Will Citizens United Backfire?
Comments (4)
Stephen Colbert, and the rest of Hollywood, might be in the best position to sway election results. (Wikimedia Commons)
The ruling was widely panned by Democrats, including President Obama, who feared an avalanche of moneyed interests emptying their formidable coffers to fight any attempt at regulation. Corporations and other rich individuals could bankroll independent expenditure-only political action committees, or Super PACs, and finance massive, sustained, and coordinated media blitzes to strongly advocate for or against certain issues or candidates.
ExxonMobil made $30 billion in net income last year. An Exxon Super PAC could afford to produce a Sarah Palin-hosted “Drill Baby Drill” infomercial and run it all night, with a few breaks for Ron Popeil. Citizens also seems to open the door for foreign nationals and entities to get involved in American political campaigns. As much as we like to influence other countries’ government choices, we don’t want that happening to us. American elections are for Americans.
Citizens United (the organization, not the case) was a conservative group who released an anti-Hillary Clinton movie, the fallout from which eventually made it to the Supreme Court. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich both have Super PACs unofficially supporting them that have been throwing rocks at the other candidate. Mitt’s Super PAC knocked Newt down in Iowa with a media barrage, which was followed by Newt’s Super PAC getting a $5 million infusion from Greater Israel advocate and casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson and broadcasting a 28-minute film attacking Mitt’s business career.
Up until this past weekend, we had only seen Republican Super PACs. Newt’s “King of Bain” movie was brutal although significantly dishonest, but he delivered with this one. Newt has since taken his desire to go to Lincoln-Douglas style debates literally by revisiting the arguments of 1858, but that’s for another column. Then came Stephen Colbert.
Stephen Colbert’s Super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, has started airing advertisements on South Carolina television and online over the last few days. To comply with campaign-finance laws, Colbert had to hand off control to Jon Stewart. The ads are typical Colbert/Stewart satire, and not exactly high-budget, but they are funny and much more memorable than the typical black-and-white photo sequence/flying newspaper quotes out of context format a lot of political campaigns seem to love.
A lot of competent and talented people work in political and commercial advertising, but let’s be honest, every commercial director wants to be Martin Scorsese and not vice versa. Karl Rove is a brilliant strategist and messenger, not a filmmaker. They may cling to guns and religion, but conservatives totally melt when elite liberal screenwriters and producers tug at their heartstrings. Hollywood understands Real America a lot better than Real America understands Real America.
If Jon Stewart and his team could do ads this good without spending tons of money and without a political organization that is even running for anything, what would Steven Spielberg and friends be capable of with a few months, $100 million and the added motivation of a presidential campaign? Successful film directors and producers are successful for a reason: They can cast terrible actors, singers who want to be actors, models who shouldn’t be actors, etc. in movies and actually make them convincing and relatable to the audience. They could be Barack Obama and the Democrats’ secret weapon.
Citizens United and the conservative justices on the Supreme Court essentially gave Hollywood the ability to load up its war chest and use it to make movies against Republicans.
President Obama is going to have the richest “unaffiliated” Super PAC yet and, while maybe not as energized as they were four years ago, a powerful group of entertainment industry supporters who are excited to help him get reelected. While Obama and his official campaign team can’t coordinate with his Super PAC, there’s nothing stopping a coalition of elite Hollywood directors and producers from offering to assume creative control of that Super PAC’s TV, radio and internet advertisements.
The near-certain nominee, Willard Mitt Romney, is a much better villain than war hero John McCain. Some of Willard’s recent zingers are indeed reminiscent of Randolph and Mortimer Duke, or maybe Scrooge McDuck. His doubling-down on criticism of his business career being primarily motivated by envy is a lot like LeBron James’ (paraphrased) “At the end of the day I’m rich and my haters have personal problems” statement after vanishing from Game 6 of the NBA Finals last year. Ohio is a swing state.
I would imagine talented filmmakers would not find it hard to write Mitt Romney into a most-hated television bad guy.
I, like Colbert, Barack Obama and many Americans, believe Citizens United was a dangerous decision and anything that increases the influence of the moneyed elite in our political system makes it less democratic. The fact that there are extremely wealthy donors on the left to balance out the Koch Brothers, energy companies and Sheldon of Arabia doesn’t make the system any more just.
That being said, Democrat-affiliated groups can only play by the rules that John Roberts laid out. If (when) Republicans strike first, they have to respond in kind or greater. The best way to fight these Republican Super PAC money bombs is to ensure the Democratic ones are bigger and more dramatic.
Who does that better than Hollywood?
Reach Staff Columnist Matt Pressberg here.
Best way to find more great content from Neon Tommy?
Or join our email list below to enjoy Neon Tommy News Alerts.
Comments
I stopped reading at "Hollywood understands Real America a lot better than Real America understands Real America."
You're a Grade A moron, bro....seriously one of the stupidest things I've ever read, and fits into every liberal elite stereotype.
TRANSPARENCY BY GEORGE STEPONALLOFUS
Transparency .....why are newspaper and broadcast corporations always left out of campaign finance debates, why are they exempt from election laws. Who is behind the scenes in these giant media corporations offering to pay them to endorse a candidate or issue or slant a political news story?
A "Free Press" means the "Right" to use a device a "Printing Press" at the time our constitution was written it was the equivalent of a computer and blogging and it was everyones "RIGHT" it was not just for newspaper owners, reporters and editors!
Colbert enjoys the press exemption when he does his program and is not running a Super Pac and pretending to be a candidate!
Do Americans actually believe media corporations are perfect in all their ways, all knowing, above corruption, always report all the facts and are incapable of misleading their readers listeners and viewers?
Outrageous Result of Federal Campaign Law
While the First Amendment of the United States Constitution does in fact guarantee an unrestricted, free press to foreign citizens and corporations operating newspapers in these United States, it [ does not ] guarantee the same rights to United States Citizens or political organizations including the Democrat and Republican parties!
The outrageous paragraph above accurately describes the result of campaign regulations passed by the US House of Representatives and the US Senate, signed into law by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. - http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml#Prohibitionand foreign corporations are considered foreign nationals - http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml#Who_Foreign_National
Nonetheless, foreign owned newspapers have more rights than US citizens because Congress does not want to debate 1st Amendment questions raised by the Press Exemption.
2 USC 431 (9) (B) The term "expenditure" does not include - (i) any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities
are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;
Members of Congress have been aware of this ‘oversight’ for seven years and chose not to discuss it while deliberating the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act:
"Regarding the issue of foreign ownership of media, I am currently researching this issue.
I appreciate your concerns that while the FEC regulates contributions and expenditures of American citizens, newspapers owned by foreign individuals or corporations are not subject to such regulation. The problem is in limiting the freedom of speech of these newspapers. Any type of regulation of editorial comment would be unconstitutional." From Congresswoman Ann Northup's letter to her constituent, Richard Lewis, dated June 11, 1997 http://amendment10.tripod.com/Ann1.htm
Thank you for your calls regarding foreign-owned media. I appreciate having the opportunity to address your concerns.
As Juliane Carter of my staff discussed with you, the Congressional Research Service is currently gathering research on this topic for me. I look forward to seeing what information they provide on the number of broadcast and print journalism organizations that are owned or operated by international companies. Excerpt from Congresswoman Ann Northup's July 10, 1997 letter to her constituent Richard Lewis. http://amendment10.tripod.com/ann3.gif
"Regarding print media, I understand your concern about foreign ownership. Of the seven largest newspaper companies, two -- Thomson Newspapers (circulation 1.33 million, 65 dailies) and Hollinger International (circulation 1.28 million, 105 dailies) -- are Canadian. However, several questions arise as to how to implement any type of restriction. While broadcasters are regulated by the FCC, newspapers do not have any type of regulating agency. Further, requiring any type of regulation of the print media would draw serious constitutional problems.
However, I agree with you that media plays in incredibly important and powerful role in our society. As we discussed on the radio the other night, campaign finance reform proposals that limit the ability of candidates to get their message out merely empower the control of the editorial boards. I agree with you that foreign ownership of newspapers could be very dangerous. One wonders what the effect would be if China bought most of the major newspapers in this country." From Congresswoman Ann Northup's letter to her constituent, Richard Lewis, dated September 4, 1997 http://amendment10.tripod.com/Ann4.htm
"Mr. Richard Lewis, a constituent from Kentucky's Third District, has grave concerns about foreign ownership of media.
He raises the issue that while the media has brought campaign finance reform to the forefront of public awareness, such proposals limit the ability of law-abiding citizens to get out a message. Meanwhile, two of the seven largest newspaper companies in the United States are owned by foreign investors. The ability of these foreign owners to influence elections through editorial pages will be strengthened by increased limits on campaign finance." Excerpt from Congresswoman Northup's September 4, 1997 letter to the Chairman William Thomas (Committee on House Oversight), on behalf of her constituent, Richard Lewis http://amendment10.tripod.com/Ann6.htm
From Congresswoman Northup's September 4, 1997 letter to Chairman Charles Canady (House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution), on behalf of her constituent, Richard Lewis Same letter as above. http://amendment10.tripod.com/Ann7.htm
"Your inquiry about foreign ownership of the media and its influence over federal elections was forwarded to me. As Chairman of the House Committee which oversees federal elections, I thank you for your concerns.
The points you raise are interesting. Be assured that as the Congress considers the issue of campaign finance reform or reviews the election process as a whole I will keep your questions in mind. Once again, I appreciate and thank you for your desire of the preservation of free and unfettered elections." Excerpt from Chairman William M. Thomas letter to Richard Lewis, dated September 9, 1997 http://amendment10.tripod.com/Ann8.htm
Why isn't the existing prohibition being enforced or why wasn't the following language added to existing exclusions in the Press Exemption during the debate over BCRA:
“…unless such facilities are owned or controlled by a foreign national or foreign corporation…”
Speculation
In the U.S., laws that limit media consolidation could be considered 'trade violations.' policies that promote media localism, diversity, and pluralism could be classified as 'barriers to trade.' Multinational corporations could seek cash 'compensation' - paid for by taxpayer dollars - if tribunals of trade lawyers found our government's public interest media policies to be 'unduly burdensome' to competition.
It is up to the American People? Are you willing to sacrifice 1st Amendment rights to globalization? If so, the rest of the Bill of Rights and Constitutional government will shortly follow!
Corporate Media is A Fly in Your Ointment
Mainstream media corporations are the ultimate super pacs and they are exempt from campaign laws.
From 1791 to 1886 1st Amendment freedoms of speech, press and assembly were the sole rights of flesh and blood citizens.
From 1886 to 1973 flesh and blood citizens and media corporations enjoyed equal freedoms of speech and the press.
From 1974 to present only the commercial media enjoy unrestricted freedom of speech and the press. Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs.
2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term "expenditure" does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;
And what is the difference between slanted news stories or editorial opinions and political ads anyway? "Section 431(9)(B)(i) makes a distinction where there is no real difference: the media is extremely powerful by any measure, a "special interest" by any definition, and heavily engaged in the "issue advocacy" and "independent expenditure" realms of political persuasion that most editorial boards find so objectionable when anyone other than a media outlet engages in it
The media’s crocodile tears about the evils of money in politics is so hypocritical. Distributing political ads to the masses is the biggest expense of political campaigns. If the media were to carry political ads, as a public service, it would greatly reduce the need for money in politics! But corporate media are the recipient of billions of dollars in campaign ads.
The 1st Amendment is not a loophole in campaign laws. Campaign laws are corruption of the 1st Amendment.
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
To restore equal protection under law the press exemption must be extended to citizens and citizens groups!