• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires Republicans to act in good faith.

When someone says they “love freedom”, rest assured they don’t mean yours.

Consistently wrong since 2002

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

Putin dreamed of ending NATO, and now it’s Finnish-ed.

No Justins, No Peace

Boeing: repeatedly making the case for high speed rail.

Second rate reporter says what?

Tick tock motherfuckers!

It’s all just conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership.

Everything is totally normal and fine!!!

Fani Willis claps back at Trump chihuahua, Jim Jordan.

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

Tide comes in. Tide goes out. You can’t explain that.

If you still can’t see these things even now, maybe politics isn’t your forte and you should stop writing about it.

Republicans: The threats are dire, but my tickets are non-refundable!

This really is a full service blog.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Everybody saw this coming.

T R E 4 5 O N

And now I have baud making fun of me. this day can’t get worse.

People are weird.

There is no compromise when it comes to body autonomy. You either have it or you don’t.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Open Threads / Political Speech is a Campaign Contribution

Political Speech is a Campaign Contribution

by John Cole|  July 8, 200511:10 am| 18 Comments

This post is in: Open Threads

FacebookTweetEmail

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.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Dennis the Menace
Next Post: Swimming in Raimondo’s Fecal Ponds »

Reader Interactions

18Comments

  1. 1.

    washerdreyer

    July 8, 2005 at 11:18 am

    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.

  2. 2.

    Darrell

    July 8, 2005 at 11:29 am

    but it’s also worth noting that the claim that if no money changed hands then there was no contribution is obviously wrong.

    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

  3. 3.

    jmaier

    July 8, 2005 at 11:31 am

    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!

  4. 4.

    Jimmy Jazz

    July 8, 2005 at 12:01 pm

    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.

    Um…..

  5. 5.

    Tim F

    July 8, 2005 at 12:04 pm

    Um…..

    You know what they say about a stopped clock.

  6. 6.

    joe

    July 8, 2005 at 12:19 pm

    Yeah, we’d have to go backward to even get on that short road.

  7. 7.

    KC

    July 8, 2005 at 12:23 pm

    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?

  8. 8.

    Steven

    July 8, 2005 at 12:36 pm

    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.

  9. 9.

    Defense Guy

    July 8, 2005 at 12:37 pm

    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.

  10. 10.

    washerdreyer

    July 8, 2005 at 1:24 pm

    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.

  11. 11.

    reallygone

    July 8, 2005 at 2:03 pm

    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)

  12. 12.

    Darrell

    July 8, 2005 at 2:14 pm

    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

  13. 13.

    jcricket

    July 8, 2005 at 3:09 pm

    but a talkradio show host, who simply expressed his opinions.

    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

  14. 14.

    Darrell

    July 8, 2005 at 3:34 pm

    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

  15. 15.

    jmaier

    July 8, 2005 at 4:56 pm

    From the left, I find that I have to agree with Darrell here. A bad ruling.

  16. 16.

    Darrell

    July 8, 2005 at 5:38 pm

    I’ve spotted an honest leftie! Very rare, like catching a glimpse of bigfoot. Just kidding

  17. 17.

    Kimmitt

    July 8, 2005 at 7:36 pm

    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.

  18. 18.

    p.lukasiak

    July 9, 2005 at 6:08 am

    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.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • schrodingers_cat on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:09pm)
  • rikyrah on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:08pm)
  • oldgold on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:08pm)
  • rikyrah on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:07pm)
  • WaterGirl on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 5:07pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!