It addition to coverage below, here and here, there's a broader point that needs to be made about how moronic today's deposition became.

Earlier this month I said our campaign finance system is broken, saying in part:

The ultimate issue is that campaign finance "reformers" have long since operated under the belief that money in politics is evil. It, though it be a form of speech, should be heavily regulated - or at least be litigated in public a month before an election when the money/speech in question benefits their opponents.

Yet, the laundry list of stories above reveals instances of action that are actually legal within our campaign finance system, or earnestly insisted to be legal by attorneys on one side of the dispute. Yet in all cases, it is very easy to construe a conflict of interest absent the black and white world campaign finance reformers apparently wish to create, where politicians and those that seek to support them can hardly ever speak to one another.

Simply put, since government can't regulate relationships, it will never be able to regulate the appearance of conflict of interest - especially in the hands of partisans eager to turn any collection of facts into a political advantage.

That attempt to regulate relationships is exactly what unfolded today. When one of the plantiffs' lawyers wasn't frivolously trying to get Rossi to offer legal opinions on PDC statute and interpretation, liberal activist Knoll Lowney was earnestly asking about any contacts Dino Rossi had with BIAW during the 2004 campaign. Never mind that the legal "case" at hand deals entirely with 2008 (thus the vigorous objection of Rossi's lawyer), Lowney apparently wanted to establish that proof of a any previous relationship was somehow material to independent campaign expenditures.

Taking Lowney's childish logic to the next level, Christine Gregoire probably should never have spoken - ever - with anyone affiliated with the Washington Federation of State Employees, SEIU, WEA, the Democratic Governor's Association, or anyone else spending money in a manner legally independent of her campaign in 2008. She just might have worked something out with them sometime back...well, whenever.

Indeed, she probably should never have spoken to state Democratic Party Chair Dwight Pelz since he has the capability to spend money on her re-election bid, independent of her campaign. Indeed, someone who might be a candidate in the future probably shouldn't talk to anyone who might someday be capable of spending money independently in support of that candidate's election effort. At least in the world of frivolous pre-election "legal action" by Knoll Lowney.

Furthermore, people keep asking this blogger when he is going to run for office. I guess that probably means I should never talk to Luke Esser if I ever run into him again at another political function. Wouldn't want to have a relationship that establishes the mere possibility of something...later...which no doubt Lowney would like to litigate using whatever conspiracy theory comes to mind. In October.

Meanwhile, could someone please explain to me how you are supposed to be a candidate for public office - let alone an elected official - if the mere fact of having conversations with people in the world of politics (where, by chance, people talk to each other) sets up the possibility of....well, something Knoll Lowney thinks he can sue over?

Never mind, rhetorical question. And you get the point.

Today was a farce...paid for by Evergreen Progress.