by a candidate or a political committee;
What Kirby and John did was provide commentary or editorial that is of primary interest to the general public.....black letter law. What the judge did was a prime example of legislating from the bench because he didn't like the message. A very dangerous decision from a very dangerous judge.
Commentary aside they also recruited and organised volunteers (both on and off the air) for the effort which is not listed as not being a contribution.
Please site where they overstepped the bounds because all they were doing was advocating a postion.
As to your assertion that "they also recruited and organised volunteers (both on and off the air) for the effort.." that is blatently false. They told people where to go to sign petitions. They mentioned the website and told listeners where to go to get petitions (Kinkos).
As to what they did off the air...that is irrelevent. They are private citizens and are allowed to volunteer their time which is not a contribution.
Again...everything they did falls under the relevent RCW which "anybody with enough remaining brain celss to make a rational decision should be able to tell".
What the judge did was blatent disregard for the law because he didn't like the message. That judge should be reprimanded for his conduct IMHO because judges like that are dangerous to a free society.
Posted by: DRW on October 3, 2006 10:35 AMThe fact that the Supreme Court doesn't see things this way is very troubling. When our elected officials are allowed to pass laws restricting the citizens' ability to attempt to replace them at the next election, we have sown the seeds of tyrany. Tyrany is a hardy weed, and thrives and spreads unless constantly pruned. Our garden is a mess.
Sorry to be so pessimistic. You can all go back to watching American Idol now.
Posted by: Steve on October 3, 2006 12:02 PM