Deep Kimchi
28-11-2005, 17:58
Apparently, courts have found that just talking can count as an in-kind political donation, complete with a monetary value. So is "free" speech no longer "free" of cost?
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/s_398015.html
By Dimitri Vassilaros
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, November 28, 2005
A cold front is blowing in from Washington State. Calling it "chilling" does not do it justice. It should send a shudder down the spine of anyone who still believes in the First Amendment.
Two Seattle radio talk hosts had the nerve to say how they felt about an issue and then to offer more than lip service.
Their rants against a gas tax increase, as well as their efforts to raise money and circulate petitions, were determined to be in-kind contributions by a local judge, who recently reaffirmed his earlier ruling.
That meant the radio station had to put a dollar value on what the hosts had said. The estimate of that in-kind contribution of $100,000 of airtime was reported as a campaign donation under state law.
In other words -- in the name of campaign finance "reform" -- free speech no longer is free. If that ruling withstands appeal, especially if it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, it would have profound ramifications for media nationwide.
This issue is about more than two talk hosts who dared to exercise their right of free speech more than they should have, at least according to the government. As with most issues, the devil is in the premise, not the details.
If this ruling is not struck down, anytime anyone in the media (including the Internet) decides to speak out on an issue, it could be considered an in-kind contribution.
And if federal or state election laws limit the amount of money that can be donated to candidates or causes, the mere mention of an opinion could be estimated (by the government) to be worth the maximum dollar amount allowed to be contributed and thereby prohibit any other reference regarding the subject.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/s_398015.html
By Dimitri Vassilaros
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, November 28, 2005
A cold front is blowing in from Washington State. Calling it "chilling" does not do it justice. It should send a shudder down the spine of anyone who still believes in the First Amendment.
Two Seattle radio talk hosts had the nerve to say how they felt about an issue and then to offer more than lip service.
Their rants against a gas tax increase, as well as their efforts to raise money and circulate petitions, were determined to be in-kind contributions by a local judge, who recently reaffirmed his earlier ruling.
That meant the radio station had to put a dollar value on what the hosts had said. The estimate of that in-kind contribution of $100,000 of airtime was reported as a campaign donation under state law.
In other words -- in the name of campaign finance "reform" -- free speech no longer is free. If that ruling withstands appeal, especially if it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, it would have profound ramifications for media nationwide.
This issue is about more than two talk hosts who dared to exercise their right of free speech more than they should have, at least according to the government. As with most issues, the devil is in the premise, not the details.
If this ruling is not struck down, anytime anyone in the media (including the Internet) decides to speak out on an issue, it could be considered an in-kind contribution.
And if federal or state election laws limit the amount of money that can be donated to candidates or causes, the mere mention of an opinion could be estimated (by the government) to be worth the maximum dollar amount allowed to be contributed and thereby prohibit any other reference regarding the subject.