A Washington Post story yesterday on an investigation into the email attack that spread the false rumor that Barack Obama has a background as a radical Muslim had an interesting Hawaii link. The story identifies Andrew Walden, a Big Island resident and publisher of the ultra-conservative Hawaii Free Press, as one of the first writers to spread the Obama rumors.

Andrew Walden, the founder of an alternative Hawaiian newspaper with the motto “The untold story, the unspoken opinion, the other side,” published an article with many of the same false biographical details from the e-mail in the weeks before Obama announced for president — that he was “Raised in Muslim lands and educated in Muslim schools.” He said in an interview that Obama’s “alliance with Islam” was “all over the Internet,” a source he often considers more trustworthy than the mainstream media.

Walden started his brand of right-wing journalism earlier as a student and contributor to Hawaii Reporter. In 2004, he contributed to spreading the vicious email attack on mayoral candidate and former City Council member Duke Bainum, using the UH Hilo student newspaper to recount and spread the smear (see page 3 in this file).

Andy Parx weighed in again yesterday with another comment responding to my view on the Supreme Court’s campaign decision.

But it’s the cap on the non-publicly financed candidate that is not justified, not the reporting requirements or the actual funding of the publicly funded candidate.

In other words it seems that the public funding itself and reporting requirements DO meet the “the underlying reason for disclosure–the leveling of the playing field”. It’s only the remedy of the cap that is unconstitutional.

At the risk of extending this discussion beyond the interest of anyone else, I think Andy’s point here is wrong.

It seems clear to me that the Supreme Court has now soundly rejected the notion that leveling the playing field is a proper goal.

A quick search shows I’m not alone in this view. This from the Election Law Blog:

(b) The equality rationale for campaign financing The majority opinion is a resounding reaffirmation of that part of Buckley rejecting the idea of leveling the playing field or achieving some other kind of political equality. The opinion repeatedly (see maj opn 10-18) rejects the idea that Congress has any ability to try to level the playing field, stating that doing so would take the question away from voters. In what is likely to be one of the most quoted parts of the opinion, Justice Alito writes: “Different candidates have different strengths. Some are wealthy; others have wealthy supporters who are willing to make large contributions. Some are celebrities; some have the benefit of a well-known family name. Leveling electoral opportunities means making and implementing judgments about which candidates should be permitted to contribute to the outcome of an election. The Constitution, however, confers upon voters, not Congress, the power to choose the Members of the House of Representatives, and it is dangerous business for Congress to use the election laws to influence the voters’ choices.” (maj. 16)

A Washington State law banning the use of hand-held cell phones while driving kicks in on Tuesday, although this Seattle Times story says it’s not as tough as it sounds.

If you’re one of those people who needs something big to take your mind of your own personal troubles, try this–the perfect environmental storm bearing down on us all.

And then, to counter that bit of gloom, enjoy this introduction to three more of our daily canines.

This time it is Maleke, Pe’a, and Jack.

They are excited. You’ll see.

If clicking on the photo doesn’t work for you, then try this link.