Corporations, Citizens Equal At Election Time
They fret that after one or two politicians are picked off by the vengeful corporation, others will fold like a cheap suit, toward the will of rapacious corporate interests.
Not so fast.
If the Supremes had issued this goofball ruling in 1975, that might have been the case. Back then, we had three networks, along with three strong local stations affiliates, and we had a local newspaper. Their advertising rates were so expensive only corporations could afford these primary ways of communicating with voters.
But today, the Internet has vaporized that barrier to the entrance of the town square. Look no farther than Obama campaign manager David Plouffe's fine book, "The Audacity to Win." In writing about the campaign's communication strategy, Plouffe rarely mentions TV advertising without also underscoring the importance of YouTube and social media to Obama's success.
Anybody with a broadband connection and something to say can generate an equal and opposite reaction to corporate expenditures attempting to take down an errant officeholder.
But more important, it's unlikely that we'll see corporations spending millions of dollars to oust offending politicians simply because the risks far outweigh the rewards. Sure, millions in TV advertising by a company could result in some feckless politician losing an election.
But let's remember - corporations never win popularity contests with voters. After the bank bailout, executive compensation and million-dollar bonuses on Wall Street, corporate America is more unpopular than ever. Let's face it - many corporations are remarkably ham-fisted when it comes to the intersection of business and politics.
In some respects, being attacked by a corporation could be the best thing that could happen to a candidate.
All Articles
Seen the totals on what the US Chamber spent on health care ads? I doubt that a flood of new corporate money will be added on top of such big-scale initiatives.
What may happen instead is more direct funding by corporations -- and less pooling through groups like the Chamber. What, really will that change?
I've always viewed this as a supply-and-demand problem, only with information instead of money.
The recent SCOTUS ruling has everyone in a knot over supply -- who gets to air content and opinions, on whose dime, etc.
Our focus should be on the demand side -- on the way people evaluate all the messages they're bombarded with.
My mantra: A $50 million ad campaign is powerless to sway the vote of an intelligent citizen who's able to read a fifty-cent newspaper.
Political rhetoric is out of whack in this country, but the solution lies on the demand side. We need to do a better job educating those citizens (and do what we can to support a professional, independent media).
Attacking the supply side by spray-painting all over the First Amendment is worse than unconstitutional; it's misdirected. All it amounts to is fighting over who gets to manipulate the votes of the ignorant and uncurious. If we helped move more people out of that category, "paid speech" would become an irrelevant issue.
Post a comment
We look forward to hearing what you have to say. Before joining the conversation, please take a moment to review our comment policy.