The Supreme Court will soon issue a ruling on campaign finance laws. The general fear is that the outcome of this case--Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission--will effectively eviscerate campaign finance reform laws put in place after Watergate ("Courts Roll Back Limits on Election Spending").
Citizens United is a conservative organization that funded "Hillary: The Movie," a not-so-thinly veiled, feature-length attack on then-Senator Hillary Clinton, during the 2008 presidential campaign. Should the Court rule in favor of Citizens United--as is largely expected--it may invalidate much of the previous legislation (e.g., McCain-Feingold) designed to discourage exorbitant spending by wealthy individuals, corporations, unions, and other interest groups to support or attack candidates for public office.
What astounds us is the amount of money being thrown around in pursuit of an ever-diminishing population of "swing" (i.e., "persuadable") voters. Because those are the only logical targets for such marketing. Unless Obama had been running against Charles Manson, the Solipsist would have voted for him in 2008 regardless of any advertising campaigns. (Wait. . . V.P. Palin? Screw it, we'd vote for Manson.) Similarly, people like FOFOS would presumably have voted for McCain even if the man had had a stroke the day before the election. The ads don't matter. If anything, all the propaganda about Comrade Obama, the socialist, secret Muslim, terrorist sympathizer, only strengthened our resolve to support the man.
So what we'd like to see is a ban on ALL television advertising from ANY interest groups. We're sure that labor unions--which we support--could find a better use for the millions upon millions of dollars they spend on ads. And big businessmen could save all that money for undeserved bonuses.
But wait, you object, what ABOUT those persuadable voters? Shouldn't these groups be allowed to spend whatever they want to get their message out to those folks? Perhaps.
OK, how about this? (We're just spitballing here, so we need to work out the details.) All the organizations and corporations and rich folks who want to contribute money throw it into a massive pool. This pool is then divided equally among everyone who votes on election day--probably about $5 a person by the time all the accounting is done. In exchange, the candidates agree to wear corporate logos during all public appearances--like NASCAR drivers (e.g., John McCain, brought to you by Exxon; Barack Obama, brought to you by the AFL-CIO).
Everybody would know where the candidates stood on the issues, we'd increase voter participation, and everyone gets a little spending money on Election Day, which is good for the economy! Win, win, win! God, we're good.
The argument put before the court is always that any restrictions on advertising is a restriction of free speech... which the court, alas, usually buys. No one ever argues the, to me, obvious counterpoint that, requiring payment for advertising is, by definition a restriction of free speech for those who don't have the wealth. But, what do I know? On your last point: why not take the money and split it among the candidates if they will simply go away?
ReplyDeleteFirst off, not to be rude, but Ralph Waldo Emerson, over there to the upper right of this page, could benefit from a nose job. Photoshop, please. That would be seeing the miraculous in the common. You know what else is common? Greed. Power. Smearing each other with painted words of filth. Okay, I'll take the $5 bucks, if you're offering it, but I'm not in a good mood. Stupid Supreme Court. Stupid election system.
ReplyDelete