Washington Political Speech
San Juan County v. No New Gas Tax
The Abuse That Follows "Campaign Finance Reform"
Both the U.S. and Washington Constitutions guarantee the right to free speech. And at the core of these protections lies political speech.
In the case of San Juan County v. No New Gas Tax, local prosecutors sought to derail an initiative that would have rolled back a massive tax increase. To accomplish this, they delegated their prosecutorial authority to a private law firm that stood to gain politically and financially from harassing the initiative campaign. The firm was not only a member of the political opposition to the initiative but also “bond counsel” to the State agency that would issue bonds based on the revenue derived from the tax increase.
The firm brought a complaint against No New Gas Tax, the political committee promoting the initiative, alleging that the campaign violated the State’s campaign finance laws. The complaint claimed that on-air discussions by two radio talk show hosts urging listeners to support the initiative constituted “in-kind” contributions by the radio station to the No New Gas Tax Committee that should have been disclosed. (An “in-kind” contribution is a non-monetary contribution, like printing services or equipment.) The trial court agreed, forcing the campaign to report on-air discussions of the initiative as “in-kind” contributions.
This is the kind of inevitable complication and abuse that occurs when the government tries to regulate speech.
Because the prosecutors’ actions are so inconsistent with basic constitutional guarantees, the Institute for Justice Washington Chapter (IJ-WA) defended the No New Gas Tax campaign against the prosecutors’ politically motivated lawsuit, and bought counterclaims on behalf of the campaign against the prosecutors and their unprecedented assault on free speech, free association and due process.
After the trial court sided with the prosecutors, the campaign appealed, even though the initiative lost at the polls on election day. The Washington Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and oral argument took place on June 8, 2006, and a decision is expected sometime in 2007.