A couple days ago Dave Helling called me and asked for my opinion about the rising controversy over political blogs and campaign finance disclosure. He said local political snake Steve Glorioso is all in a tizzy about a couple of homegrown website (here, here!) that have dared to speak the truth about the local liberal morons' latest scheme to raise taxes in support of a worthless boondoggle.
I told Dave, "Here's your quote: I find it supremely ironic that Steve Glorioso is bitching about fairness."
Obviously that didn't make it into the article. I think Dave was digging for background and perspective.
With regards to the larger question, I was legitimately stumped. I told Dave that the question aims right at the gray area between two principles I feel passionate about: unfettered free speech and government/political transparency.
But after a few days of thought, and after reading the article, I feel strongly that websites and blogs ought to be placed in the same category as newspapers and other media outlets. The main reason is that it's only fair. As it stands now, the law only protects those who are rich and powerful enough to control the airwaves and buy ink by the gallon. In all honesty, there's never really been anything to stop those folks from using their expensive mediums to push partisan ideas.
My other reason is more gut-level. Honestly, if Steve Glorioso and snakes like him are against it, then I'm for it.
I'm pretty much a left-leaning guy. But it's public-bilking, inside-baseball-playing, idiotic, arrogant whores-to-the-corporate-elite like him that make Democrats damn near unsupportable.
Besides, who would want to do anything to limit such wonderful free expression as this? (Warning, Grandma: It has dirty pictures at the end.)
(Sheesh. Only four posts into the revamped blog and I'm already getting myself in trouble again.)
Vote no on this stupid rolling roof scam!
Full campaign disclosure: I'm broke phi broke, cracka!