Via Say Anything, this story that I find a little disturbing (and, given my excitability, probably for no good reason):
Talk-radio hosts regularly discuss candidates and ballot issues, often with a particular point of view in favor of one or opposed to another.
Do those comments constitute a financial contribution to a campaign?
Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Wickham thinks they do. In a ruling issued Friday, Wickham said the comments and activities by KVI-AM (570) hosts Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson on behalf of the Initiative 912 campaign are in-kind contributions that must be reported to the Public Disclosure Commission…
In a release posted on the anti-initiative Web site Keep Washington Rolling, the plaintiffs accuse initiative backers of “failure to disclose the significant in-kind contributions received from Fisher Broadcasting, owners of radio station KVI. Radio hosts Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson have spent countless hours working on campaign strategy and promotion while on the Fisher payroll, and the KVI Web site urges listeners to help the two get the measure on the ballot. None of these resources provided by the Seattle-based broadcasting corporation have been reported as required per state disclosure laws.”
Wrote Wickham, “In the area of speech, requiring disclosure of in-kind contributions for media time allocated to campaigning for a political campaign will not restrict that campaigning, but merely require it to be disclosed to the general public, much the same as any other valuable contribution.” As part of his ruling he ordered No New Gas Tax to disclose “all in-kind media contributions.”
The ruling has attracted attention beyond Washington’s borders. “It is absolutely stunning in terms of the philosophical and theoretical questions it raises,” says Michael Harrison, publisher of the talk-radio trade magazine Talkers; Harrison adds that he’s not aware of a similar case elsewhere in the country.
In Harrison’s view, if no money changed hands then there’s no contribution. “Otherwise you can subject it to taxes, limits on contributions, all kinds of things that get in the way of free speech. To put a value on it is a very dangerous precedent.” (In response to the ruling and to meet a deadline, the initiative campaign estimated the value of the hosts’ work at $20,000).
For broadcasters the ruling raises huge questions. Dennis Kelly, program director for Fisher’s KOMO-AM and KVI-AM, notes that KOMO commentator Ken Schram blasted Wilbur and Carlson for supporting the gas-tax repeal. Does that have to be reported as an in-kind contribution to Keep Washington Rolling, he asks?
This certainly does seem like a dangerous precedent. I understand that radio show hosts doing what are essentially two-hour informercials for an issue or a candidate can be seen as troublesome, but this is just a road I do not want to go down. Or maybe it is. If this does not start as a launching off point for regulation and restriction, I am fine with it.
I have no problem, after all, with unlimited donations to any candidate or campaign, provided the source be disclosed.
washerdreyer
It is a potentially dangerous precedent, but it’s also worth noting that the claim that if no money changed hands then there was no contribution is obviously wrong. This destroys the idea of an in-kind contribution. Unless all he means is that in-kind contributions shouldn’t apply to talk radio hosts, a plausible claim.
Darrell
Ok then, if no money changing hands can still count as a contribution (“obviously wrong” and all), how about all the ‘contributions’ made by Hollywood and music stars campaigning for Dems. Let’s come up with a what-they-would-otherwise-be-worth per hour for George Clooney, Bruce Springsteen and co. actively campaigning for Dems, and count those amounts as ‘contributions’.. to be fair and all
No matter how you slice it, this ruling is disturbing and I see no way it can be practically enforced…at least not enforced in any kind of fair way. Leftists would oppose this ruling too, except that they’re all too quick to throw away their “principles” if it means hurting Republicans… as was the case with those cheering the witchunt over Rush Limbaugh
jmaier
I don’t know about the whole unlimited campaign contribution as free speech doctrine. I don’t see any constructionist constitutional language equating handing some folks money with freedom of speech.
It’s a slippery slope, the next thing you know entities, that aren’t even human, will be protected by free speech rulings and entitled to make political contributions. After that, it’s a pretty short road to government being taken over by the affluent, the corporate and shady politically oriented non-profit organizations of all persuasions.
Should that occur, the government of the people, by the people and from the people thing could be in jeopardy. We need strict constructionists on the courts!
Jimmy Jazz
Um…..
Tim F
You know what they say about a stopped clock.
joe
Yeah, we’d have to go backward to even get on that short road.
KC
I like John’s idea, just to wait and see how this thing turns out. It does bother me a little though. Sometimes I listen to Tom Sullivan, a major backer of the recall here in California. (The claim has been made that talk radio pretty much drove the recall.) I wonder if his show and other shows like his could wind up owing money for their backing of particular political issues/candidates if other judges pick up on this ruling?
Steven
I’m in Seattle and there’s a little more background to this case that might be useful. These two hosts essentially started this initiative campaign over the air. They solicited the funds necessary to file the initiative and have continuously enocuraged the collection of signatures. I agree that the campaign disclosure issue here is troubling, but as so often happens, bad facts tend to make bad law.
Defense Guy
So the judge wants to put a monetary value on political speech. I wonder who he thinks will get to decide the value of that speech and whether or not it qualifies. I also wonder if he understands that his ruling, stated as it was, can also be considered a form of political speech?
Anyway, I think the judge is a twit.
He can bill me later.
washerdreyer
Contrary to how I was read by Darrell, I tried to clear up that I’m not certain that the idea of in-kind contributions should apply to speech acts. Only that there are many kinds of contributions other than money changing hands. Let’s say I ruan an advertising company and I don’t charge political candidates who I support for my services. No money (or any other good) has changed hands. Yet there was clearly a contribution. I await Darrell turning this comment into a baseless slur against “Leftists,” without any mention of what the judge’s politics are or a mention of someone who habitually votes for Democratic candidates (surely all it takes to be a Leftist) and is supportive of the judge’s ruling.
reallygone
It follows that the editorials on newspapapers across America are in-kind contributions to some group or individual. They need to report this!
(Shhhhh…your web site might also be an in-kind contribution)
Darrell
washer, your comment about just because no money didn’t change hands, doesn’t mean it’s not ‘obviously’ wrong was in the context of this ruling against a talk radio show host who took a political posistion. It was not an office building owner giving away free office space to politicians, but a talkradio show host, who simply expressed his opinions.
This of course, opens a huge can of worms which could never be practically enforced, as there is real value everytime a minister advocates a political position or politically driven petition, everytime a movie star advocates a candidate on the campaign trail or on Conan O’B for that matter, and so on. You don’t seem to want to acknowledge this, particularly in your use of “obviously wrong” type of language
jcricket
Darrell, that’s not correct. It’s not about simply advocating for or against a position. Read what Steven wrote. It’s about radio hosts using radio air-time to start and propogate an initiative campaign without being subject to the same kind of disclosure rules as other contributors to political campaigns.
It’s not as simple as saying this ruling violates free speech guidelines. In this case both radio hosts started the campaign, actively soliticed funding and signatures on air, and provided regular updates
A good post explaining the details
Darrell
As I predicted earlier in this thread, leftists are flushing their “principles” in this case, since it conveniently hurts Republicans. It comes down to that. Oh sure, they’ll tell you, as jcricket tries to do, that this case “was special”, as if this was the first time a radio talk show host or minister had ever advocated for a political petition or political fundraiser. Give me a f*cking break you liars.
I’m all for transparency, but this is beyond ridiculous. If the radio talkshow host’s time counted for an arbitrary $20,000, does Woody Harrelson’s appearance at a Dem rally or fundraiser count as $100,000 “contribution? How about “Reverend” without-a-church Jesse Jackson’s time spent advocating this legislation or that legislation, or Dobson’s time for that matter.. no way this ruling can be fairly or reasonably enforced. Hilarious though to watch the dishonesty of leftists trying to rationalize their position in agreeing with this ruling
jmaier
From the left, I find that I have to agree with Darrell here. A bad ruling.
Darrell
I’ve spotted an honest leftie! Very rare, like catching a glimpse of bigfoot. Just kidding
Kimmitt
This sort of thing is precisely why campaign finance laws are so insane. I still cannot decide if the enormity of the grey area is such that the laws have to be scrapped and restarted or if the utter necessity of some controls on corruption is enough of a reason to go through this recondite rigamorole.
p.lukasiak
Bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
Trying to deal with the corruption of the political process through campaign finance laws is a waste of time. In this particular case, its clear that these talk show hosts were organizing and soliciting money for a political campaign, and should be held responsible under campaign finance laws. The problem is not with this particular instance, which is rather clear cut, but with the massive gray area of political speech on the airwaves where talk show hosts will urge their listeners to support specific candidates and initiatives without being directly responsible for the campaigns. What level of co-ordination is allowable before a talk show host becomes “part of the campaign” is a question that will be virtually impossible to legislate in a rational manner.