On a local radio station, talk show hosts John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur began discussing the campaign to repeal the gas tax. To some politicians who favored the tax, those discussions sounded a bit one-sided. In fact, they drew the conclusion that the radio guys actually favored citizens going to the polls and voting to repeal the new tax hike. (Oh, the humanity!)

So the politicians in charge of San Juan County and the cities of Kent, Auburn and Seattle sued the organization that was promoting the tax repeal -- Yes912.com -- under Washington state’s campaign finance law. They contended the radio discussions by Mr. Carlson and Mr. Wilbur, which favored the tax repeal, were “in-kind contributions” to the initiative campaign, and charged Yes912.com had failed to properly report the monetary value of those contributions.

The municipalities stood to gain millions (in Seattle’s case, billions) of dollars in transportation projects funded by bonds guaranteed by the gas tax revenues. Silencing supporters of I-912 was intended to guarantee in the initiative’s defeat and thus ensure that the municipalities got their money.

Incredibly -- in a case that could gain standing in much of the Western United States, should it end up at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- a Washington county court last July 1 gave the politicians their wish. The Thurston County Superior Court issued a preliminary injunction ordering Yes912.com to treat media discussions like Mr. Wilbur and Mr. Carlson’s as reportable campaign contributions. And later, in November, the same court again held that discussions concerning I-912 were properly subject to State regulation.

The implications are chilling.

Will Washington state next order politicians to report the monetary value of a newspaper endorsement -- or even favorable mentions in political columns -- as a campaign contribution?

What about a page of letters to the editor, two-thirds of which favor some political candidate or position, while one third are in opposition? Must the newspaper publishing those letters report the value of that two-thirds of a page of its space, figured at the same rate as paid advertising -- or should it count as a campaign contribution only the value of that one-third of a page by which “favorable” letters outnumber opponents? Who gets to count and decide?

If by publishing letters and editorial endorsements that newspaper is held to exceed the “allowable maximum contribution limit,” can it be barred from further publication on the topic? Should its publisher be convicted and fined, along with the candidate who woke up one morning and was surprised to learn he’d received that support?

In such an environment, it’s not far-fetched to assume many publishers and broadcast station owners would simply stop allowing the expression of political opinion -- even including letters to the editor. Too much risk.

“If the government can use its power to stifle and investigate talk radio hosts today, editorial writers can be the next target tomorrow,” agrees William Maurer, executive director of the Institute for Justice Washington Chapter, which is representing Yes912.com in its appeal. “If the media does not want the government looking over its shoulders constantly, the result will be that the media will simply avoid discussing controversial subjects.”

“Freedom of the press -- not only to report on issues of vital public importance, but also to advocate a position on those issues -- is an American birthright and a tradition stretching back to the Founders,” adds Michael Bindas, an attorney with the Institute for Justice Washington Chapter. “The government here is trying to decide what gets said on the air and who says it. But in America, government does not have that power. Nor should the government be in the business of monitoring and investigating interactions between the media and campaigns. This is just the kind of intrusion into the editorial discretion of the press our state and federal constitutions were designed to prevent.”

Initiative 912 was defeated at the polls -- the politicians will get their whopping new gas tax, phased in over four years. But in the only good news to date, the legal case over the radio talk shows is not dead. On Thursday, June 8, the Washington Supreme Court heard arguments in that case.

At the very least, the court should rule that the law was misapplied in the case of the radio hosts, who must be allowed free rein to discuss political issues as they see fit, without drawing a punishment either on themselves or on anyone who may be seen to “benefit” from such expressions.

However, these “campaign finance” restrictions are already having a chilling effect on free political speech in many jurisdictions. (The Independence Institute, a non-profit think tank, was similarly “turned in” to the Colorado Secretary of State recently, for “violating campaign finance laws” by opposing two government-growth referenda without “registering with the State” as a campaign outfit.) Unless such laws are speedily revised to bar this kind of meddling with the free press -- assuming that’s even possible -- the courts should strongly consider tossing them out, entirely.