|
 | |||
| Lopez Island | Orcas Island | Visitor's Guide | ||
| Email this page to a friend | ||
| ||||||||||||||||
|
SAN JUAN COUNTY PROSECUTOR |
Supreme Court sets new rules for talk radio hosts in political campaignsposted 04/26/2007
"As the Supreme Court noted in its decision, this case presents an important public disclosure issue that requires a balancing of the public interests served by campaign finance regulations and the interests of media organizations," said San Juan County Prosecuting Attorney Randy Gaylord, who brought the enforcement action that was the subject of the appeal along with the cities of Seattle, Kent and Auburn. "The question is where to draw the line between campaigning and commentary," he said. "The Supreme Court rejected the line previously drawn by the Public Disclosure Commission, the trial court, and even Fisher Broadcasting," he said. The Supreme Court said disclosure is required under the statute only if the radio station was controlled by a political committee. "We filed this case to require the No New Gas Tax campaign to come clean with the public about the source of its contributions, and we fully succeeded in that goal," Gaylord said. "The public's right to know who was funding the campaign was fully protected by the trial court's preliminary injunction, and its decision to require disclosure of cash contributions was not challenged in the appeal," he said. The Supreme Court's decision arose from a public disclosure enforcement action started in 2005 against the No New Gas Tax Committee. The case was filed when the campaign-which was started by two KVI talk radio hosts-failed to identify the source of $70,000 in cash contributions. The trial judge ordered the campaign to disclose the source of the cash and, in addition, the value of any in kind contributions, including any air time used to ask for money or other support for the campaign. The No New Gas Tax campaign complied with the court's order, disclosing the names of the contributors and $20,000 of in kind contributions from Fisher Broadcasting--which owns the talk show hosts' radio station--for air time used to promote their campaign. The campaign filed counterclaims alleging the order violated its free speech rights. The campaign appealed dismissal of its counterclaims by the trial court to the Supreme Court. In taking a narrow approach to the case, the court declined to rule on whether the First Amendment or the state constitution barred disclosure of on air time by the radio talk show hosts. The case has been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Even radio shock jocks must obey campaign lawsBy Randall Gaylord and Mike Vaska posted 10/27/05
Radio talk-show hosts want you to believe the judge trampled their free-speech rights. But Judge Christopher Wickham was just confirming that anyone running an initiative campaign, no matter how prominent or powerful, must tell the public who is funding their campaign. Earlier this year, KVI radio talk-show hosts Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson helped promote the launch of a new anti-tax initiative. Wilbur and Carlson implored listeners to "help us" by "going to the Web site" to make contributions. The campaign raised a stunning $180,000 in its first month by soliciting KVI listeners. When enough money was raised to launch the initiative, a KVI press release trumpeted: "KVI Country Delivers a Resounding 'No' to New Gas Tax." The campaign committee reported $70,000 in "anonymous" cash contributions in clear violation of campaign-disclosure law. The San Juan County prosecuting attorney's office and the city attorneys for Seattle, Auburn and Kent filed a lawsuit to enforce the fair-campaign-practices law. Wickham ordered the No New Gas Tax committee to report the names of contributors and the value of in-kind contributions for advertising from Fisher Broadcasting, KVI's parent company. He wrote: "Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson were the principal organizers of the campaign and openly used their media time to advertise the campaign and solicit funds for it.... Their actions were not accidental and the impact on the campaign was not incidental." After being ordered to do so, the campaign disclosed the names of its cash contributors and reported a previously undisclosed $20,000 in-kind contribution from Fisher Broadcasting. It later admitted in the press that without KVI's help, the initiative would not have been on the ballot. While the talk-show hosts' brazenness makes the facts unique, Wickham's legal ruling broke no new ground. In 1992, the state Public Disclosure Commission ruled (in response to a request from Fisher) that "when a broadcaster donates free air time for political advertising to an initiative campaign it will be considered a contribution." The PDC was applying the state's public-disclosure laws, which were adopted as Initiative 276 in the early 1970s. That initiative arose out of public mistrust during the Watergate scandal involving, among other things, concealed contributions to President Nixon's re-election campaign. We can imagine the debate among Initiative 276 sponsors about whether media organizations - often the champions of open government - should themselves be categorically exempt from campaign disclosure. Those sponsors - which included the Seattle Press Club - decided that when the media step outside their traditional news-gathering and editorial roles to provide outright political advertising or other support to a campaign, the contribution should be disclosed, just like in-kind corporate contributions of free software, or cellphones or office space. The Seattle Times endorsed Initiative 276, stating it is a "remarkable measure which would ... force full accountings of contributions to candidates and ballot propositions." Media corporations have since held themselves accountable to disclose. For example, in 1998, the Blethen Corporation reported independent expenditures of $275,000 for advertising in its newspaper, The Seattle Times, opposing a ballot initiative. After Wickham's July ruling requiring disclosure, No New Gas Tax launched a misinformation campaign, stating the decision could "chill" the media from writing stories and editorials about campaigns and that it would bar talk-show hosts from commenting about the initiative to repeal the gas-tax increase. The U.S. and Washington supreme courts have repeatedly rejected the argument that political speech is "chilled" by campaign-disclosure laws. In this case, five judges (the trial court, a panel of the Court of Appeals and a court commissioner) all rejected as baseless No New Gas Tax's "chilling argument." On Oct. 26, Wickham dismissed No New Gas Tax's civil-rights claims against the plaintiffs. The ultimate proof that there was no "chilling" effect came the day after Wickham's ruling: The talk-show hosts were on the air again raising money from their listeners for their initiative campaign. The First Amendment is not a shield that can be used to conceal campaign contributions - no matter their source or form. The integrity of our political system requires honesty and fairness in elections. The citizens who drafted our public-disclosure laws understood the importance of openness and accountability, and thus required media companies to comply when they step into the fray by giving valuable support to a political campaign. Now, talk-show hosts are on notice that they, too, will be held accountable, just like everyone else. Randall Gaylord is the San Juan County prosecuting attorney. Mike Vaska is a lawyer at Foster Pepper & Shefelman who represented the local-government plaintiffs in the disclosure litigation. Copyright (c) 2005 The Seattle Times Company |
|
|
SAN JUAN ISLANDER © 2008 |
|