Things To Come?

[valkyrie777]

Check out this Washington state ruling concerning political comments on radio as a "paid political ad". If this ruling holds, can it spread nationwide and be used by opponents of Limbaugh, Hannity, Air America Radio and the others who vent politically? This could get really interesting!
----------------------------------------------

www.allaccess.com Tuesday 5 Jul, 2005, NetNews section:


"Is a radio host's commentary supporting a ballot initiative a "campaign contribution"? A THURSTON COUNTY, WA court thinks so, and has ordered FISHER Talk KVI-A/SEATTLE to estimate the value of hosts JOHN CARLSON and KIRBY WILBUR's "contributions" to the campaign to overturn a hike in the WASHINGTON state gasoline tax.

The order by Judge CHRISTOPHER WICKHAM on FRIDAY forced INITIATIVE 912 campaign manager BRETT BADER to submit an estimate of $20,000. for KVI's "in-kind contribution," but the parties are likely to appeal the ruling, which would have a major effect on political commentary in the state."

------------------------------------------------

 

[Les]

> "Is a radio host's commentary supporting a ballot initiative
> a "campaign contribution"? A THURSTON COUNTY, WA court
> thinks so, and has ordered FISHER Talk KVI-A/SEATTLE to
> estimate the value of hosts JOHN CARLSON and KIRBY WILBUR's
> "contributions" to the campaign to overturn a hike in the
> WASHINGTON state gasoline tax.
>
> The order by Judge CHRISTOPHER WICKHAM on FRIDAY forced
> INITIATIVE 912 campaign manager BRETT BADER to submit an
> estimate of $20,000. for KVI's "in-kind contribution," but
> the parties are likely to appeal the ruling, which would
> have a major effect on political commentary in the state."


You won't see a high-profile appeal until the same judge demands
a Seattle Newspaper provide an estimate of the "in-kind contribution"
value of an editorial supporting a candidate or issue. And, I
wonder, what the assessed value of a highly-biased front page
story might be deemed? If this one case in broadcasting is allowed
to stand...and Seattle being in the legendary Federal Ninth District,
there'll surely be an appeal to the U.S. Supreme court if there
happens to be one at the time. Which raises the question: What's
the magic number? With justices resigning and nearing death, what
constitutes a quorum to allow the court to sit? It's fer sure the
number of justices is going to dwindle once the filibusters start
and there are NO new appointments, maybe for years!
<P ID="signature">______________

Due to continuing underwhelming popular demand...</P>

 

[clichemoth]

> You won't see a high-profile appeal until the same judge
> demands
> a Seattle Newspaper provide an estimate of the "in-kind
> contribution"
> value of an editorial supporting a candidate or issue. And,
> I
> wonder, what the assessed value of a highly-biased front
> page
> story might be deemed? If this one case in broadcasting is
> allowed
> to stand...and Seattle being in the legendary Federal Ninth
> District,
> there'll surely be an appeal to the U.S. Supreme court if
> there
> happens to be one at the time. Which raises the question:
> What's
> the magic number? With justices resigning and nearing
> death, what
> constitutes a quorum to allow the court to sit? It's fer
> sure the
> number of justices is going to dwindle once the filibusters
> start
> and there are NO new appointments, maybe for years!
>

The quorum is six, as per the Judiciary Act (28 USC 1). Don't feel like digging up the quote on Findlaw, but I know the cite.

As far as the commentary-as-campaign-contribution thing, wouldn't that mean that no TV/radio/print outlet could significantly cover any political issue, even if equal time was given to both sides? Presumably the ad rate would be used to calculate this. The legal limit would be reached pretty quickly, especially for national outlets.

No way this holds up to further review.

 

[SquiggyFM]

> The legal limit would be reached pretty quickly, especially for national outlets.
>

Wouldn't that be nice? Sorta like in the UK where everyone has a month.

 

[Les]

> As far as the commentary-as-campaign-contribution thing,
> wouldn't that mean that no TV/radio/print outlet could
> significantly cover any political issue, even if equal time
> was given to both sides? Presumably the ad rate would be
> used to calculate this. The legal limit would be reached
> pretty quickly, especially for national outlets.
>
> No way this holds up to further review.

Methinks the fastest way to force a judicial review would
be for some renegade judge to make a similar demand on an
Air America talk show host. Then you'd hear whining about
how, even though right-wing talk oughta be subject to
"in kind contribution status", left-wing should not be.
Either it's "for the country's own good" or in redress of
the many years of right-wing talk not having been given
a "free ride", so left-wing needs to get a free-ride of
similar duration just to make things even. I mean, isn't
that the precedent set by lots of afirmative action cases?

All you garden show and quilting enthusiasts...your glory
days of talk radio are coming quickly!
<P ID="signature">______________

Due to continuing underwhelming popular demand...</P>

 

[valkyrie777]

All We Need Now Is Gasoline

> Methinks the fastest way to force a judicial review would
> be for some renegade judge to make a similar demand on an
> Air America talk show host. Then you'd hear whining about
> how, even though right-wing talk oughta be subject to
> "in kind contribution status", left-wing should not be.
> Either it's "for the country's own good" or in redress of
> the many years of right-wing talk not having been given
> a "free ride", so left-wing needs to get a free-ride of
> similar duration just to make things even. I mean, isn't
> that the precedent set by lots of afirmative action cases?
>
> All you garden show and quilting enthusiasts...your glory
> days of talk radio are coming quickly!
>

Les:

I included both sides of the political spectrum in my original post, took no sides in the discussion and cast NO aspersions; either you didn't read it or you did read it and simply needed face-time to vent your PERSONAL views against progressives.

In any event, you took a non-biased post and thread and made it into one that is. That's how non-threatening discussions take hard-right turns and become pissing infernos.

Congrats on lighting the match; a mod should know better.