Free Speech and Dissent in the USA

“Thursday, July 7, 2005

Political talk isn't cheap, according to ruling

By BILL VIRGIN
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

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.

**********

Another Liberal Judge making law.”

“WHEN Democrats or Republicans seek to criticize judges or judicial nominees, they often resort to the same language. They say that the judge is "activist." But the word "activist" is rarely defined. Often it simply means that the judge makes decisions with which the critic disagrees.

In order to move beyond this labeling game, we've identified one reasonably objective and quantifiable measure of a judge's activism, and we've used it to assess the records of the justices on the current Supreme Court.

Here is the question we asked: How often has each justice voted to strike down a law passed by Congress?

Declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional is the boldest thing a judge can do. That's because Congress, as an elected legislative body representing the entire nation, makes decisions that can be presumed to possess a high degree of democratic legitimacy.
[...]
Since the Supreme Court assumed its current composition in 1994, by our count it has upheld or struck down 64 Congressional provisions. That legislation has concerned Social Security, church and state, and campaign finance, among many other issues. We examined the court's decisions in these cases and looked at how each justice voted, regardless of whether he or she concurred with the majority or dissented.

We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so.
[...]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html?”

“So the Judge makes a ruling that speech is not free and you come up with this link?

Spinning the truth is a full time job for violink; For the NY Times as well it seems.”

“Very interesting stats. So, it looks like if we give an objective definition to "activist" we find that the right wing of the court has three of the four most activist judges. Meanwhile, the two Democratic appointees are the least activist.

Very interesting indeed.”

“If you think this report by the NY Times is objective I yield to your gulibility.

If you think public comments are subject to fnancial disclosure law you are opposed to free speech.

How much financial cost should the DNC be charged for the NY Time editorial comments above? How much should Rush Libaugh cost the RNC in financial disclosure?

Oops.”

“"How much should Rush Limbaugh cost the RNC in financial disclosure?"

or, hell, for that matter, dean, for as much as hes helped them”

“A completely absurd Judicial ruling.”

“I have to agree with bacpac, this is just an impossible task to valuate. you could maybe do this in one or two instances but across the board, cmon.”

“I agree with vonbeyer. Valuation is based on the bias of the person valuating, and as such, the term "activist judge" and the phrase "legislating from the bench" become nothing more than high, squeaky, girly-man whiny, crybaby pouts when the judiciary doesn't rule the way the valuator wants them to.”

“vonbeyer agrees with bacpac
phaedrus agrees with vonbeyer
therefore by association phaedrus agrees with bacpac

which sign of the apocalypse was that?”

“Personally, I haven't seen enough of the evidence and the ruling to have an opinion on it. On the face of it, the ruling is troublesome.

I think the old equal time provisions made more sense.”

“If buttpac had seen fit to include a link to the story, y'all might have a better understanding of the issue and the ruling. There is no requirement that the political parties have to pay for such promotion, nor is it banned. It merely has to be reported.

From the article:

Initiative 912 is an effort to repeal the legislatively enacted increase in the state gasoline tax. The deadline for submitting at least 225,000 signatures to qualify the initiative for the November ballot is tomorrow.

The ruling was sought by the San Juan County prosecutor and city attorneys for Seattle, Auburn and Kent as part of a larger case involving contributions to the Initiative 912 campaign. Their argument is that the KVI hosts went beyond merely talking about the issue.

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."

more...”

“When the lights come on, the roaches run........essentially.

Therefore, bacpac loves roaches.”

“It sounds like these media people went beyond the “typical” commentary on the issue but I am still very concerned about this ruling. This is not a left or right issue. Anybody that is interested in speaking out or working for any issue or candidate should be also. If I work as a volunteer for a campaign, can that time worked be a contribution in kind? Will it be a contribution on the books even if the official campaign did not authorize, control, direct or approve of the work I did? How much work can I do before it is a contribution in kind? This is a big issue in my worthless but always correct opinion and the mainstream media seems to be ignoring it.

“Activist” judges, “liberal” judges, I dislike meaningless labels too. The judge is to interpret the law, not make new law. Those that make new law would be correctly labeled “egotistical and incompetent”. Over turning an unconstitutional law is not “activism”, it is their job. Overturning a law because of some reasoning not in the constitution is what most are calling “activism”. I’ll stay with calling it egotistical and incompetent.
last edited: 7/08/05 11:54:45 AM”

“Thanks Viol Man, I suspected there was more to the story. I'm not sure why they want this disclosure in dollar terms, but it is clearly a far cry from attempting to stifle speech.

With big corporations owning radio stations, radio stations can promote causes and ballot initiatives that make their owners money - indeed they can be the propaganda arm of their owners.”

“It could stifle speech because of campaign spending limits, another questionable idea. If it were just a matter of reporting it without the limits, I would be all for it. Then it would also be tax deductible.
last edited: 7/08/05 11:59:59 AM”

“Are you kidding me? I under reported the story? The ruling was A-OK?

You fumblers have not scraped the skin of the onion. Rather than take an objective look at this ruling you onion skins have performed to the status quo.

The conservatives in the Supreme Court will become an actuary's statistic, before you bone heads admit that this is a sham ruling.”

“On a side note, check out Buddha's comments at the beginning of this thread.

Buddha got a job in the Teacher's Union after 9/11.

Talk about selling out.”