It appears that some of the worst fears concerning the federal campaign-finance law have come true.[1] A Washington state judge has ruled that on-air editorial comments are campaign contributions. Vincas questions how this logic works, its really quite simple. If an endorsement by the NRA, an obviously political organization, is a contribution, and if the ads they pay for with their own money to advertise their endorsement are a contribution, then clearly the same is true of any other public figure. This is increasingly true as you subscribe to the idea that the electorate is unable to think or care for itself (and thus needs high levels of socialism and regulation). To the extent that a voter will be swayed by that editorial, the campaign has benefited. Clearly then this is true to the extent someone is a public figure. Thus posting an online journal puts my ideas and the reasons before them more in the public view, and my open source work makes my name known. The combination would, under this precedent, make my thoughts potentially a contribution to a campaign. Conceivably, simply posting an online journal is sufficient.
If this sounds wildly paranoid, consider this post.
[1] Malkin, Michelle. "FREE SPEECH FIGHT IN WASHINGTON STATE" 2005-07-09 http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002963.htm