• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

KVI 570 - The I-912 Issue

KVI - Wall Street Journal

Darkness at Drive Time

For those who still believe that political speech as enshrined in the First Amendment isn't in jeopardy, consider the following developments:

First, the McCain-Feingold bill placed restrictions on ads run by advocacy groups within 60 days of an election. Then the Federal Election Commission staff proposed regulating the activities of Internet bloggers if they promote a candidate. Now a Washington state judge has ruled that two Seattle talk show hosts will have to place a monetary value on "campaign contributions" they make when they argue in favor of a proposed ballot measure.

Angry motorists in the state have collected signatures to put Initiative 912 on the ballot, which would repeal a three-cent increase in the state's gas tax. But city attorneys in several Washington counties took I-912's backers to court because some of the donors giving money to the effort through the Internet payment service PayPal weren't revealing personal information as required by the state's campaign disclosure laws.

Judge Chris Wickham, a superior court judge in the state capital of Olympia, not only found in favor of the opponents but went further to argue that Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson, two hosts at Seattle news/talk station KVI, were required to determine and report a monetary value for their pro-I-912 commentary. Since it seems almost impossible to accurately make such an estimate, it's generally thought the judge's ruling is a precursor to a backdoor effort to reimpose the FCC's Fairness Doctrine, repealed by President Reagan's FCC in 1987. That rule once required broadcast stations to provide "equal time" to both sides of an issue. Rush Limbaugh and other hosts have credited the rule's repeal with ushering in the explosive growth of talk radio shows, which now number over 1400.

Dennis Kelly, program director at KVI, warns that the judge's ruling "will have a chilling effect on talk and news shows across America... Each host is entitled to his or her own opinion on the issues of the day." Indeed, what is next? A judge ordering one of Seattle's newspapers to determine a monetary value for an editorial that praises one candidate while disparaging another?

McCain-Feingold was promoted by many in the media establishment because they believed the media exemption written into the law would protect their own free speech rights even while restricting those of other political actors. Judge Wickham's ruling suggests they may have miscalculated. One can only imagine how the media cheerleaders of McCain-Feingold would have reacted if they had been ordered to estimate a value for their all-out efforts to promote the legislation.

-- John Fund, WSJ Political Diary, 7/8
 
Not exactly sure what YOUR opinion was on this

since you never stated one, but anyone bitching that hosts talking up an issue, including advocating that listeners call, donate, volunteer, is just plain wrong. Talk hosts taking up or down on an issue is NOT "In Kind" campaign contribution.

If it were, then Entercom would owe something for allowing Ross to remain on the air for three months after announcing for his race. Regardless that he never "Campaigned" per se on the air, his views on issues was getting out there, free of charge and unopposed three hours a day, five days a week.
Not to mention what the taxpayers paid to ferry Hillary all over the place on military aircraft with full contingent of staff and secret service for her to campaign.

Alan Prell talked AGAINST 912..Dave Ross talked AGAINST 912. I didn't see anyone complaining that Entercom should be declaring a value to the time they talked about it.

KVI's website had two links referencing 912.
One said that if you support 912, here's a link, and if you do not support it, here's a link.

That lawsuit, which I believe KVI was FAR too fast to cave in to by placing a value on what was being said on Morning and Afternoon drive, was merely a political act to try delaying the inevitable (400,000+ signatures in under 8 weeks).

Press? Hmm...I think that's a semantical distinction but I don't believe you can call Wilbur or Carlson PRESS. The term PRESS carries a certain inference to it. A reporter, a news investigator, cameraman, etc...

Wilbur and Carlson are News/Analyst/Opinionists...NOT reporters.

Regardless, the lawsuit came a day late and a dollar short.
Needed 275,000 signatures to get 912 on the ballot and got almost double that.
 
Re: KVI

Since I will probably find out better from all of you than the rest of the Internet (all I can seem to find at this point is people's comments about KVI and how good/bad the decision was)...

Anyone know if this ruling applies only to this matter, or is this a Statewide interpretation of campaign law for both candidates, initatives, and propositions in Washington State and each local political subdivision?

If it is, I guess something I was working on is going to have to go away FAST...<P ID="signature">______________
"Oregon, welcome to California!" - Bob Barker
Moderator at <a target="_blank" href=http://freedomlist.com/>Freedomlist</a> (not radio related)</P>
 
It's not going to stand

Assuming it gets appealed in the first place (which is should because it's crap).

As long as the hosts on a talk radio station aren't being paid to endorse or wax negative on an issue or a candidate, then there's no campaign IN KIND contribution to disclose.

Back when I-676 (the gun grabber initiative) was in the works, Fisher Broadcasting ran PRO 676 ads on KVI which was touting ANTI 676 talk all day, ever day for the entire election season.

KVI offered, on it's site, links with no editorial comment,to BOTH the pro and Anti I-912 official websites.

When the court can tell Talk hosts what they may and may not discuss, or that if they do discuss an issue that it has to be disclosed as a campaign contribution, then the law of unintended consequences is sure to raise it's ugly head the next time Erin Hart is screeching for some liberal candidate or issue.
That chicken will come home to roost and it's gonna be a BIG chicken....
 
Re: KVI

So far, it is only a "Superior Court" decision; not sure if it's on appeal yet...

It is a state matter that would affect all elections....
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom