I located the full post article conversation with the Executive Director of the Arizona Clean Elections Committee. Here it is:

________________________________________
From: Eric Ehst [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 2:24 PM
To: mailto:allan@fedupwithpc.com
Subject: Clean Elections Act
Allan I saw your piece about Clean Elections on the Human Events website.

I'm curious about how your free speech rights were violated. Nobody made you take your website down. You're not being stopped from saying whatever you want about the governor. The Clean Elections Commission didn't even give her campaign any matching funds. Just how were you harmed?

I know you probably don't agree, but the Clean Elections Act has been upheld as constitutional under both the Arizona and U.S. constitutions in 7 separate court cases.

Eric Ehst
Executive Director
Clean Elections Institute
2702 N. 3rd St., Suite 4010
Phoenix, AZ 85004-1130
(602) 840-XXXX
http://www.azclean.org

________________________________________
From: Allan J. Ashinoff [mailto:allan@fedupwithpc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:00 PM
To: 'Eric Ehst'
Subject: RE: Clean Elections Act
Hello,

First off, Thanks for reading and taking the time to write. I do appreciate civil feedback or queries (they are rare).

I did not say my free speech rights were violated. Had I thought my rights had been violated (and not intimidated) the article would have been followed by a lawyers letter and a suit.

Excerpt

"The CCEC’s request to determine the costs of my political expression in order to contribute to those I politically oppose is a violation of First Amendment of the US Constitution. The CCEC, as a faction or SIG, has every right to distribute its money how it sees fit. But to base its fund distribution against my political views is in effect a sanctioned attempt to influence my desire to speak out in the political process of Arizona. If the expression of my views results in those people or ideas contrary to my beliefs benefiting, why should I, as an American citizen, want to make my views known? If I am hesitant to make my views known (in speech, writing, or on the web) how does that benefit a free society?"

Knowingly or not, well-intentioned or sinister, your request to know how much I spent on my website in order to put funds into the coffers of someone whose ideologies I do not support (especially when my own words were a trigger mechanism for the claim) makes me think twice about what I want to say. I recall thinking had I not said openly 'Janet Napolitano Must Not Be Re-elected" on my site, I would not have drawn the red flag which triggers your fund distribution. Its irrelevant whether your organization actually paid out anything or not (I did read the PDF via Google btw).

I'd have had no issue whatever if you'd have given her cash without my knowledge according to your by-laws. But to contact me makes me question whether or not its worth speaking out when what I say is going to aid the opposition to what I believe this state/nation needs. In effect it is a passive attempt (knowingly or not) to lessen my voice or silence me. That's the constitutional violation (...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ...). It also makes crystal clear that big brother is watching even the little things on the web done by an individual.

We'll have to agree to disagree no doubt. Judging from my feedback many agree with how I see this regardless of 7 court decisions. After all, courts are fallible and peoples proposition can be unconstitutional (Prop 200, no?). This legislation stemmed from peoples futility in the democratic system. I believe we've simply traded one bad circumstance for another potentially worse one.

Thanks again for reading and dropping a line

Allan J. Ashinoff

ps

If that Warren Jeffs character ran for Governor and 500,000 websites went up against this pervert you'd be obliged by state law to see he's compensated (provide he filed with you and met your requirements) for those sites which sprung up opposing him? I'm amazed that you can't see just how inappropriate that is. (I'm not comparing Napolitano to Jeffs or any criminal...its just an absurd scenario)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I also have all the emails and my replies to the initial query. And yes, I did comply with their information request - just not the way they wanted me to.

I have a hell of a story to tell about that last bit "..funding ones own antagonists" in the state of Arizona. My embedded links are dead but the story should carry just the same.

http://www.humanevents.com/2006/10/09/th...

Damn, she was a smart lady.... How did she so precisely and accurately predict our future from so many years back?

Freedom of speech means the right to disagree with something (nobody has to claim the right to agree).
But saying it also means the right to not finance one's antagonists? Can somebody explain the logic of the relationship to freedom of speech. Obviously I agree that right follows naturally from property rights, but not from freedom of speech.