Christofferson accuses himself of breaking the law?

And liberals present themselves as the paragons of free speech! This is a Democracy. Democracy thrives from the clash of ideas and voices. Why would a blogger like Bill Christofferson thus want to silence other voices, especially those of impoverished African-American children who aren't being heard enough in the debate over school choice caps as it is? A lot of people have had a forum to weigh in on the school choice caps issue. Business leaders. Politicians. School officials. Union leaders. It's extremely revealing that the only people Christofferson wants to silence are the poor black kids who will suffer most if the caps are not raised.

Some liberals like Christofferson are always the first to defend the free speech of left-wing academics like Ward Churchill. But conservative talk radio - they really want to muzzle that. One wonders why they don't simply meet conservatives on the great battlefield of ideas. Rather than trying to defeat their logic, they try to shut them up. What does that say about the strength of their ideas that they can't rise or fall on them?

Gov. Jim Doyle acolyte Christofferson has really gone too far this time, however, and he's trying to create a Frankenstein that will devour him if he's not careful. He's actually accused Milwaukee talk radio host Charlie Sykes of violating the law by helping create a radio spot on school choice caps that Charlie's been running on his radio show. The compelling radio spot showcases African-American choice students calling on Gov. Doyle to raise the caps. Christofferson argues that Sykes works for a corporation, Journal Communications, so Christofferson claims running the radio spot is against the law.

It's supremely ironic that Christofferson, who himself takes a position on the school choice caps from the pro-Doyle side, writes for a blog hosted by wispolitics, a corporation. So, by Christofferson's logic, he's doing something illegal too. And Christofferson goes much farther than Sykes did in the radio spot because he specifically advocates for Doyle's re-election on his blog all the time; Sykes' radio spot was narrowly focused on calling for Doyle to raise the school choice caps.

But, unlike Christofferson, I am not advocating that anyone take action against Christofferson, nor have I heard any conservative do so. He adds a diversity of thought to the Wisconsin blogosphere, and that's a good thing overall. Conservatives are more than willing to meet him head on rhetorically and deconstruct his logic. That's how Democracy works. But not in his world.

Note to Christofferson: Columnists at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel from Eugene Kane (on the left) to Patrick McIlheran (on the right) have also written and published opinion pieces on school choice caps recently. They work for the same corporation as Sykes. So does Christofferson think they should be muzzled too? In fact, McIlheran interviewed African-American youths affected by school choice caps too. How come it's only the conservatives doing these interviews? The same corporation, Journal Communications, ENDORSES candidates in elections all the time. So are they violating the law?

Where will Christofferson stop? Sykes talks a lot about Gov. Doyle on his program (about as much as Christofferson talks about the guv on his blog). I know how far Christofferson would go. It's no coincidence, I am sure, that his blog mimics language used in the Fairness Doctrine, the repeal of which opened the door to the growth of conservative talk radio. Many liberals would like to bring it back, and shut conservatives up for good. After all, apparently they don't get their voices heard. I guess the Journal Sentinel editorial page doesn't count.

Here's Christofferson's definition of "free speech":

If it were really free speech, the station would offer equal time for people on the other side of the issue to air their opinions and run their own "unsponsored" commercial.

Note to Bill: It's not free speech if you want to control it.

But all of this would be the mere ramblings of an off-the-mark Wisconsin lefty blogger, were it not for the fact that it's indicative of a national effort by some Democrats to shut down the free speech of conservatives.

Twice last year Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives tried to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - as law. Said a very thorough article on this topic by Brian Anderson:

New York Democratic representative Louise Slaughter, who introduced the first of the two bills, says that Right-ruled radio is a grave threat to American freedoms, “a waste of good broadcast time, and a waste of our airwaves.”

Who is Louise Slaughter to decide what others should not be able to listen to? If she doesn't like conservative talk radio, she should go read Christofferson's blog, which criticizes it all the time. There are plenty of places where people like Nurse Ratched... er Louise Slaughter can find her political views represented. No one is forcing her to listen to talk radio. For that matter, no one is forcing Christofferson to listen to it either.

For his part, Christofferson admits he's not a lawyer and with good reason. It's true corporations can't make political contributions in Wisconsin. But the creation of the radio spot and the subsequent running of it by Sykes don't fall within the definition of a political contribution as that term is defined under Chapter 11 of Wisconsin law, because it was not made for a "political purpose".

Being for a "political purpose" is not the Christofferson definition - that being, whatever he can conjure up off the top of his head. Under the law, the phrase "political purpose" has a very precise definition. Something is for a political purpose when it expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, for example. Although the Sykes' radio spot mentions Doyle, it does not advocate his election or defeat.

Christofferson better watch the slippery slope he's skiing down.

But he's not alone. Lib bloggers have accused Madison conservative talk radio host Vicki McKenna of essentially doing the same thing as Sykes - violating the law by advocating against a school referendum on her talk radio show.

A blog called "westmadisonprogressive" wrote in August about the Madison smoking ban debate:

The AM radio stations have been particularly active in the smoking debate. It has been the topic of many WTDY and WIBA broadcasts. The talk show hosts have made their positions clear. It is not totally clear at what point advocacy on behalf of those positions must be reported as an in-kind contribution under state law?

In the case of radio talk show broadcasts, there is a pretty fine line. Like editorial boards, talk show hosts are free to express their own opinions. However, when they begin advocating a certain position or encouraging listeners to vote a certain way, they cross that line.

Local talk show host, Vicki McKenna, has clearly crossed the line to campaigning on behalf of the coalition. In addition to regular advocacy on her radio show (not that her screeching broadcasts necessarily contribute much to anything), Vicki made an appearance at the group's rally and has encouraged financial contributions and t-shirt purchases on behalf of the group.

This is scary, scary stuff for Democracy. So progressive.

This blogger was not alone. A Madison alderwoman wrote something similar on a Dane County blog:

And does AM radio have to record their "in-kind" donations of advertising for this group? Are there requirements for "equal time" for the smokefree advocates?

This is a very real threat. In Washington State, prosecutors cracked down on talk radio hosts recently who solicited contributions to defeat a gas tax referendum. Wrote the Olympian newspaper:

At issue is the role of Seattle talk-show hosts in promoting Initiative 912 -- which proposes to repeal the recent gas tax increases authorized by the Legislature. The question is whether KVI Radio's talk-show hosts' requests for listeners to donate to the Initiative 912 campaign were themselves in-kind campaign contributions that must be reported by law.

A national Libertarian group sought to intervene, stating:

"I think this case presents a substantial issue under the First Amendment," declared Bill Maurer, Washington chapter leader for the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice. "This is one of the most important cases nationally about the right of the press to speak freely without the interference of the government or regulation of the government. Because the power to regulate is the power to suppress."

Brad Anderson's superb article in the City Journal publication covers this issue. It also discusses how campaign finance reform impedes free speech. It states:

The rise of alternative media—political talk radio in the eighties, cable news in the nineties, and the blogosphere in the new millennium—has broken the liberal monopoly over news and opinion outlets. The Left understands acutely the implications of this revolution, blaming much of the Democratic Party’s current electoral trouble on the influence of the new media’s vigorous conservative voices. Instead of fighting back with ideas, however, today’s liberals quietly, relentlessly, and illiberally are working to smother this flourishing universe of political discourse under a tangle of campaign-finance and media regulations. Their campaign represents the most sustained attack on free political speech in the United States since the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts. Though Republicans have the most to lose in the short run, all Americans who care about our most fundamental rights and the civic health of our democracy need to understand what’s going on—and resist it.

That's right, Bill. The blogosphere, not just talk radio. What liberals like Christofferson have to understand is that they are attempting to create a monster that will eventually devour them. They should embrace the diversity of voices in the current media marketplace rather than attempting to muzzle them. I don't know about you, but if I wanted to seek out a liberal or conservative viewpoint these days, it's easy to find plenty of both and everything in between. That's Democracy. That's free speech.