Some newspapers are blinded by their own biases. Our local fish wrapper is, for example, completely wrapped around the axle (or is it, totally off track?) about loot rail.
In that same vein, the Seattle PI is totally whacked over jacking up our gas tax (or, come to think of it, any other tax.) In today’s editorial, they take a swing at rhetoric used by the pro-I 912 types.
That’s all well and good. But failing to hold the anti-types up to the same level of scrutiny… well, that’s sheer hypocrisy, Leftist style.
There is no lie they won’t tell, no misinformation they won’t provide to get people to see this thing their way. And here’s a sample:
Well, here is an explanation as to why they took that particular tact. http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/004705.htmlShameless lying weasels
Wait. There's more ... The pro-gas-taxers who are desperately defending their self-serving gas tax with hysterical propaganda and First-Amendment-trashing lawsuits are not merely shameless weasels they are shameless lying weasels. Their website listed several organizations that supposedly opposed I-912, including the Ports of Seattle, Everett and Tacoma, which are all governmental agencies. The always alert Richard Pope observed that such an endorsement by a government agency would be illegal without a board vote taken at a public meeting. Pope sent public records requests to these agencies asking for documentation of such board votes. He forwarded me the Ports' responses -- NONE OF THESE PORT AGENCIES EVER TOOK A POSITION AGAINST I-912. The "Keep Washington Rolling" campaign simply lied.
The shameless weasel website has since been updated to remove the names of these Ports. But the google cache shows what the list used to look like -- until alert citizen Richard Pope called them on their illegal campaign tactics. This sort of sleaze from these well-heeled boondoggle promoters only inspires me to go out and collect more signatures this weekend to ensure that the No New Gas Tax initiative makes it on the ballot.
UPDATE: oh dear. The always alert Richard Pope tells me I understated the deceit of the shameless lying weasels. See the comments section for detailsNow, I have no problem with an allegedly responsible publication holding BOTH sides up to this high standard. But when you only hold up the side you oppose? Where’s that Judge who nailed Carlson and Wilbur for their alleged “in-kind contributions” for I 912 when you need him?
The PI editorial, if you care enough to read it, is here:
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Gas Tax Repeal: Pennies or projects?
Proponents of Initiative 912 have enough signatures to put their attempt to repeal the gas tax increase on the November ballot. Now it's time to debate the merits and we hope the group's efforts to sway voters will be more accurate than the promotional material they used to garner petition signatures.
Perhaps they're counting on Washington voters being sufficiently shortsighted and selfish to go along with any tax cut. We have more confidence in the electorate. They know many roads and bridges are in bad shape and that it takes real money to make real improvements. Their legislators passed the gas tax increase, as part of a 16-year transportation improvement package.
Voters also recognize the inherent fairness in such a user tax, and that the state constitution permits the gas tax to be used only for roads and auto ferries.
The I-912 Web site proclaims: "The gas tax increase costs us $8.5 billion and helps no one." No, the gas tax increase is not $8.5 billion; it is just over $5.5 billion.
Helps no one?
More…
From soundpolitics.com:ACLU goes after Pierce County Council The American Civil Liberties Union is going after the Pierce County Council for its new ordinance restricting free speech in public meetings.In a letter to the Council, ACLU attorney Aaron Caplan wrote: "The ability of citizens to state their views about the performance of their elected officials is one of the cornerstones of a free and accountable government. The new rule is a plainly unconstitutional violation of that principle."He continued: "The Constitution does not allow the Council to ban verbal attacks on Council members. It is the duty of elected representatives to listen to their constituents, not silence them."Well said!Incidentally, there are three Republicans and four Democrats on the Council. The ordinance was passed by a 4-0 vote, with three members absent. All three absentees were Democrats. All three Republicans voted for the ordinance.Posted by Marsha Richards at 10:40 AM Comments (28) Email This As a Republican, I find this type of conduct inexcusible and embarrasing. Everyone, including the Republicans, who voted for this crap should resign.If you can't stand the heat....
While ultra-leftists and various governments were no doubt thrilled by this idiot's decision (which will be overturned) the fact is that supression of speech for any is supression of speech for all.
To equate Wilbur's and Carlson's efforts to "In-Kind Contributions" is to end the practice by newspapers around this state of commenting for or against vartious initiaitive/referendums and to end the practice of editorial endorsement. It also may have a negative impact on the concept known as "blogging," for the same reason.
On the whole, endorsements are worthless in any event. But the RIGHT to endorse, oppose or support a candidate or ballot measure and to state that support is a hallmark of our freedoms. Hopefully, this clown will be tossed from the bench at the next election for abusing his judicial discretion. Meanwhile, I hope those involved on either side of this process continue to speak out.
Friday, July 8, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
Editorial
Judge Christopher Wickham of Thurston County Superior Court trod dangerously on the First Amendment last week.
He ruled that Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson of KVI Radio had pushed the gas-tax rollback initiative so zealously on the air that it amounted to advertising. Therefore, he ruled, the campaign had to report their support as a political contribution.
The campaign duly estimated the value of Wilbur's and Carlson's support at $10,000 each for the month of May, and reported it to the government.
See what is being done here. The judge is following a simple syllogism:
All political contributions may be regulated;
Speech is a political contribution;
Therefore, speech may be regulated.
A supporter of the ruling might say the regulation only requires disclosure, and that the people have a right to know about the activities of Wilbur and Carlson (even though the people can find out by tuning in to KVI-AM). But the government's assertion of power implies more than disclosure.
Though state law sets no spending limits on initiative campaigns, it does set a limit of $1,375 per contributor to state election campaigns. Suppose, then, that Dino Rossi ran for governor again, that Wilbur and Carlson strongly supported him, and that the Rossi campaign were required to report it as a $20,000 in-kind contribution by Fisher Broadcasting.
In that case, Fisher would have violated the law. And how? By speaking on political topics during an election campaign.
Two years ago, when the federal campaign-finance law reached the U.S. Supreme Court, dissenting justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas warned that something like this would happen. We doubted it; it seemed clear to us that the law applied to ads, not editorial content. We thought Thomas was over the top when he said campaign-finance law was leading toward "outright regulation of the press."
Judge Wickham has made a step toward just that. It is a dangerous, unconstitutional ruling. The losers need to appeal it and the appellate courts need to reverse it.
So... that little Republican turncoat who even now continues to live in Longview was fined by the PDC.
You know... that little weasel that came down here for his butt-kicking by Sen. Benton in his bogus effort to become a state senator?
You remember, don't you? That guy that "moved" into the 17th District so he could run against Benton... That guy that did EXACTLY the same thing Mielke did while the democrat hypocrites not only approved it... but actually ASSISTED in it?
That guy?
Source: The ReflectorThe state Public Disclosure Commission has fined Paul Waadevig for failing to timely file campaign finance reports during his 2004 run for the state legislature.
Waadevig was fined $500 with $250 suspended for failing to timely file six Contribution Reports during his campaign, a post-election Contribution and Expenditure Summary Report, and last minute contribution reports for two "large" contributions he received shortly before the general election.
The Commission also fined Kalama city council member Pete Poulsen $150 for failing to timely file an annual Personal Financial Affairs Statement by the April 15, 2005 deadline. Commission chairman Mike Connelly said Poulsen was sent a reminder letter in the first week of May 2005, and a second letter a month later.
Information, Lori Anderson, (877) 601-2828.
