http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15078348/site/newsweek/
Speechless In Seattle
What has happened in Seattle prefigures what a national Democratic
administration might try to do to stifle conservative talk radio.
By George F. Will
Newsweek
Oct. 9, 2006 issue - SEATTLE—As the comprehensive and sustained attack
on Americans' freedom of political speech intensifies, this city has
become a battleground. Campaign-finance "reformers," who advocate
ever-increasing government regulation of the quantity, timing and content
of political speech, always argue that they want to regulate "only" money,
which, they say, leaves speech unaffected. But here they argue that
political speech is money, and hence must be regulated. By demanding that
the speech of two talk-radio hosts be monetized and strictly limited,
reformers reveal the next stage in their stealthy repeal of the First
Amendment.
When the state's government imposed a 9.5-cents-per-gallon increase in the
gas tax, John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur of station KVI began advocating
repeal by initiative. Proponents of repeal put up a Web site, hoping to
raise 1,000 volunteers and $25,000. In two days they had 6,500 and
$87,000. Needing 224,880 signatures to put repeal on the ballot, they got
400,996.
Appalled by this outburst of grass-roots democracy, some local
governments, which stood to gain many millions from the tax, unleashed a
law firm that would gain substantially from handling the bond issues the
tax would finance. The firm set out to muzzle Carlson and Wilbur, using
the state's campaign regulations.
It got a judge to rule that the broadcasters were not just supporters of
the repeal campaign, they were agents of it. Why, they had even used the
pronoun "we" when referring to proponents of repeal. Their speech
constituted political advertising, and their employer was making an
"in-kind contribution" to the repeal campaign. The judge said a monetary
value must be placed on their speech (he did not say how, he just said to
do it that day). The law says reports must be filed and speech limits
obeyed or fines imposed.
State law restricts to $5,000 the amount a single giver can contribute in
the three weeks before an initiative. If Carlson's and Wilbur's speech
were monetized at radio-advertising rates, they would be silenced for all
but about 15 minutes in each of the campaign's crucial last three weeks.
They continued to talk (the repeal campaign, outspent almost five to one,
lost 54.6-45.4) and, aided by the libertarian litigators of the Institute
for Justice, have taken the issue to the state Supreme Court.
What has happened in Seattle prefigures what a national Democratic
administration might try to do—perhaps also by reviving the "fairness
doctrine" (an "equal time" regulation)—to strangle conservative talk
radio. And what has happened here—the use of campaign regulations as
weapons of partisanship—is spreading.
A few people opposed to a ballot initiative that would annex their
neighborhood to Parker, Colo., talked to neighbors and purchased lawn
signs expressing opposition. So a proponent of annexation got them served
with a complaint charging violations of Colorado's campaign-finance law.
It demands that when two or more people collaborate to spend more than
$200 to influence a ballot initiative, they must disclose the names,
addresses and employers of anyone contributing money, open a separate bank
account and file regular reports with the government. Then came a subpoena
demanding information about any communications that opponents of the
initiative had with neighbors concerning the initiative, and the names and
addresses of any persons to whom they gave lawn signs. They hired a
lawyer. That has become a cost of political speech.
In Florida, a businesswoman ceased publication of her small-town newspaper
rather than bear compliance costs imposed by that state's speech police.
Even though the Wakulla Independent Reporter contained community news and
book reviews as well as political news and editorials, state campaign
regulators declared it an "electioneering communication" in league with
certain candidates, and ordered her to register with, and file regular
reports to, the government.
This is the America produced by "reformers" led by John McCain. The U.S.
Supreme Court, in affirming the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold
speech restrictions, advocated deference toward elected officials when
they write laws regulating speech about elected officials and their deeds.
This turned the First Amendment from the foundation of robust politics
into a constitutional trifle to be "balanced" against competing
considerations—combating the "appearance of corruption," or elevating
political discourse or something. As a result, attempts to use campaign
regulations to silence opponents are becoming a routine part of vicious
political combat.
When the court made that mistake, most of the media applauded, assuming,
mistakenly, that they would be forever exempt from regulation. If
Washington state's Supreme Court does not quash the idea that the
government gets to decide who gets to say how much of what on the air, the
U.S. Supreme Court will be asked to reconsider the wisdom of deferring to
governments when they limit speech about government.
--
Lord Karasumaru considered it a grave mistake on the part of the gods to
have made a man like himself a nobleman. And, though a servant of the
Emperor, he saw only two paths open to him: to live in constant misery or
to spend his time carousing. The sensible choice was to rest his head
on the knees of a beautiful woman, admire the pale light of the moon,
view the cherry blossoms in season and die with a cup of sake in his hand.
- Eiji Yoshikawa, "Musashi"
