Cynical Nation

I was never a huge fan of campaign finance reform, but I'd always thought that its harshest critics were being a tad paranoid in their predictions of disaster. Increasingly, however, I'm beginning to believe they were right.

Check this out. A Washington judge has ruled that a talk radio discussion of a certain ballot initiative represented an "in-kind political contribution," and as such must be dutifully reported to the powers that be.

Presumably such intangibles aren't (yet) subject to contribution limits, but one suspects the only reason is pragmatic: how would one objectively assess the dollar value of said "contributions?"

Still, it raises a whole host of questions. Would the Kerry campaign have to report the endorsement of the New York Times? If a talk radio host you've never heard of says nice things about your campaign, are you still required to report it if you don't even know about it? How can one ever be sure one is reporting all intangible benefits one has received from all sources, if there is no audit trail?

These are all interesting questions, but before we invest too much energy into answering them, let's just hope some sane judge will reverse this stupidity.

(Hat tip: The Agitator)