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.
It’s a dangerous deal in both ways. You don’t want the government stifling political discourse. But the whole concept of money equalling speech is not the road to take. Probably the best first step is to abolish corporate personhood, but that would be over a number of robed dead bodies, I’m afraid.
Actually there is nothing in the Constitution which require Corporate personhood. Corporations are defined as “persons” under state law, what we call a legal fiction.
Nevertheless, I don’t ever foresee the day that states revoke the status of personhood for corporations. It is too much a part of the fabric of our legal, financial and business culture at this point. We’d have to become a Communist state before that would happen.
It’s going to take a constitutional amendment defining he civic role of limited liability corporations in order to change this in the short term. And the politics of that gives rise to extreme pessimism even if 80% of the public would support the idea.
Any legislation interpreted as limiting the political speech of “persons” can be ruled unconstitutional.
Congress can however tighten ownership restrictions on the broadcast media (which unfortunately are becoming more and more irrelevant in the presence of cable delivery).
There is something that the executive can do, however. Begin investigating the media conglomerates for antitrust violations. And start trust busting. Passing stronger antitrust legislation would deal with some of these issues indirectly.
The other problem is that the broadcasters are not “net neutral”. They can refuse to air political ads and opinions that their owners do not agree with.
McCain-Feingold was flawed from the beginning (does the name McCain ring any bells). It was a hasty compromise in an adverse political environment.
There is no political will in America to stop the slide of the country into rule by Oligarchy. From the days of its inception, America has struggled with Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). The Constitution as originally drafted conceived of America from its soul to be a NEW REPUBLIC. Only after overwhelming outcry from supporters of the common citizenry did the framers relent and canonize the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. Because of this noble graft, the idea that America was first and foremost a Democracy gained popular enshrinement. However, there remains an ever present powerful faction who quietly denies the American Democracy idea and instead reaffirms the original concept of the American Republic.
As America enters the 21st century, the proponents of the idea that America is a Republic first are members of a great oligarchy which consists of wealthy industrialists and high ranking members of the American military complex. The proponents of the idea that America is a Democracy are members of the middle and lower class working Americans. As a fact most members in this group are totally unaware that America was created as a Republic by the Constitution, and a few even think that the American Democracy was modeled after the ancient Athenian form of government.
In the days of James Madison the common people vastly out numbered the wealthy merchants and there was no gigantic military. But over the centuries the wealth in America has surged and every facet of the American workplace has become completely corporatized to the point that corporate power no longer can be contained by the people or their government. When Congress argues legislation supposedly on behalf of the American people, the American people that they are actually speaking for are American Business people.
It is already too late! The Republic has arisen and discarded its funerary wrappings and woe to the believers in the myth of Democracy. Through the medium of the lobby channels, the votes and dedication of the American Congress have been bought over the decades with solid irrevocable purchase. All mainstream communication channels, AM Radio, the three main TV networks all belong to major corporate members of the Oligarchy. America has been secured by the Oligarchy and their primary interest is expansion of their interests, to take over Mexico and Central America. Barack Obama would not have become President without the silent agreement and help of the American Oligarchy. (Remember all the Republican complaints that the media was in love with Obama?) Simply put they were well aware that John McCain was not capable of providing the leadership and energy necessary to drag this country out of the looming depression facing the 44th President. Once Obama has brought the ship of state into the calming waters of recovery and new prosperity, the Oligarchy will sweep him aside,
and prepare the throne of the Republic for the next occupant.
Obama knows this and has accepted the role, that’s why he hit the ground running at top speed. His trade off with the Oligarchy is to get the programs comprising his vision for the future America passed into law. This is the tension currently at play in Washington.
As for the Supremes, the Court is such a minor player in the current scheme of things that is of little consequence what they decide.