What has happened in Seattle prefigures what a national Democratic administration might try to do to stifle conservative talk radio.
By George F. Will
Newsweek
Oct. 9, 2006 issue - 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.
When the state's government imposed a 9.5-cents-per-gallon increase in the gas tax, John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur of station KVI began advocating repeal by initiative. Proponents of repeal put up a Web site, hoping to raise 1,000 volunteers and $25,000. In two days they had 6,500 and $87,000. Needing 224,880 signatures to put repeal on the ballot, they got 400,996.
Appalled by this outburst of grass-roots democracy, some local governments, which stood to gain many millions from the tax, unleashed a law firm that would gain substantially from handling the bond issues the tax would finance. The firm set out to muzzle Carlson and Wilbur, using the state's campaign regulations.
It got a judge to rule that the broadcasters were not just supporters of the repeal campaign, they were agents of it. Why, they had even used the pronoun "we" when referring to proponents of repeal. Their speech constituted political advertising, and their employer was making an "in-kind contribution" to the repeal campaign. The judge said a monetary value must be placed on their speech (he did not say how, he just said to do it that day). The law says reports must be filed and speech limits obeyed or fines imposed.
State law restricts to $5,000 the amount a single giver can contribute in the three weeks before an initiative. If Carlson's and Wilbur's speech were monetized at radio-advertising rates, they would be silenced for all but about 15 minutes in each of the campaign's crucial last three weeks. They continued to talk (the repeal campaign, outspent almost five to one, lost 54.6-45.4) and, aided by the libertarian litigators of the Institute for Justice, have taken the issue to the state Supreme Court.
What has happened in Seattle prefigures what a national Democratic administration might try to do—perhaps also by reviving the "fairness doctrine" (an "equal time" regulation)—to strangle conservative talk radio. And what has happened here—the use of campaign regulations as weapons of partisanship—is spreading.
A few people opposed to a ballot initiative that would annex their neighborhood to Parker, Colo., talked to neighbors and purchased lawn signs expressing opposition. So a proponent of annexation got them served with a complaint charging violations of Colorado's campaign-finance law. It demands that when two or more people collaborate to spend more than $200 to influence a ballot initiative, they must disclose the names, addresses and employers of anyone contributing money, open a separate bank account and file regular reports with the government. Then came a subpoena demanding information about any communications that opponents of the initiative had with neighbors concerning the initiative, and the names and addresses of any persons to whom they gave lawn signs. They hired a lawyer. That has become a cost of political speech.
In Florida, a businesswoman ceased publication of her small-town newspaper rather than bear compliance costs imposed by that state's speech police. Even though the Wakulla Independent Reporter contained community news and book reviews as well as political news and editorials, state campaign regulators declared it an "electioneering communication" in league with certain candidates, and ordered her to register with, and file regular reports to, the government.
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.
When the court made that mistake, most of the media applauded, assuming, mistakenly, that they would be forever exempt from regulation. If Washington state's Supreme Court does not quash the idea that the government gets to decide who gets to say how much of what on the air, the U.S. Supreme Court will be asked to reconsider the wisdom of deferring to governments when they limit speech about government.
******
That should teach those conservative hate-mongers for opposing their government's tax hikes.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:59 am Posts: 18643 Location: Raleigh, NC Gender: Male
The radio hosts turned their show into a fund raiser for the initiative, hence the trouble.
The answer to it wasn't appropriate, but should radio stations allow their hosts to broadcast what amounts to a telethon for initiatives/candidates?
but should radio stations allow their hosts to broadcast what amounts to a telethon for initiatives/candidates?
I think the real question is; Does government have any right to limit political speech?
Of course not, don't be silly. No one would agree to that.
What they may have a right to is regulating broadcasters raising money for candidates. That I have no problem with whatsoever.
I don't see a real difference between telling someone they cannot express their opinions publically and limiting political speech (be it on the radio or on a podium in a debate). The examples given in the op-ed show that campaign finance 'reforms' are so undefined that almost any "public" expression about politics could be regulated. What constitues broadcasters raising money for candidates? If Pat Robertson says "I donate to the George Bush campaign and so should you" on the 700 club, should that be regulated? Celebrity endorsements have a real value, coudn't any public endorsement by a broadcaster then be considered "raising money"?
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am Posts: 7189 Location: CA
Athletic Supporter wrote:
broken iris wrote:
Athletic Supporter wrote:
but should radio stations allow their hosts to broadcast what amounts to a telethon for initiatives/candidates?
I think the real question is; Does government have any right to limit political speech?
Of course not, don't be silly. No one would agree to that.
What they may have a right to is regulating broadcasters raising money for candidates. That I have no problem with whatsoever.
I'm fairly certain that the federal courts have determined that monetary contributions are a form of political speech. Please correct me if I'm wrong, however.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:59 am Posts: 18643 Location: Raleigh, NC Gender: Male
There's a lot of back-story to this that you're missing.
I didn't pay super close attention to it, but what it amounted to was what started as a radio show endorsing a candidate into open campaigning for that candidate. It turned into the candidate getting complete and full run over a radio station for hours at a time. Is that OK?
Check the Seattle Times for the history of this case, there's much more than just that small article you read.
There's a lot of back-story to this that you're missing.
I didn't pay super close attention to it, but what it amounted to was what started as a radio show endorsing a candidate into open campaigning for that candidate. It turned into the candidate getting complete and full run over a radio station for hours at a time. Is that OK?
Check the Seattle Times for the history of this case, there's much more than just that small article you read.
I cannot find the story you are reffering to. Can you provide a link? I read the first 4 search results on the ST website and none mentioned any candidate at all, other than a lawyer named Vaska, who opposed the radio campaign (because he was courting votes in the districts that would most beenfit from it).
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:59 am Posts: 18643 Location: Raleigh, NC Gender: Male
broken iris wrote:
Athletic Supporter wrote:
There's a lot of back-story to this that you're missing.
I didn't pay super close attention to it, but what it amounted to was what started as a radio show endorsing a candidate into open campaigning for that candidate. It turned into the candidate getting complete and full run over a radio station for hours at a time. Is that OK?
Check the Seattle Times for the history of this case, there's much more than just that small article you read.
I cannot find the story you are reffering to. Can you provide a link? I read the first 4 search results on the ST website and none mentioned any candidate at all, other than a lawyer named Vaska, who opposed the radio campaign (because he was courting votes in the districts that would most beenfit from it).
I'm sorry I said candidate, I meant the initiative. I'll try to find some information about it for you.
I'm sorry I said candidate, I meant the initiative. I'll try to find some information about it for you.
Just for the record, I wasn't try to be dick or anything....
Slightly off topic but I wonder, is the exclusion of views in broadcast media a type of political speech? Many people argue that Fox News is biased because it tends to show only one side of many issues (like the War). Could that not constitute a type of political advertising?
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am Posts: 7189 Location: CA
So, would newspapers get fined if they have more op-ed pieces supporting a particular measure than opposing it? This seems excessive, especially when its something as cut and dry as a tax repeal initiative. Why should the radio station be compelled to give equal time to something that its employees or affiliates disagree in? Revoke its FCC license if it isn't serving the public interest, but fining it is silly.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:59 am Posts: 18643 Location: Raleigh, NC Gender: Male
Quote:
Even radio shock jocks must obey campaign laws
By Randall Gaylord and Mike Vaska Special to The Times used with permission from the Seattle Times
posted 10/27/05 If you listen to certain radio talk-show hosts, you just might think they're above the law. But they're not, especially if they lead initiative campaigns. That wisdom was reaffirmed last month when a Thurston County Superior Court judge ruled that two local radio talk-show hosts must obey campaign-finance laws just like anyone else.
Radio talk-show hosts want you to believe the judge trampled their free-speech rights. But Judge Christopher Wickham was just confirming that anyone running an initiative campaign, no matter how prominent or powerful, must tell the public who is funding their campaign.
Earlier this year, KVI radio talk-show hosts Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson helped promote the launch of a new anti-tax initiative. Wilbur and Carlson implored listeners to "help us" by "going to the Web site" to make contributions. The campaign raised a stunning $180,000 in its first month by soliciting KVI listeners. When enough money was raised to launch the initiative, a KVI press release trumpeted: "KVI Country Delivers a Resounding 'No' to New Gas Tax."
The campaign committee reported $70,000 in "anonymous" cash contributions in clear violation of campaign-disclosure law. The San Juan County prosecuting attorney's office and the city attorneys for Seattle, Auburn and Kent filed a lawsuit to enforce the fair-campaign-practices law. Wickham ordered the No New Gas Tax committee to report the names of contributors and the value of in-kind contributions for advertising from Fisher Broadcasting, KVI's parent company.
He wrote: "Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson were the principal organizers of the campaign and openly used their media time to advertise the campaign and solicit funds for it.... Their actions were not accidental and the impact on the campaign was not incidental."
After being ordered to do so, the campaign disclosed the names of its cash contributors and reported a previously undisclosed $20,000 in-kind contribution from Fisher Broadcasting. It later admitted in the press that without KVI's help, the initiative would not have been on the ballot.
While the talk-show hosts' brazenness makes the facts unique, Wickham's legal ruling broke no new ground. In 1992, the state Public Disclosure Commission ruled (in response to a request from Fisher) that "when a broadcaster donates free air time for political advertising to an initiative campaign it will be considered a contribution."
The PDC was applying the state's public-disclosure laws, which were adopted as Initiative 276 in the early 1970s. That initiative arose out of public mistrust during the Watergate scandal involving, among other things, concealed contributions to President Nixon's re-election campaign.
We can imagine the debate among Initiative 276 sponsors about whether media organizations - often the champions of open government - should themselves be categorically exempt from campaign disclosure. Those sponsors - which included the Seattle Press Club - decided that when the media step outside their traditional news-gathering and editorial roles to provide outright political advertising or other support to a campaign, the contribution should be disclosed, just like in-kind corporate contributions of free software, or cellphones or office space.
The Seattle Times endorsed Initiative 276, stating it is a "remarkable measure which would ... force full accountings of contributions to candidates and ballot propositions." Media corporations have since held themselves accountable to disclose. For example, in 1998, the Blethen Corporation reported independent expenditures of $275,000 for advertising in its newspaper, The Seattle Times, opposing a ballot initiative.
After Wickham's July ruling requiring disclosure, No New Gas Tax launched a misinformation campaign, stating the decision could "chill" the media from writing stories and editorials about campaigns and that it would bar talk-show hosts from commenting about the initiative to repeal the gas-tax increase.
The U.S. and Washington supreme courts have repeatedly rejected the argument that political speech is "chilled" by campaign-disclosure laws. In this case, five judges (the trial court, a panel of the Court of Appeals and a court commissioner) all rejected as baseless No New Gas Tax's "chilling argument." On Oct. 26, Wickham dismissed No New Gas Tax's civil-rights claims against the plaintiffs.
The ultimate proof that there was no "chilling" effect came the day after Wickham's ruling: The talk-show hosts were on the air again raising money from their listeners for their initiative campaign.
The First Amendment is not a shield that can be used to conceal campaign contributions - no matter their source or form. The integrity of our political system requires honesty and fairness in elections. The citizens who drafted our public-disclosure laws understood the importance of openness and accountability, and thus required media companies to comply when they step into the fray by giving valuable support to a political campaign. Now, talk-show hosts are on notice that they, too, will be held accountable, just like everyone else.
Randall Gaylord is the San Juan County prosecuting attorney. Mike Vaska is a lawyer at Foster Pepper & Shefelman who represented the local-government plaintiffs in the disclosure litigation.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
