We don’t really have free political speech in modern day America. With corporate control of the major broadcasting media, what we have is “big money” speech. Free speech is for the suckers shouting from soapboxes with or without the megaphones at local protests at City Hall, but everyone knows that unless the news media covers that speech it won’t be heard except for a few stray passersby. And in election years, money determines what gets broadcast.
Just ask any candidate who can’t collect enough cash to afford radio and television ads. Yet at least under current campaign laws there are limits to what individuals and corporations can independently spend to attack candidates for federal office in an election year. That law, however, may soon be eviscerated, if the conservative majority on the Supreme Court has their way, according to Robert Barnes of The Washington Post, who attended arguments in the case involving a 90 minute movie/political hack job on Hillary Clinton produced by wealthy conservatives last year:
The Supreme Court yesterday appeared ready once again to trim the reach of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act, this time at the behest of a conservative group that produced a withering 90-minute political film called “Hillary: The Movie.” […]
After a rollicking one-hour argument, it seemed that the question was whether a majority of the court wanted to use an ax or a scalpel to whittle the law, Congress’s embattled attempt to limit the electoral influence of corporations, unions and special interest groups. It is known formally as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
The act says such groups cannot use money from their general treasuries for “any broadcast, cable or satellite communications” that refer to a candidate for federal office within a certain time frame before an election. […]
The court’s four most liberal members, who have in the past been the most supportive of the law, all but mocked Citizens United attorney Theodore B. Olson’s assertion that the film was meant to inform, educate and even entertain audiences.
“It is not a musical comedy,” said Justice Stephen G. Breyer.
Justice David. H. Souter read quotes about Clinton from the movie: “She will lie about anything. She is deceitful. She is ruthless, cunning, dishonest, do anything for power, will speak dishonestly, reckless, a congenital liar, sorely lacking in qualifications, not qualified as commander in chief.”
That’s pretty harsh invective. Even the many Hillary bashers on the Left would likely label this cinematic experience an over the top attack ad in the form of of a “documentary.” (Here is a You Tube link which will take you to the clips which will allow you to view this “movie” if you wish to do so). The film features a series of conservative “all stars” like Dick Morris and Ann Coulter calling Ms. Clinton “ruthless,” “vindictive”, “mendacious,” “venal,” “sneaky,” “ideological,” “intolerant”, “Liar is a good one” and my favorite “scares the hell out of me.”
Nonetheless, with the current composition of the Court where a five member conservative majority rules the roost, we may soon see the return of radical conservative billionaires and multinational corporations financing the Republican Party’s attack ads for broadcast on television, radio and even at the local cinema where movie houses could be rented out and free tickets distributed to all comers. Call it revenge for the Obama victory which was funded in large part by small donors. And don’t expect the major media conglomerates to provide “liberal voices” like you and I an equal opportunity to address the lies and misrepresentations in these “political statements.” Not without paying the “Billionaire rates” they charge in an election year. And maybe not even then, if our message is one they don’t wish to broadcast for ideological reasons, or out of fear of alienating their major corporate advertisers.
You can all it the Son of Swift Boat Vets decision if the conservatives on the Court vote as expected. And without a Fairness Doctrine in place (or some modern day equivalent) to counter these bought and paid for propaganda pieces, expect hundreds of millions of dollars (if not billions) to be spent on ads and other media presentations by corporations and wealthy nut jobs like Richard Mellon Scaife to flood the airwaves attacking Democrats, progressive and liberal candidates. A good income source for Time Warner, Disney, Fox, GE and Viacom, but a real detriment for our democracy.
I know many may disagree with me, but a society where only the wealthiest voices dominate our political discourse is a society which is not free. It’s a society in which political speech has been made a commodity, a commodity that is regulated, not by the government, but by those who control the means of distributing the message to the masses. This was what tyrannical regimes have done for centuries: control the message, control the flow of information.
The only difference between our system and the former Soviet Union, is who holds the power to censor speech and to limit alternative voices of dissent. We have given that power to a few mega-mass media conglomerates and they will do whatever is necessary to maximize their profits and keep their customers (i.e., the other major corporations which provide their advertising revenue stream) happy. Its why the issue of “net neutrality” has become more than a mere contretemps over payment for use of the “networks” which provide us access to the internet. To paraphrase Marx, whoever controls the means of communication controls the very nature of society.
The question for Democrats in Congress, and particularly liberal and progressive Democrats, should this law be weakened even further, is what should be done to provide those of us without vast financial resources the same opportunity to get our message heard as those who do. Frankly, I don’t have a lot of confidence that they will do anything positive, but I sincerely hope they prove me wrong.
