Free speech survives intact: the Washington Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that radio talk show hosts’ urging of listeners to support a ballot measure does not constitute a “contribution” to the yes side for purposes of mandatory reporting under campaign finance law. (Ryan Sager, New York Sun blog, Apr. 26). We covered the charges against KVI hosts Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson Jul. 11 and Jul. 19, 2005. Eugene Volokh has extensive coverage of the new decision. A concurring opinion by Justice James M. Johnson, joined by Justice Richard B. Sanders, terms the enforcement a case of “abusive prosecution”. More: Michelle Malkin; John Fund, OpinionJournal.com, Apr. 30.
Posts Tagged ‘campaign regulation’
October 27 roundup
- Bill Moyers calls his lawyers. [Adler @ Volokh]
- Jim Copland: 9/11 suits against New York City over emergency recovery work “simply wrong.” [New York Post]
- Did the PSLRA help shareholders? [Point of Law]
- 32-year-old Oregon grocery store employee sues, claiming that Green Day stole his never-recorded high-school writings. [Above the Law]
- Does one assume the risk of a broken nose if one agrees to a sparring match at a karate school? [TortsProf]
- “At KFC (né Kentucky Fried Chicken), the chicken is still fried. At Altria (né Philip Morris), the cigarettes still cause cancer. And at the American Association for Justice, some will say that the trial lawyers are still chasing ambulances.” [New York Times via Point of Law]
- More on global warming lawsuits. [Point of Law]
- Dahlia Lithwick, wrong again when bashing conservatives? Quelle surprise! [Ponnuru @ Bench Memos; see also Kaus] Earlier: POL Oct. 6 and links therein. Best commentary on New Jersey gay marriage decision is at Volokh.
- Michael Dimino asks for examples of frivolous lawsuits. What’s the over-under until it turns into a debate over the McDonald’s coffee case? [Prawfsblawg]
- Unintended consequences of campaign finance reform. [Zywicki @ Volokh; Washington Times]
- Who’s your least favorite Supreme Court justice? [Above the Law]
- More on Borat and the law. [Slate] Earlier on OL: Dec. 9 and links therein.
- “Thrilled Juror Feels Like Murder Trial Being Put On Just For Her.” [Onion]
- A revealing post by the Milberg Weiss Fellow at DMI: companies make “too much” profit. I respond: “Again, if you really think the problem is that insurance companies charge ‘too much’ and make ‘too much’ money, then the profitable solution is to take advantage of this opportunity and open a competing insurance company that charges less instead of whining about it. (Or, you could use a fraction of the profits to hire a dozen bloggers and thus solve the problem at the same time keeping the whining constant.)” [Dugger]
George Will on Carlson-Wilbur case
Speak freely, until Friday
“As of Friday, when the 60-day blackout period for ‘electioneering communications’ by nonprofit interest groups begins, political speech will enjoy less protection than dirty movies. While a sexually explicit film is protected by the First Amendment if it has some socially redeeming value, an ‘electioneering communication’ is forbidden even if it deals with important and timely public policy issues.” (Jacob Sullum, syndicated/Reason.com, Sept. 6).
Republicans vs. political speech
Campaign finance reform
Tom Veal notes another instance in which life imitates Scrappleface (Jan. 25).
George Will on campaign regulation
“Under Vermont’s limits, a candidate for state representative in a single-member district can spend no more than $2,000 in a two-year cycle. Every mile driven by a candidate—or a volunteer—must be computed as a 48.5-cent campaign expenditure. Just driving—and not much of it—can exhaust permissible spending.” (“Free Speech Under Siege”, Newsweek, Dec. 5). More: Aug. 23, etc.
Campaign finance law censorship
Now it’s being deployed on behalf of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) against the Scranton Times-Tribune. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, backing Santorum, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging that the newspaper may have unlawfully made a “corporate contribution” to Santorum’s opponent, Bob Casey Jr., by printing in promotional material a mock headline that read “Casey to run for Senate”. (Carrie Budoff, “Scranton paper’s promo an issue”, Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader, Aug. 16; Brett Marcy, “GOP files complaint of paper’s Casey ‘ad'”, Aug. 19; Ryan Sager, “Dirty Speech Trick”, New York Post, Aug. 19; Sager’s blog, Aug. 19 and again). For more campaign finance law censorship, see Jul. 11.
Speechless in Seattle
You can expect the press to close ranks around its own when freedom of speech is threatened, right? Well, maybe not, when the speakers in question are Fox radio hosts and the heavy hand of government is acting under the aegis of campaign regulation. (Ryan Sager, “Seattle, Post Intelligence”, TechCentralStation, Jul. 19). Sager’s blog has further details, here and here. For more on the controversy over a judge’s order that comments by KVI hosts John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur be counted as campaign contributions, see Jul. 11.
Judge: radio hosts’ talk must be reported as campaign contribution
In a decision some critics said could threaten press rights, a Washington state judge ruled last week that two radio hosts’ on-air comments promoting an anti-gas-tax initiative should be considered in-kind campaign contributions.
Thurston County Superior Judge Christopher Wickham on July 1 ordered sponsors of Initiative 912 to report the value of comments by KVI Radio talk-show hosts John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur.
Lawyers for NoNewGasTax.com, which is sponsoring the initiative, said the ruling would have a chilling effect on political commentary and editorials in the news media. They said an appeal was possible.
(“Radio hosts’ on-air backing must be reported as campaign donation”, AP/First Amendment Center, Jul. 7; Brad Shannon, “Ruling throws media for a curve”, Jul. 10). The Seattle Times expressed alarm at the decision (“In support of free speech, and KVI” (editorial), Jul. 8) while the Post-Intelligencer, incredibly, applauded it (“Gas-tax Talk: Jabber over journalism” (editorial), Jul. 6). For more on campaign finance law vs. free speech, see Jun. 14 and links from there. More: Michelle Malkin, Jul. 9 and Jul. 12; Ryan Sager, “The ‘Shut-’em-up’ Reform”, New York Post, Jul. 12.