The State Supreme Court ruled in favor of KVI, John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur in the San Juan County v. No New Gas Tax case.
We hold that RCW 42.17.090 did not require NNGT to disclose the value of KVI's radio broadcasts supporting the initiative campaign as an in-kind contribution. The statutory media exemption, RCW 42.17.020(15)(b)(iv), excludes from the definition of "contribution" political advocacy for or against a political campaign by the hosts of a regularly scheduled talk show, broadcast by a radio station that is not controlled by a candidate or political committee.Good Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 26, 2007 08:45 AM | Email This
All this crap is, start to finish, was a leftist effort to silence those they disagree with.
There is no way this could have survived without applying the same standard to that most sacred of cows, print media.
Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth at the PI if they had been tasked with reporting all of their leftist PR work as in-kind contributions.
It's not surprising that the left made the effort. What is surprising is that the Soviet Central Committee types on the Spreme Court rejected it.
Posted by: Hinton on April 26, 2007 08:38 AMI'd bet that all the screeching liberals condemning KVI are secretly sighing a deep breath of relief... although I doubt they'd admit it, even to themselves.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 26, 2007 08:42 AMHowever with the trial lawyers are in charge in Olympia, I am sure there will be new "laws" proposed in the next legislative session. Got to close those "loop holes" you know!
Good ol' Ivan in clearly no Einstein.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 26, 2007 09:48 AMEvery time he's opened his mouth since he lost the primary, It's made me very glad I went with Rob McKenna.
Posted by: Cliff on April 26, 2007 10:28 AMBut let's not forget who the lawyer suing KVI, Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson happens to be. Mike Vaska, who calls himself a Republican -- just like John McKay and Mike McKay call themselves Republicans.
And who did Dave Reichert recommend to President Bush for the replacement for John McKay as U.S. Attorney? (1) Rick White -- who was suspended for not paying bar dues and still hasn't reinstated his license to actually practice law, (2) Mike Vaska -- who wanted to suppress free speech in support of Gregoire's gas tax in this I-912 case that just got decided against him, and (3) Jeff Sullivan -- who is actually the only decent and qualified pick of the three.
If Reichert handles his next re-election campaign with equal (in)effectiveness, we will likely be sending Darcy Burner to Congress come next fall.
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 26, 2007 10:29 AMThis is no big victory. You can bet your bottom dollar that a similiar "tie them up in the courts" strategy will be used by activist judges in the future.
Posted by: pbj on April 26, 2007 11:11 AMI nominate Richard Pope for... uh... for Pope!
Posted by: Doug Parris on April 26, 2007 11:31 AMThat's how Thurston County's court operates. This judge is BAD news- (however every one of them on that bench is nearly as bad).
The nut cases down here WANT this type of judge sitting on the bench.
He's got a track record of ruling on cases w/out ever hearing an argument. Hopefully this ruling will prevent him from ever escaping from Thurston (unless the 9th circuit were to take him).
Locally we've started calling it "Hazard County" because the laws of the real world apply here about as well as they do in the Seattle School district.
Posted by: Andy on April 26, 2007 12:05 PMOf course we will all just have to wait and see what tactics will be used in the upcoming elections.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on April 26, 2007 12:21 PMStefan
Trust me I'm not complaining but Ivan has always been a liar. Why now?
Posted by: swassociates on April 26, 2007 12:35 PMIt is none other than the infamous Chris Wickham, the guy I call Chris, because he doesn't deserve to be called Judge.
Thank God for Arab-American males (me) and whack-o judges (Wickham), leastwise we wouldn't have anyone to kick around with impunity!
The Geez
Anyhow, as for Vaska, I 100% agree he should not be considered, and I think Richert is wrong to offer him up. That said, your attack on White is baseless and unnecessary.
Posted by: cliff on April 26, 2007 02:20 PM/sarcasm off
Posted by: TrueSoldier on April 26, 2007 02:32 PMIt will never be considered as a factor in the overall cost of gas.
After all, the government is good...the oil corporations are bad.
Posted by: Jack Burton on April 26, 2007 02:54 PMThe best remedy is to keep talking and writing, as often and loudly as possible, and to keep doing it even as they try to stop you, secure in the knowledge that the the bill of rights really does mean something. It will take courage, because now, as always, it is possible that those who don't want us to have such rights may have superior force.
Already we hear the call that true patriotism is for the armed forces to disobey their commander in chief, and follow a higher moral power (Kofi Annan?, Bono?, Pelosi and Reed?, Rosie O'Donnell?). If this comes to pass, head for the hills because your rights under the constitution won't be worth a wooden Euro.
Sorry to be so pessimistic, but I don't see people connecting the dots. Please discuss.
Posted by: Steve on April 26, 2007 03:12 PMThe corollary here is never pick a fight with anyone who speaks with the power of umpty-umpty thousand megawatts!
There's some interesting blog postings on this issue at David Postman's site at the Seattle Times website, including a few from the ol' Piper.
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on April 26, 2007 03:13 PMI STRONGLY disagree. There is nothing wrong with filing a law suit, suing certain people is good. It's just wrong to sue over stupid, inane things or especially for malicious purposes.
And make no mistake, that is EXACTLY what happened here. Foster Pepper and Shefelman did the legal work that surrounded the bonds that would be issue for the new gas tax, they needed to stop the initiative, so they sued Kirby and John to keep them from talking about the initiative, from raising money, and to drain the yes sides resources and energy, so they got their buddies at the city and county level to sue, who also had a vested interest in seeing it pass, and also wanted to silence the opposition, and also got what they wanted, in spite of this ruling.
It worked. They got exactly what they wanted. Do you really think they care that they get smacked down 9-0 now? Unless they get sued, hell no!
They were able to drain the resources of the yes side, distract from the main issue, and keep Kirby and John from talking about it for several months. Of course, there is no way to know for sure what would have happened if they hadn't done this, but it might well have won them the election.
I say sue every single person, company, city, county and government agency you can, for as much as you can, and take as long as you can to do it so they get huge lawyer bills. Heck, if I were Kirby and John, I'd sue them for violating their civil rights as well as filing a malicious law suit.
Posted by: Cliff on April 26, 2007 06:45 PMWhat is it, though, that a lot of these lawyers hate? PUBLICITY!!! They need to be made PUBLIC (lawsuits tend to be closed room affairs that drone on ad infinitum, ad nauseum, and the PUBLIC has an extremely short attention span) whipping boys and girls as the prime sponsors of a crucifiction of the First Amendment.
Talk radio hosts should do what talk radio hosts are good at doing: TALK!!! And talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk!!!
Whatever $$$ might be recovered from San Juan County or Auburn or Seattle or whatever enclave of political correctness will ultimately be paid by taxpayers, not defendants. And the same lawyers who represented those defendents and cooked up those cheesball briefs and legal arguments will get that much richer and richer.
So...while they're at it...OUT THE FREAKIN' LAWYERS!!! Won't they love that? Put all their cheesy mugs on the KVI website.
Hey! Now here's an idea! Stefan, you listening??? How about creating a Seattle-King County version of The Smoking Gun to air just this type of dirty linen? Pics and copies of pleadings that contain contact information and an encouragement to have Freddy and Frida Freespeech tell them just...exactly...what...they...think! Sweet!
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on April 26, 2007 07:06 PMAmazing what an activist can do when partnered with an activist judge.
Posted by: deadwood on April 26, 2007 09:52 PMMy main gripe with Rick White is that he applied to be appointed as U.S. Attorney back in January 2007, when he was not legally qualified to do the job (due to his lack of an active law license). Apparently, all White needed to do was to take several continuing legal education classes -- something he could have easily done in a week or two had he really wanted to. And White STILL hasn't gotten his law license reinstated. Nor has he withdrawn his name from consideration -- after advancing to the final three.
If it had only been a suspension for failure to pay bar dues, that would have been a relatively minor thing -- if White had only reinstated his license to practice law at around the same time he decided to apply for the job. However, you add a suspension for failing to pay dues to the situation of not currently being licensed, then White looks even less responsible.
White had a VERY GOOD job in 2003 when his bar license was suspended. He could have very easily paid his dues. And he could have easily switched to inactive status, and paid 1/3 of the normal dues, if he thought paying active status dues was a waste of money under the circumstances (i.e. he wasn't actively practicing anyway).
The Bar Association gives an attorney PLENTY of warning before a license is suspended for non-payment:
1. Bar dues for the year are due on February 1.
2. If not timely paid, a reminder notice and e-mail is sent. Dues can actually be paid without any penalty (i.e. just pay the normal amount) until March 1.
3. Dues paid between March 2 and April 1 have a 20% late penalty added. Another reminder notice and e-mails are sent.
4. Dues paid between April 2 and May 1 have a 50% late penalty added. Another reminder notice and e-mails are sent.
5. Starting May 2, an attorney is theorectically subject to suspension. Additional reminder notices and e-mails are sent, including certified mail.
6. In practice, the Supreme Court doesn't actually get around to issuing the suspension order until sometime in August every year, with plenty more notice being provided to the attorney.
7. After being suspended, the attorney must pay 200% of the current year's dues to be reinstated that same year.
8. If the attorney applies for reinstatement in a future year, dues equal to 200% of the missed dues are required, up to 200% of three years dues.
Suspension for non-payment of dues may be non-disciplinary, but it sure ain't any sort of positive thing.
And the selection committee appointed by Dave Reichert (which included Norm Maleng and Mike McKay) should have checked White's qualifications when he applied for the job. Would Maleng hired a deputy prosecutor for his own office, without first checking with the WSBA (which can easily be done on-line) to see whether the attorney was licensed?
(On second thought, don't answer that last question!)
"I have repeatedly opposed a media exemption for bloggers, describing such an exemption as "nothing more than asking our masters for permission to speak." Over two years ago, I said:
In my view, political speech is speech at the core of the First Amendment. Neither the FEC nor any other government agency has any right to regulate it in any way. When my right to engage in such speech is threatened, my impulse is not to seek out a law carving out some exception for my speech. My impulse is to tell those responsible that they can go to hell.
At the risk of being tagged as someone who goes around saying "I told you so" . . . I told you so. The situation in Washington State well illustrates the total insanity of trying to protect our First Amendment rights by cravenly seeking media exemptions.
The First Amendment isn't just for the media. It's for everyone. If someone ever tries to get you to support a "media exemption" to any regulation of speech, tell them they'll have to pry your keyboard from your cold, dead hands."
Posted by: John425 on April 27, 2007 10:08 AMThe only proper response is to tell 'em to go to hell, loudly and often. Our freedoms do not derive from the govt; they are endowed by our creator, not by Olympia or Washington DC. They are inalienable. The only legitimate function of the goverment is to protect these rights.
Tell them loudly - keep yer filthy hands off my microphone, my printing press and my keyboard. We don't need no stinkin' badge!
Posted by: Steve on April 27, 2007 11:28 AMIt still comes down to a very minor issue. Would it have been smart to do so? Sure, but who really cares? The bar doesn't think it's a big deal, why should anybody else?
Does anybody doubt that White is a competent attorney? If you do, why? He'd certainly be better then who he replaced, and I think he's more trustworthy then any of the other candidates. We clearly can't trust Vaska, and we really don't know anything about the other guy.
In the interest of full disclosure, aren't you the sbject of an ACTUAL bar complaint...not just for failure to pay dues? And was this not an issue in your campaign for judge? As I recall you explained it away at the time, which makes your attack of Rick White all the more puzzling.
Jacko
Posted by: jacko on April 29, 2007 09:54 AM