The state Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday on the case that has the potential to impact not only campaigns here in Washington, but in other states, setting new boundaries for radio talkers and define when political speech becomes political advertising.
Political advertising can be regulated by campaign fairness law; political talk, cannot.
KVI conservative talkers John Carlson (KVI m-f, 3-5p) and Kirby Wilbur (KVI m-f, 5-9a) ran an extensive on-air campaign for I-912, an initiative that would have defunded a transportation package that included a 9 cent gas tax.
The initiative, of course, was irresponsible and ill-conceived demogoguery that was even opposed by the usually craven, opportunistic Republicans.
(Listeners were still outraged after the bitter post-gubernatorial election count. The KVI jocks needed to transfer that angry, lucrative energy. The post election had extended the normal high ratings enjoyed by talk radio around elections, and had pulled KVI out of the ratings dumpster of having just lost Rush to KTTH, and they were hoping to ride that snorting stallion through another ratings period. These were not noble, democratic acts, here, just the radie-yo bidness, which is about getting higher ratings so you can sell more advertising at a higher price. Is that so wrong? No, but we wish Fisher, Wilbur and Carlson would cut the Martyrs for Democracy crap).
The initiative, as we all know, failed. But a lower court ruled that Carlson's and Wilbur's talk radio campaign amounted to an in-kind political contribution to the gas-tax opponents, and made Fisher Broadcasting report a per-month amount to the PDC.
In a rare bedfellowing, the legal fight was taken up by the ACLU and the libertarian Cato Institute, who filed friendly briefs to the campaign side.
(It's hilarious to hear the Republicans on their stiff little blogs bragging up their new friends the ACLU, who only last week they were advocating stringing up for treason but who are now giving them the perception of having street cred in the justice dep't).
BlatherWatch was there from the first day (so you wouldn't have to be). We're not lawyers and we don't know if the State law is constitutional, but we do know that what our friends down at Fisher Plaza were doing was a whole lot more than advocating.
(As liberals, and activists, we mused at the time: Radio station? we gotta get us one of them...)
In April of 2005, Wilbur and Carlson had an idea over coffee. Next morning, Kirby asked listeners (then called Wilbur’s Warriors) to ransack their bellies, and if there was, therein, enough fire against the recently passed 9-cent gas tax hike- please, he asked- email him at an special new address or call a hastily designated hotline and and say so.
He said there was a narrow window to get a repeal campaign up and running and if there were enough people mad enough to commit to licking the envelopes, shoe leathering the door-to-door, and petitioning in the park-and-rides to collect 250,000 signatures in a helluva hurry- his money people would be willing to help make it so.
Wilbur knew if his Warriors commit, they’re good for it. They get mad, they get even. You can make book on it.
And it was thus that I-912, was born.
Carlson and Wilbur are longtime Republican activists; and Carlson in particular, is expert at initiatives. He took over the anti-affirmative action initiative, I-200 from the still wet behind the ears Tim Eyman, spun it for hours and hours on KVI, lost his job in the process but brought it into the barn. (And promptly got his job back.)
In the process of gathering the signatures, listeners got 3 hour blocks, 5 days a week on the morning and afternoon drives, of campaign logistics and strategy at the bread crumb level: meet-ups, petition drop locations; petition pickup or delivery places and times; campaign people checking in with messages for fellow workers; suggestions for signature gathering, and fundraising, fundraising, fundraising.
We said it was boring at the time, but apparently a lot of people were fascinated with this on-air Napkin Committee meeting and the ratings held up.
"No doubt about it, we crusaded for this and supported the campaign from its infancy," Carlson said. "But crusading for a cause is not the same as administering a campaign."
We beg to differ and now we'll see- although wait and see will probably be more like it. The Court will take its time as always.
Of course, had this been Mike Webb fostering an initiative, all hell would have broken loose...
I hope the Supremes find that neither side can misuse the airwaves. Discussion, yes, propaganda, no.
Posted by: sparky | June 12, 2006 at 07:15 AM
With the air waves in fewer and fewer hands and the net under siege by big telecoms, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Posted by: joanie | June 12, 2006 at 09:34 AM
This is a tough case. The ACLU
supports its trademark first amendment issues with authority:
"In its brief, the ACLU argues that talk radio shows are not the same as paid advertisements and cannot be treated as campaign contributions, because that would violate First Amendment protections for free speech. It would also make broadcasters and other media hesitant to talk about political issues before an election, out of fear that the state would force them to disclose reports and talk shows as political contributions."
David Goldstein agrees in his 7/08/2005 blog, then says "On the other hand, I’m no dummy – when I get my own radio show I plan to take a page from the KVI playbook and be just as active in promoting progressive initiatives, causes and candidates. It’s not only good politics, it’s damn good for business. But this case is not simply about freedom of the press, for two reasons. First, John and Kirby are neither journalists nor editorialists… they are partisan political operatives who just happen to have their own radio shows. And second, it appears to reasonable people (like an elected, Thurston County judge) that in so blatantly promoting I-912, John and Kirby crossed the line from editorializing – or even advocacy – to advertising."
I see both sides on this issue...it WILL be interesting to see how Sanders votes on this. I'm a card-carrying member of the commie ACLU, but this is one of their adamant amicus filings that wretches the righteousness factor like supporting neo-Nazis publicly parading in Chicago. (Oh no, have I committed Godwin's Law?)
Posted by: Fremont | June 12, 2006 at 01:28 PM
tzzbde
Posted by: Fremont | June 12, 2006 at 01:29 PM
"First, John and Kirby are neither journalists nor editorialists…."
Well, according to whom? If they say they are, perhaps they are. . . fine line here.
This is one of those "I know it when I see it" kind of cases. Hard to codify but sure easy to feel.
Seems to me that when they put their words into action, they crossed the line. Surrogates could have done it all and they'd be off the hook - maybe? But, when they took the initiative to call in friends and they participated in the planning of and carrying out of the campaign, that's when they crossed the line.
It will be interesting to see the outcome. Of course, if it goes against them, it'll be because of those liberal justices!
Posted by: joanie | June 12, 2006 at 03:44 PM
I didn't agree with their campaign, so it's easy for me to sit here and snipe at how they used the airwaves so. I do wonder what will happen when the shoe is on the proverbial other (left) foot...will I have the ability to see beyond my own beliefs. I asked some friends of mine and was kind of startled at the reaction. They basically felt like conservatives have been doing this for ages and now it's about payback...law be damned. Kind of troubling but not unexpected.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | June 12, 2006 at 04:04 PM
joanie: "With the air waves in fewer and fewer hands and the net under siege by big telecoms, it will be interesting to see how this plays out."
If somebody puts up an initiative legalizing (insert something that really bugs you here) and the talk shows can get huge ratings out of it, the companies won't care either way.
Like some of the others, I do see both sides, but I think the ACLU is onto something. If this goes against KVI, then look out, because ANY discussion on the ballot issues will be hauled into court by the opponets as 'advertising'. That sword will cut both ways.
Posted by: KB | June 12, 2006 at 05:48 PM
The actual issue isn't about advertising or discussing campaign issues...Thurston Co. Superior Court claimed that the solicitation of donations was "in-kind" campaign contributions and required Fisher to report them. (All contributions over $5K made during the three weeks preceding an election are bound by state campaign laws.) So, even if surrogates had done the soliciting, the donations would still have to be reported. I guess the fine line is between soliciting for funds/donations and supporting a point of view.
Posted by: Fremont | June 12, 2006 at 06:49 PM
2tshrf
Posted by: Fremont | June 12, 2006 at 06:50 PM
KB: ". . . ANY discussion on the ballot issues will be hauled into court by the opponets as 'advertising'. That sword will cut both ways..."
We have free speech but can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. There are defamation, slander and libel laws on the books. The Court makes fine determinations and sets perameters in many areas. That's what law is . . . We'll have to wait and see how successful the justices are in determining the boundaries in this case. It will interesing.
Also, I think there's too much money in campaigning but courts support the notion that restricting money is somehow a violation of free speech. Go figure. So, who knows?
Fremont, you sure know your stuff! I'm impressed again!
Posted by: joanie | June 12, 2006 at 07:14 PM
Joanie said:
"We'll have to wait and see how successful the justices are in determining the boundaries in this case. It will interesing."
A great feeling of confidence is bestowed knowing "her honor, the drunken, leaving the scene of the accident, Honorable Bobbie" will be casting a vote.
Only in the Peoples Republic of Wa.
Posted by: Steve | June 12, 2006 at 07:31 PM
C'mon Steve, nobody's perfect. She's not my favorite justice but I expected better from you. And here I was just gettin' to think you're gonna be a nice addition to this blog.
Maybe Horse's Ass is more your style . . .
BTW. I'll bet you voted for Bush twice . . . you did, didn't you?
Posted by: joanie | June 12, 2006 at 07:43 PM
Joanie opined:
"BTW. I'll bet you voted for Bush twice . . . you did, didn't you?"
Like, there was a choice?
Please don't get me started on kerry. I am trying to be a gentlman here.
So you think Justice Bobbie should still be sitting on the States highest court?
Posted by: Steve | June 12, 2006 at 07:54 PM
Not necessarily. Maybe not. But, I don't know much about her other than the drunk driving incident. She may be a highly respected jurist. I'd need to know more. Wouldn't you?
But, I think I have a more open mind than you do. Your comments about Kerry show me that you have a very narrow range of opinion and that for you conservatism is like a club you belong to - never mind the validity of the issues.
I was a Kucinich supporter. Now you know how far to the left I am to your right. I think you don't like Kerry because of emotional/personality reasons. Am I wrong?
Posted by: joanie | June 12, 2006 at 08:14 PM
Sparky, check out Horses Ass - Goldy posted a letter demanding discovery from Seattle Schools regarding Graham Hill where Goldy's kids go.
I guess they've got every right for the disclosure but it is so disheartening trying to please everybody in this District. Everybody wants it their way. It is like having the initiative process and Tim Eyman operating at the level of the school district. I mean, we have a board . . . and several committees . . . and a superintendent! Whether I agree with them or not, let them do their jobs!
Posted by: joanie for Sparky | June 12, 2006 at 08:24 PM
Sorry folks but one more post! Justin Krebs, the co-founder of Drinking Liberally.org is on CSpan right now talking at the yearlykos convention.
Posted by: joanie | June 12, 2006 at 08:41 PM
You voted TWICE for Bush, huh. How's that working for you?
Posted by: sparky | June 12, 2006 at 08:48 PM
Cuts are always hard, arent the, Joanie? People are moving in droves out of Seattle because of housing costs, and they are all moving MY way. We are overcrowded...by passing our bond we will build two new elementary schools which will most likely be overcrowded by the time they get them built.
Goldy's school sounds very special, but seems to have a small population. Small schools, although great for kids, are not popular with school boards.
Posted by: sparky | June 12, 2006 at 08:52 PM
Sorry, retraction . . . not the yearlykos but The Progressive Movement and the Internet. Also featuring George Lakoff. Very interesting.
Posted by: joanie | June 12, 2006 at 09:09 PM
Is it wrong of me to miss ReRa?
Posted by: TJ | June 12, 2006 at 09:20 PM
If people could get really creative and find ways to fund schools they like, perhaps the schools could stay open. I'm thinking keeping schools open by asking parents to pay a monthly fee . . . we now have several schools who offer pay for K and the money has turned some schools around. Well, why not pay for every classroom if you want to keep it small? Taxes do keep schools open but if you want something beyond the schools the District can afford, sweeten the money pot a little and target it for your school.
Private schools cost a whole lot more than a couple hundred a month.
Don't know if that is legal but I think it could be accomplished. Depends on how much a parent cares about their child's school.
Posted by: joanie | June 12, 2006 at 09:21 PM
Ok, it is yearlykos. . . AND the other thing. I know, who cares? :)
Posted by: joanie | June 12, 2006 at 09:33 PM
thanks Frank ! for saving us from the overbaked Brain of the over night the styblehead ! How do you go about checking the ratings on the styblehead?
Posted by: Brian | June 13, 2006 at 01:51 AM
Joans sez: "Depends on how much a parent cares about their child's school." It also depends on how much money a caring parent has .....ah! There's the rub! Perhaps, we should endorse an initiative that requires all pregnant women to meet certain income guidelines...
Posted by: Fremont | June 13, 2006 at 09:32 AM
Fremont, I agree tht not all can afford it. But, often a popular school has a parent group that can pitch in . . . and scholarships or a sliding scale can be offered. May not be the case at Graham Hill but asking the District to save everybody's favorite school is asking for a lot. It'd be nice if parents could be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
Posted by: joanie | June 13, 2006 at 09:41 AM
St.Eve: Bobbe Bridge IS a respected jurist...she made a mistake and paid her dues. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone." Matthew 5:7 How could you vote for Bush twice? When I was in Turkey last September, EVERYONE said "I can see voting for Bush post 9-11. But how could
America elect him a second time?"
Anyway, Kerry's votes were stolen...Joanie may have a soft spot for you, but she was a cat in her former life. I was an elephant...no forgetting, no forgiving.
Posted by: Fremont | June 13, 2006 at 09:45 AM
Joans, I completely agree that parents should be part of the solution! Parent participation has effected better learning environments. Maybe the Marxist principle of "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs." Nice dogma, isn't it....but you're right. How can we make it work?
Posted by: Fremont | June 13, 2006 at 09:56 AM
Fremont: Marxist principle of "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs." )
I like that. I guess we'd all be accused of being communists if we used it. Last night I watched/listened to George Lakoff on the Progressives and the Internet convention in Vegas and he said we should be framing ourselves as people who care. It is one of the things that sets us apart from conservatives. Conservatives give lip service to caring while progressives/libs tend to act on it.
BTW Steve, caring is more that having a job that provides a caring service. It is what you do by choice and out of empathy.
Posted by: joanie | June 13, 2006 at 03:31 PM
I think you don't like Kerry because of emotional/personality reasons. Am I wrong?
Partly.
BTW Steve, caring is more that having a job that provides a caring service. It is what you do by choice and out of empathy.
Yes, I was forced at gunpoint in to being a caring service guy.
I am also forced to contribute to charities by gun point.
Posted by: Steve | June 13, 2006 at 06:00 PM
Okay, I'll bite. What more was there that you didn't get from Kerry that you got from Bush?
Posted by: joanie | June 13, 2006 at 06:38 PM
I didn't get anything thing from kerry. He kept saying he had a plan for this and that, but I don't recall ever hearing what it was. If it was good, why hasn't he presented it to the people and Senate? In what, 4 terms, he has no significant legislation that he can say he authored. And his own band of brothers were against him. Why do you think that might be Joanie? There are fewer bonds stronger than those forged under fire, yet he has little support from his fellow veterans. Think something may be askew? What about his SF 180 he refuses to release? He promised to do so on MTP-but hasn't. I wonder why that hasn't happened? I got to admire him, he has married two walking ATM's. You done good "live shot".
Living the good life and empathetic to the "little guy".
Posted by: Steve | June 13, 2006 at 06:58 PM
Thanks to Bush, the national debt is $83,000 per family.
thats a whole lotta empathy
Posted by: sparky | June 13, 2006 at 07:42 PM
Oh yes..one of those 700+ signing things that Bush did that says he doesnt have to follow the law.....one of them was to prohibit an audit to find the missing Iraqi billions...
Posted by: sparky | June 13, 2006 at 07:44 PM
"And his own band of brothers were against him."
That's just wrong. But, I'm not going to go through the Swifties again. But, you are just wrong. You should do more research. Even one of his buddies on the boat who tried very, very hard to stay out of it all finally came out at the last minute and said Kerry always did the honorable thing. If you listen to conservative talk radio, you wouldn't know that. But, it happened.
You know very little about him as a husband. When he divorced his first wife - amicably - he flew down from Wash DC every(more or less) weekend to spend with his daughters and more often than not slept on a couch. He was not rich nor did he come from a wealthy family himself. His mother married down and his life was "poor" compared to that of his extended family. Wealth is relative; he was from the poor side of the family! And, his daughters are 1000 times more honorable, law-abiding and achievement-oriented than the Bush girls. He did his service and still had the balls to come back and try to stop others from dying. He has nothing for which to apologize. He was not my candidate nor will I back him the next go-around. But, he is a good person. Even his so-called flip-flopping on Iraq had a reasonable explanation if you had cared to find out. But, it is easier to listen to talking points and let emotion overtake curiosity or common sense.
Steve, you think I'm just an unthinking liberal who believes everything she hears. No, I don't. I was actually pro-Bush in 2000 until I started listening to his words. I liked his renegade attitude. I like decisive people who aren't pleasers and he's not. I think we need more independent public servants.
However, when I looked at his record, heard how he articulated some of his decisions, looked back at what people who knew him in his college days had to say, and mostly just took a good look at his priorities, I said no. Not only did I no longer support him, I became afraid of him. This was before the 2000 election I'm still afraid of him. The damage he can do in two more years is downright frightening to me.
I took the measure of both men . . . and I desperately wanted Gore in 2000; I would have settled for anybody but Bush in 2004. And just to keep this honest, I did not vote for or support at all Bill Clinton in '96. I didn't think he was a good president. He squandered so much political capital by trying to be a pleaser.
Now, you gave me all the "republican talking points" against Kerry. What was there about Bush that you made you think he was so much better?
Also, everything you said about Kerry is either emotional or personality oriented. Nothing of substance regarding policies or issues. But, I'll let that go. What made Bush so much more attractive to you?
(Geez, sorry Michael! The check's in the mail!)
Posted by: joanie | June 13, 2006 at 07:53 PM
And for the record, I was pro-McCain until I heard his pandering at the 2004 "girlie-boys" convention. You can keep your so-called conservativism if these boys are the best you have to offer!
Posted by: joanie | June 13, 2006 at 08:18 PM
Joanie said:
"Steve, you think I'm just an unthinking liberal who believes everything she hears"
Yes. Kucninch-nuff said.
Just a short reply-Bush believes in what he says-kerry will say anything to please the crowd of the day. He has no core values. And you are totally wrong about the band of brothers. He had what, one or two Swifties that supported him? You obviously don't understand what the term "band of brothers mean".
I don't do the talk radio talking points. I belong to a "band of brothers" (Special Forces) who accept our brethern based upon acceptance for our bona fides from those who knew us and can vouch for our veracity.
Live shot suffers from a shortage of that acceptance. Why is that? You seem to want to skip over that? And the SF 180 you conveiently forgot to mention?
Oh well----
"Wealth is relative";
This from the lady who was lamblasting me for "having a mountain home"?
"Nothing of substance regarding policies or issues".
That is because he has offered nothing in substance to those issues.
Bush girls-get your sierra together Joanie. My son is a a Secret Service Agent and does have a bit of inside info. You don't have a clue other than Alex wearing a see through at some liberlal bash. Really classy for a pres candidates daughter.
Have a great night.
Posted by: Steve | June 13, 2006 at 08:24 PM
"Steve, you think I'm just an unthinking liberal who believes everything she hears"
Yes. Kucninch-nuff said.
What does that mean? I don't get it. Sorry.
"I don't do the talk radio talking points. I belong to a "band of brothers" (Special Forces) who accept our brethern based upon acceptance for our bona fides from those who knew us and can vouch for our veracity."
BS. And I didn't skip over it. You may have chosen to ignore it but it's there.
"You don't have a clue other than Alex wearing a see through at some liberlal bash"
Steve, you are a sick-o.
Posted by: joanie | June 13, 2006 at 08:36 PM
"Steve, you are a sick-o."
Coming from a Kucinch supporter-a compliment. There is a guy who really rallied the folks and received broad support from about 3 voters-two registered and one illegal. Of course the illegal were from Olympia.
What about kerry's SF 180 Joanie-again, no mention of it! Why is that?
"BS." What are you calling BS on-my affiliation with SF or your lack of attention to lurch's SF180?
Posted by: Steve | June 13, 2006 at 08:44 PM
Michael, suspend my BlatherPass! I keep trying to save the world one soul at a time and it isn't working. . . we are on the road to hell.
Today I learned that polar bears are eating each other. Pretty soon we'll be eating each other. We already are spiritually and emotionally. Next, we'll be devouring each other physically!
I'm mad as hell and I can't take it anymore! Your friend, Joanie
Posted by: Take a message to Michael . . . | June 13, 2006 at 08:48 PM
I'm done with you, Steve. Your ignorance knows no bounds. You sadden me.
Posted by: Take a message to Michael . . . | June 13, 2006 at 08:49 PM
Another bites the dust!
Posted by: Steve | June 13, 2006 at 08:50 PM
Sorry, forgot to change my name back when for the last time I answered "dodge and duck" Steve.
Posted by: Joanie | June 13, 2006 at 08:53 PM
Joanie, in firing me said:
"I'm done with you, Steve."
Damn. How will I sleep tonight?
I better call Al or Dennis for advice.
I will have to maintain a vigilance at the mountain home for Joanie-for I know she means not what she says!
Posted by: Steve | June 13, 2006 at 08:55 PM
Joanie said:
"Sorry, forgot to change my name back when for the last time I answered "dodge and duck" Steve."
You feel a need to post under several names names Joanie"
Real display of courage.
Posted by: Steve | June 13, 2006 at 08:57 PM
Joanie said:
"Today I learned that polar bears are eating each other."
Damn, contemplating that is a night without sleep!
Posted by: Steve | June 13, 2006 at 09:00 PM
"Swift boat skipper: Kerry critics wrong"
"Defending VVAW Against Swift Boat Vets' Lies"
"Despite those inconsistencies, Zernike says its in fact the Swift Boat Veterans who aren’t credible: "Naval records and accounts from other sailors contradicted almost every claim they made, and some members of the group who had earlier praised Mr. Kerry's heroism contradicted themselves. Still, the charges stuck.""
Posted by: joanie | June 13, 2006 at 11:07 PM
Joanie...please. Life is too short....trust me.
Posted by: sparky | June 14, 2006 at 09:06 AM
Sparky, don't worry . . . I'm over it. :)
Posted by: Joanie | June 14, 2006 at 09:32 AM
well, you are a good person and I understand your motivation, but its like spitting into the wind...
Posted by: sparky | June 14, 2006 at 10:37 AM
Or spitting on a VietNam vet....(of which I am guilty...)
Posted by: Fremont | June 14, 2006 at 02:30 PM