Radio Commentary a Political Donation

A case in Washington state is on the receiving end of a blogging blitz. In the ruling, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Christopher Wickham ruled that two on-air radio personalities had made in-kind contributions to an anti-gas tax initiative because their vocal opposition to a gas-tax taking effect. The ruling is stunning because of hte potentially chilling effect not only on talk radio but also on editorial pages across the country. The news story notes that an appeal is likely, I would think that an appeal is certain.

The story is well covered among blogs. See Michelle Malkin, Skeptic's Eye, Bob Bauer. There are others I am sure. My interest is different from these writers, namely the justification for the ruling. In particular, Bob Bauer points to the regulatory abandonment by the Federal Communications Commission as a cause for this ruling, at least that is one cause.

But The ruling by Judge Wickham raises another question. Over the course of campaign finance jurisprudence, the only acceptable compelling governmental interest that serves to support campaign finance regulation has been the "corrpution or appearance of corruption" standard. There have been some collateral cases with other justifications, but usually the corruption has been the underlying reasoning.

One of the reasons for concern among campaign finance reformers about blogs is the potential for inherent anonymity possible. One of the juditifications behind the media exemption is that consumers of media have the ability to discriminate for themselves the motivations behind any editorial comment. The situation with the Washington radio case is closer to the latter than the former. The political views of the hosts are clearly known and one presumes, people have the right to change the channel. Some commentators have rightly pointed out that the comments by these radio hosts are not unlike a newspaper endorsement in the editorial page.

But by making the ruling, Judge Wickham seems to indicate that there should be a new standard for campaign finance regulation, but since I can't find the ruling I don't know what it is. I fail to see how the radio hosts have corrupted the initiative process or even have the potential to corrupt the process. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the FEC and state campaign finance agencies can regulate the political activity of anonymous bloggers under the standard of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, how then do named media sources and commentators fit into the rhubric of regulated entities?

There are times when Justice Thomas can be amazingly prescient. In his dissent in McConnell v. FEC, he wrote, that campaign-finance law was leading toward "outright regulation of the press." Judge Wickham has made just that step in a frighteningly Orwellian manner.

Stuck in a Beltway Traffic Jam