Allison Hayward that is, for FEC commissioner.

Bush could (and will) do a lot worse.

OK, one more on campaign-finance reform before I have to run.

Bob Bauer asks why The Washington Post, so skeptical of politicians’ intentions in all other matters, is so eager to grant Congress “constitutional leeway” when it comes to campaign-finance reform.

To wit:

Why would the Post turn over to these types of leaders the temptations of writing the rules for their own political survival and prosperity? Why in this instance, in the writing of campaign finance rules, do these individuals allegedly infected with self-interest, instinctively mendacious, given to pandering and straddling, and in a generally “fallen” state, suddenly become a mighty “Congress” wisely entrusted with broad “constitutional leeway”?

There’s actually an answer, and it’s not pretty. Read the whole thing.

The Seattle P-I editorial page editor, Mark Trahant, gives a short response to my TCS column in the comments:

Thanks for writing this.

I also said that I think there’s no question about the right of KVI (or any talk show) to promote a position. But I think the notion of responsibility is fair comment. Is it a First Amendment right? Yes. It is responsible for someone who controls air time? I am not so sure.

Mark Trahant

Again, Trahant has been very gracious to debate this issue publicly. Us editorialists often like to stay behind our editorials.

But I find his response puzzling. The First Amendment applies to “responsible” and “irresponsible” journalists alike. I appreciate his point about journalistic ethics — though I think different papers are entitled to have different positions on reporters/editorialists giving to campaigns and volunteering their time for political causes — but I think it’s irrelevant to the Washington case.

I don’t consider the talk show hosts in question irresponsible. But even if Trahant and the rest of the P-I edit board do, that shouldn’t have a single thing to do with whether or not a radio commentary should ever count as a campaign contribution.

Unless we’re talking about a paid ad — and even then, remember I’m against all campaign-finance regulation — there’s simply no defending it.

Some people, of course, find nothing funny about Brett Bader’s campaign-finance performance art.

Everyone’s a critic:

Journalism 101: Right to be responsible

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

Brett Bader is a clever man. A judge has ordered Bader and other Initiative 912 proponents to count as in-kind contributions to their campaign the on-air promotional efforts by KVI Radio talk jocks John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur. So, in his report to the Public Disclosure Commission, Bader also listed in-kind contributions to the gas-tax repeal effort from virtually every media outlet that had presumably said or written a word about the issue.

Clever. Inaccurate and misleading, but clever.

You’ll note, the P-I never points out anything “inaccurate” about Bader’s stunt. They’re right that it’s clever, though…

State law specifically exempts reporting as in-kind contributions, “a news item, feature, commentary or editorial in a regularly scheduled news medium that is of primary interest to the general public.”

The fact that Thurston County Superior Court Judge Christopher Wickham, despite that exemption, specifically ordered reporting of KVI’s efforts as an in-kind contribution made it clear that Carlson and Wilbur had crossed the line from straight commentary to outright promotion, more directly benefiting the campaign than their listeners.

Alternately, it could make it clear that Judge Wickham is, as is sometimes said of the law, an ass. But I digress…

Carlson told a Seattle Times reporter that he had donated to I-912 and collected signatures for I-912 petitions. “Endorsing and crusading for a cause you believe in is what the First Amendment and what the tradition of advocacy journalism is (sic) all about.”

Note the obnoxious use of “(sic)” …

Journalism is not only about rights, but responsibilities as well. Those of us in the media whose job it is to express opinion have a responsibility to our readers and listeners to ensure that those opinions are based on an independent review of the facts and issues, our personal, political or financial interests. You may not always (or not ever) agree with the conclusions we arrive at, but you have a right to know how we got there.

Huh? “those opinions are based on an independent review of the facts and issues, our personal, political or financial interests”???

Oh … they mean, “not our personal, political or financial interests.”

Sic.

Members of this newspaper’s Editorial Board don’t write checks, pass or sign petitions or participate in political campaigns. While we may have a personal right to do so, we recognize a professional responsibility not to.

If the P-I’s argument against Wilbur and Carlson boils down to the fact that they’ve put their money and their time where their mouths are — well, that sort of speaks for itself.

Backing up your words with action doesn’t forfeit your rights under the First Amendment. Newspapers are free to have their own ethical policies, and readers are free to judge papers by those policies. But the Constitution makes no distinctions between journalists and journalist-activists.

The P-I’s edit board might want to read it sometime.

What’s more, to pretend that a newspaper that has editorialized against a ballot initiative time and time again (as the P-I has with I-912) has no vested interest in seeing it fail is laughable.

Allison Hayward joins the shameless weasels parade.

Now, that’s a parade I’d like to see!

(Lost? Try shameless weasels.)

Also, Stefan Sharkansky seems to have done some good work digging through just who the shameless weasels behind the Keep Washington Rolling, pro-gas tax campaign are.

That’s: shameless weasels.