You'd think that whole First Amendment thing about freedom of speech and the press and the whole "shall make no law abridging" the aforementioned would've gotten into the political class sometime in the past 200+ years. You can cut them a little slack however, after the Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold's restrictions on politcal ads by third parties that seek to have an impact on that most political of events: elections. (Though, a Supreme Court ruling last term loosened this restriction, probably to the point of making it meaningless.)

Probably the most recent, high-profile slap-down to those who seek to curtail political speech that they oppose happened in Washington State when that state's high court slapped down lawsuits by several local governments that sought to silence two talk radio hosts' efforts to repeal a gas tax measure. The municipalities argued that the radio hosts discussion of the issue and promotion of the initiative that would repeal the tax was an in-kind contribution to the anti-gas tax foes. The municipalities wanted the talk radio hosts to catalog the time the spent on air on the issue and apply typical ad rates to that time. By this method, the talk radio duo would've quickly been in violation of state campaign finance laws if they continued to talk about the initiative.

You'd think that a 9-0 decision from a state high court that isn't exactly stacked with Scalia clones would be enough to shock the self-anointed politcal elites to think twice about their efforts to limit the public discourse in any way shape or form.

You'd be wrong.

Washington State elections officials are looking into regulating political blogs.

The rapid growth of political blogs and Web sites has attracted the attention of state elections officials, who are considering what, if any, new regulations should be imposed on the Internet.

The go-slow approach by the state Public Disclosure Commission (PDC), which collects candidates' financial information and enforces elections laws, is applauded by most bloggers and campaign experts, though some say policing the Internet is unnecessary and all but impossible.

As early as this month, the PDC may consider new political communication regulations, with much of the discussion likely to focus on whether to extend federal rules governing the Internet to local races.

"Are we going to regulate what bloggers say? No," said Jane Noland, one of five commissioners. "We are not interested in regulating speech."

I don't want a go-slow approach. I want a no-go approach. Don't even start on it.

They claim they don't want to regulate what bloggers say, but that's a canard. I'm worried that, a la McCain-Feingold, government agencies like the PDC or the FEC will start thinking they can regulate how much bloggers say and when they can say it.

They seem to be saying: "We're your government, trust us."

No thanks, I'd rather distrust and verify.