Will Citizens United Sound the Death Knell For American Democracy
It may come off as hype even talking about the end of democracy in America, but one has to wonder about that as the repercussions of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court become more evident. America’s democracy has survived many hits in the past, but it’s possible this one could be a knock-out blow. And once down on the mat, democracy may not be able to get up again.
This consideration was raised by a recent Politico article reporting that Republican Super PACs will spend a billion dollars to try and elect their candidates in this election cycle. (http://bit.ly/KVRzdF) These are not grass-roots organizations, but groups financed by a few big donors. For example, groups linked to the Koch brothers will spend about $400 million alone, organizing operations in important districts and states.
Now, there are those who will say ‘so what,’ and that campaign spending is like a popularity contest, where candidates with the most appeal raise the most money. And that the Democrats can also try and generate as much money as they can if they want to make the races more competitive. And that money and campaign ads don’t determine the way people vote. And that Obama spent three quarters of a billion dollars on the last presidential campaign anyway.
In relation to the last argument, the money Obama raised and spent on his campaign was through his own organization and he vetted and was responsible for the messages that emerged. With the plethora of Super PACs now sprouting all over the landscape, extremely wealthy people can issue their own messages as they attempt to influence elections, often anonymously and with no constraints on what is said or how much money is donated. They can distort opponents’ messages, say things out of context or with only a kernel of truth, or frankly lie or make up stories, with no one and no governmental agency to take them to task.
By buying up enough air time in major markets in the swing states, they can completely dominate the political dialogue in the presidential campaigns, restricting the ability of opponents to respond over the airways and drowning out any counterthrusts. These kingmakers can similarly impact Congressional and Senatorial races with their money, electing men and women with worldviews comparable to their own, thus being able to determine governmental policy.
Unfortunately, this control of the electoral process can become self-perpetuating, extinguishing the vestiges of democracy. Instead of free and open elections, America could undergo a transition to a plutocracy, where the very wealthy have the power and make the rules. The only way this can be averted is if common sense limitations on campaign spending by individuals and corporations are instituted again. But how can this happen if our elected representatives, along with the president and Supreme Court are opposed to any restrictions?
Economic inequality in America will grow even worse in the future, as the tax laws and regulations are further shaped to favor the rich. And this will be more than matched by the disproportionate political power of the rich. If these Super PACs are allowed to continue to control the discourse, any semblance of fairness that remains in political campaigns and elections will vanish.
Some see a negative legacy from George W. Bush’s presidency as a result of the Iraq War and tax laws that increased the nation’s budget deficits. However, I believe his enduring legacy will be his nominations to the Supreme Court, with its Citizen’s United ruling that gave control of the political process to the extremely wealthy.
James Madison noted in The Federalist Papers- “We may define a republic to be… a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people…not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class.” We are now moving away from this vision for our republic and whether or not this trend can be reversed remains a question.
Resurrecting Democracy
A VietNam vet and a Columbia history major who became a medical doctor, Bob Levine has watched the evolution of American politics over the past 40 years with increasing alarm. He knows he’s not alone. Partisan grid-lock, massive cash contributions and even more massive expenditures on lobbyists have undermined real democracy, and there is more than just a whiff of corruption emanating from Washington. If the nation is to overcome lockstep partisanship, restore growth to the economy and bring its debt under control, Levine argues that it will require a strong centrist third party to bring about the necessary reforms. Levine’s previous book, Shock Therapy For the American Health Care System took a realist approach to health care from a physician’s informed point of view; Resurrecting Democracy takes a similar pragmatic approach, putting aside ideology and taking a hard look at facts on the ground. In his latest book, Levine shines a light that cuts through the miasma of party propaganda and reactionary thinking, and reveals a new path for American politics. This post is cross posted from his blog.
Image via Shutterstock
Share This
Related Posts
-
It’s Jim Carrey Versus Fox News
Posted on Apr 3, 2013
-
The GOP Autopsy (Guest Voice)
Posted on Mar 23, 2013
-
Abe Must End Gamesmanship Over Post-War Constitution (Hokkaido Shimbun, Japan)
Posted on Mar 19, 2013
-
Death of Hugo Chavez a CIA Plot? Views from Venezuela, Bolivia and Russia
Posted on Mar 11, 2013
The more money that gets into politics and the media, the worse it gets and that means even more money going in and so on and so on.
It may not mean the Death Knell, but it may mean we may one day may wake up and and find we have a one party running things. Without the opposition balance, RL, you are correct DK is possible.
What sort of democracy are you defending, Robert? One where political opinions need to be vetted and constrained? Orwell would have wept.
It’s really hard to read these arguments as anything but partisanship or naive statism. Rationalizing why it was okay for Obama to spend this order of magnitude but a threat to democracy if the GOP does it smacks of the former. The endless calls to give more power to incumbent politicians to regulate political speech, without acknowledging the inherent conflict of interest, oozes the latter.
Liberals trying to make this case would do better to clarify what they’re *really* after. Presumably the concern is that undue influence from billionaires will produce bad electoral decisions. And we will know they’re bad because…they disagree with what liberals tell us we should be doing? This is a huge sticking point, and if you hope to dispel the aroma of partisanship, you need to articulate a good answer.
The would also do better to be clearer about the mechanics of the democracy they want to see. “Let the people decide” sounds nice, but what does that mean in practice? People have limited time to research issues and will to some extent be guided by the messages they’re permitted to hear. Who gets to decide what messages voters (and politicians) can be exposed to? What evidence can you cite that that will produce better outcomes (whatever “better” means) than a slug-fest between billionaires, corporations, and voters’ own judgment?
Well first off I think its crazy Obama could spend 3/4 of a billion on the last election. And we liberals aren’t concerned about the overall money necessarily, but the number of people it comes from. If 150,000,000 Gop decided to contribute $10 each, and 150,000,000 dems did the same, each candidate would blow $1.5 billion but at least it would be something akin to what the courts had in mind, and we couldn’t argue that any small group was influencing the election.
But when you’ve got just a small handful of donors able to wield that kind of insane clout, that doesn’t throw up any warning bells with you? Say I was one of the handful of people with a net worth over $10billion. I decided to give $1Bn of that to a candidate, which would obviously give them an insourmountable edge. That wouldn’t seem scary to you when my guy won the election? There are people in this country who could do just that. Give up 10% of their net worth to get a president, and most likely their party, in their pocket. That is the issue here. To call that exercising free speech is like telling me I have to watch a religious ceremony involving a crime, and not speak up in the name of tolerance.
Partisanship or citizenship?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/citizens-united-john-mccain-sheldon-whitehouse-supreme-court-brief_n_1527622.html
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_139/How-Citizens-United-Is-Affecting-Campaigns-214705-1.html
http://www.rep-am.com/elections/national/643322.txt
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/13/campaign-finance-reform-stop-special-interest-money-now_n_1341708.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HP%2FBusiness+%28Business+on+The+Huffington+Post%29
Slam, what you’re saying makes sense as far as it goes, but it has a whiff of a slippery slope argument. Okay, suppose we remove the cap on candidate donations (so that all this campaign activity can be vetted by the candidate, like Robert wants), you donate a billion dollars, and that gets your guy elected. So what? Your guy will probably end up acting a lot like the other guy, just as Obama has acted a lot like GWB. Is he going to socialize medicine or something? Good luck with that; he’ll need to have some magic with Congress and the million vested interests throughout society that resist big changes. So what, realistically, is the outcome I’m supposed to be worried about?
And what outcome are you offering instead? The alternative to the Koches and Soros running ads is McCain and Feingold and their cronies metering out rights to political speech. At least the Koches and Soros disagree, and at the end of the day all they’re going to do is run ads. Incumbent politicians have a lot of interests in common, and a police force to ensure they get their way. Giving them more power seems sure to accelerate the process that’s already underway of the government continuing to take over more and more of our lives, because it’s in their interests to do so. I prefer the more open outcome, where the system is at least susceptible to challenges, if only by billionaires.
“Now, there are those who will say… that money and campaign ads don’t determine the way people vote.”
I won’t say that it doesn’t, but I’ll say that it shouldn’t, and to the extent that it does then the remedy is apparent and is looking at us in the mirror. I’d argue that the causation is backwards: the amount of money that is spent is related to its expected effectiveness. If it is not effective, it would not be spent. This says more about us than about big donors.
Speaking of James Madison, he made clear in the federalist papers #57 that the “very root of republican government” is to ability for the people to choose their representatives, and that no restraint was necessary or desired in that process.
“If we consider the situation of the men on whom the free suffrages of their fellow-citizens may confer the representative trust, we shall find it involving *every security which can be devised or desired* for their fidelity to their constituents.”
(emphasis added)
And further:
“What are we to say to the men who profess the most flaming zeal for republican government, yet boldly impeach the fundamental principle of it; who pretend to be champions for the right and the capacity of the people to choose their own rulers, yet maintain that they will prefer those only who will immediately and infallibly betray the trust committed to them?”
While Madison was not directly addressing the question of money in politics, the argument is logically extended to apply to it. How can we say we are for representative government but say that the people are not capable of picking good representatives without restrictions on the system of choosing? And I wonder if the founding fathers never thought to address the issue because it was seen as a given that if the citizens can be persuaded by money, the experiment has failed anyway. I won’t put words in their mouth, but that seems like a logical argument to me.
Also, for the record, I don’t use James Madison because I think of him of some great thinker or deity, although he was a great thinker. I use his quotes because I think he is right on this point.
“At least the Koches and Soros disagree, and at the end of the day all they’re going to do is run ads.” Yep. And they’re doing it out of the goodness of their hearts to insure that America elects the best and brightest representatives who will do what’s best for the nation as a whole.
Ohio, the Star Spangled banner plays in the background.
dd
Damn straight.
This, ironically, is an argument for lifting campaign finance laws that restrict donations and push the money into independent organizations.
Attempts to restrict spending have, in the end, only moved the money around. Law going back more than a 1/4 century (to Buckley vs. Valeo in 1973) has established that spending money on political ads is free speech. Even if you could wave away the Citizens United ruling, the money would still be spent on ads for the same causes.
Of course they won’t, TO. They’ll vote their interests while convincing themselves they’re voting their conscience. Exactly like you, me, and all the incumbent politicians you’d probably prefer to have in charge.
Citizens need protection from governments. That’s why we have the bill of rights, and why we limit the government and our elected officials from doing whatever they want. However, we also need protection from other citizens. There is always a segment of the population that is either a threat to other parts of it directly(violent criminals, drug dealers, car salesmen..), or indirectly by pursuing their own interests at the expense of everyone else(corporations, power brokers, celebrity couples..). We have the government to look after the general welfare and make laws that keep the playing field even. This is one of those cases where a small segment of the population, an unelected and unaccountable to the people part of it, can control the issues of this nation and provide for their own interests at the expense and to the detriment of the general public.
The uber wealthy have a long history, indeed all of recorded history, of taking advantage of the masses and exploiting them if they are in a position to do so. We have put in place over the years restraints on them in this regard. We have to walk a line with it, because we go too far and we will in fact be hampering our own growth through stifling laws, but at this time we are no where near that. Indeed the people with the money can now buy up the politicians because we have made speech equal to money in a big way, instantly devaluing the voices of those unable to donate massive amounts of cash to political causes. Once the right people have been elected any safeguards in place can be removed, and we the people will be that much more vulnerable to a group of people that have historically been willing to destroy the public welfare for their own ends.
Something must be done so that money plays less of a role in determining who is elected. If we don’t, our government and therefore the people, will be at the mercy of those who they are supposed to protect us against.
Just my view, but CU – and its supporters – fail(s) to distinguish between freedom of speech and influence peddling. One, freedom of speech, is constitutionally protected. The other, influence peddling, is reprehensible and unworthy of either constitutional protection or intellectual rationalization in a republic committed to maintaining certian democratic institutions.
tidbits,
Can you define what you mean by influence peddling, and how you see CU contributing to it? Even influence peddling is mitigated by a responsible electorate (as they should vote out those who sell their influence). But, I agree it is not the same as free speech (as free speech does not imply the right to an unwilling audience), so I would not be opposed to additional restrictions, but I don’t see how that relates to CU.
“The uber wealthy have a long history, indeed all of recorded history, of taking advantage of the masses and exploiting them if they are in a position to do so.”
As James Madison explained it, the way that we avoid the wealthy exploiting the non-wealthy is by giving them one vote, just like everyone else. Do you consider them to be in a position to exploit because they have a louder voice? Are the non-wealthy therefore forced to hear and agree? Can an action be exploitative if it requires the person who is exploited to be complicit, without any negative consequence for not being complicit? I think the answer is no, but I’d be interested to hear your argument.
AD -
From the beginning I have said that CU conflated spending with speech. In different ways, I have said several times: when I speak my lips move; when I spend money my wallet moves. They are not the same.
My definition of influence peddling? Purchasing influence through the donation of sufficient cash to place yourself above others. One example: a wealthy, energy related donor gave $985,000 to Romney’s Super PAC. A week later he was appointed as an energy policy advisor to the candidate.
Note: there are other types of influence peddling, e.g. extortion, to which I make no reference here.
It’s possible that we disagree, but that’s how I see this issue.
Slam, thanks for the thoughts. I have to point out you didn’t answer either of my questions. You’re still the uber wealthy exploiting the masses in some vague sense. What specific exploitation are you talking about, how does it follow inevitably from billionaires running ads, and why should I believe giving Nancy Pelosi veto power over political speech will be better?
I doubt that anyone who is blase about the citizens united decision has any genuine grasp of the principles this country was founded on in the first place. The James Madison quote goes directly to this, as do the writings of many of the founders. Here are a couple from George Washington, read em and weep..
“Is the paltry consideration of
a little dirty pelf for a few
to be placed in competition with
the essential rights and liberties of the rest, and of millions yet unborn?”
“Shall a few designing men
for their own aggrandizement,
and to gratify their own avarice,
overset the goodly fabric we
have been rearing at the expense
of so much time, blood, and treasure?”
Exploitation like watching congressmen stand up and defend the oil tax breaks with a straight face. It is absurdly obvious that the oil industry is not in a cash crunch, has no issues selling its product, is well motivated already to search for new wells, and can cover its operating costs easily. Yet these honorable men stood up and clearly stated that without these tax breaks, oil companies who were posting almost double digit billions in profits in a quarter, will have to fire hard working Americans if those tax breaks go away. In other words, rather than fund their growth out of their own pockets as many much less successful small businesses need to do, they would fire people and hamstring their own growth before they dug into their profits. Which could easily absorb it. That is a I believe what you call a “whopper”. Why do these elected officials spew such obvious lies? Because they are funded by the oil companies.
We could draw a similar conclusion with the financial sector. They basically threw a Great Depression triggering event at this country, using the same methods they did in the 1920′s, and were only recently available to them once again via them having repealed the laws that forbade them to do it again. This was bi-partisan, and it shows the influence small groups with unlimited cash influence can have. We had protections put in place to protect us from these shenanigans, and they did. They were removed, and we got screwed again. The fact the conditions that allowed it to happen have not been addressed 4 years later is a testament to the lobbying power of the financial sector. We are not more protected from those degenerate Wall St. gamblers now than we were under Bush. And maybe we can afford to bail them out again when the whole house of cards comes tumbling down, and maybe we can’t. That is the exploitation I am talking about.
And Pelosi having veto power over speech is better than a nameless billionaire because our elected officials are elected, and have some level of accountability.
I would never be so cruel as to quote directly from “Wealth of Nations” because its hard to read, but one piece of analysis of the original free market proponent:
“Smith also warned that a true laissez-faire economy would quickly become a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers, with the former scheming to influence politics and legislation. Smith states that the interest of manufacturers and merchants “…in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public…The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention”
Sound familiar? CU is a great tool for allowing the abuse of the general good by a few.
Slam, I share your frustration with oil tax breaks and other special interest pandering. These have been going on for centuries and will continue no matter how much of our free speech we sacrifice, because politicians have a structural incentive to spend the public purse on special interest groups. They win more votes that way.
I think I understand the theory that restricting advertising makes this problem better, but I’m far from convinced of it. In fact I’d argue the other way: politicians get away with selling out the public because the public isn’t paying much attention. Less government control over the media will tend to mean more sunlight cast on politicians’ pandering. So I simply don’t believe you have a solution, and I’m frightened of the cost.
How on earth are you holding in your skull the belief that politicians have some level of accountability at the same time you’re citing oil-tax-break sellouts?
Dr. J
“They’ll vote their interests while convincing themselves they’re voting their conscience. Exactly like you, me, and all the incumbent politicians you’d probably prefer to have in charge.”
I’m not sure their conscience is involved; I’m certainly not sure it’s involved as mine, and probably yours, is.
As far as incumbent politicians, there are a number of them I’d prefer be replaced, but as I have little money to effect that replacement, all I can do is grumble. That includes grumbling about those who do have enough money and seem willing to use as much as it takes to get their candidates elected.
Any candidate I’m interested in wants to avoid the plutocracy we’re headed for, just as I do – that includes the conservatives and independents as well as the progressives I normally prefer. This whole money quagmire may just be the one factor that can finally end the partisanship morass we’ve fallen into.
Yes, TO, that’s the throw-the-bums-out theory, that there are some better politicians out there who will act very differently from the ones we have. I don’t believe it. The next batch will have the same structural incentives as this one.
I’m also skeptical of the influence theory, that the electorate is so easily swayed by the media. TMV, for example, is a crucible of concerned citizens lobbying each other on all sorts of topics. In the several years I’ve been reading, I don’t think I’ve seen a single person change their mind on a single topic. Is your experience vastly different?
zephyr,
The James Madison quote was made to define a republic, as opposed to an aristocracy. It says nothing of whether he would be in favor of campaign spending restrictions. In fact, such an interpretation conflicts with the entire point of his federalist papers #57 that I quoted from in my first comment, which makes clear that he sees no restriction necessary or desirable other than that every person gets a vote.
As for the George Washington quote, I agree completely. I’d hope that citizens would stand up against undue influence and exercise their obligation to vote out influence peddlers, corrupt politicians, and anyone else unfit for the job. I see nothing in CU that impedes them from doing so.
slamfu,
And there is nothing impeding the electorate from voting against those who don’t represent their interests on those matters. So, your response doesn’t answer my question: is it exploitation if the so-called exploited are complicit?
slamfu,
With regards to Adam Smith, I agree also with his concern, and especially with his proposed solution, as you quoted: “The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution.”
His solution is not to restrict the actions of some, but to put responsibility onto the people, through their representatives, to exercise “suspicious attention.”
tidbits,
You are right that spending money, by itself, is not speech. When the government restricts what I can spend money on, it is restricting my freedom, but it is not necessarily violating any specific right guaranteed by the constitution. However, when it allows some type of purchase, but not the same type of purchase for the purpose of distributing a political message, then the distinction between a legal and illegal purchase is only defined by the content of the message associated with the purchase. That implies that there must be a criteria to decide what speech is OK in that context, and which speech is not, and the existence of such a criteria is a violation of freedom of speech. My understanding is that the frequently cited exceptions to this rule (yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, defamation, etc.) require that (a) the speech is false, and (b) there is direct damage to another person as a result of the false information. The message of political groups, as a whole, certainly can’t all be classified as false and damaging, so this restriction would be a unique restriction of on a type of speech that may include true and constructive messages. Or, if there is another restriction of speech that is not false and destructive, I’d like to know it.
At least that’s the way I see it. I appreciate your point of view, though.
“As for the George Washington quote, I agree completely. I’d hope that citizens would stand up against undue influence and exercise their obligation to vote out influence peddlers, corrupt politicians, and anyone else unfit for the job. I see nothing in CU that impedes them from doing so.”
I don’t see how it’s possible for you to agree with the quote yet continue to believe that CU is somehow exempt from being part of that problem. Either I don’t understand your thinking or your ability to rationalize is impressive. I suspect the latter.
Zephyr, it is worth noting that Washington’s beef was fundamentally with dysfunctional government. Congress was printing money to finance the war and needed states to raise taxes to take money out of circulation. The states were not doing so reliably, and hyperinflation was rampant.
That created an opportunity, or perhaps more like a requirement, for citizens to hold more stable forms of wealth, so they were buying up things like clothes and food. Prices were skyrocketing, Washington couldn’t fund the army, and he was scapegoating these “speculators” for their lack of patriotism.
I’m not sure what bearing this has on CU, other than reminding us that citizens and politicians will generally act less civic-mindedly than we might wish.
zephyr,
I accept that my view is unorthodox, but it’s not that complicated to understand. My view is that no one’s interest should be put above another’s, as Washington said, and that the way you prevent that is by not voting for people who do that, as Madison said. There are some complications when the oppressed are in the minority, since the privileged can hold the majority and keep them oppressed. Then, the Constitution and the Supreme Court comes into play as a check against the tyranny of the majority. But, that’s not the case here since the rich clearly aren’t in the majority.
It’s actually remarkable that people can try to use quotes from the founding fathers to justify outrage against CU, considering that CU overturned laws that didn’t exist at the time, and as far as I can understand no such rules were proposed (I’d like to see them, if you know of any). You can argue that they *would* have supported them if they had seen the advances in mass communication that would occur, but that’s highly speculative, especially in light of things they have said that they would need to contradict, such as the Federalist Papers #57 which I quoted from (and would be interested to hear an answer to, at some point).
“But, that’s not the case here since the rich clearly aren’t in the majority.”
I should add: nor is there any credible claim that the rich are violating the constitutional rights of the majority by buying political advertisements. Therefore, the appropriate remedy for any disproportionate political influence that the rich have is for the non-rich to not vote for politicians that give the rich disproportionate influence.
Advertising has been a prominent part of American life forever with hundreds of billions now spent to convince people to buy various merchandise. Obviously, some smart people believe that advertising can convince other people to purchase their particular product.
It works the same way with political products. When wealthy individuals and corporations are allowed to dominate the airways with their advertising messages, the political process is skewed unfairly. Most citizens are not interested enough or sophisticated enough to delve into the data presented in political advertising to find out what’s valid and what isn’t. That’s why Citizens United is a threat to American democracy. If you think advertising doesn’t convince people to do anything, then Citizens United doesn’t matter.
And they’re more likely to figure out what’s valid without the ads? That’s not my own experience; I find it more helpful to see the various sides presented, even in the tone of ranting hysteria campaign literature tends to favor.
Robert,
Yes, of course advertising is effective or else people and corporations would not pay for it. However, your argument implies that advertisement is a form of coercion–that there needs to be restrictions on efforts to “convince” people because they might be involuntarily convinced. I think the following two facts are not mutually exclusive:
1. Advertisement can be persuasive.
2. People are responsible for their choices.
If it were not so, all advertisement should be banned because it all coerces us for the benefit of some corporation or other party and prevents us from choosing a preferable alternative. But it doesn’t, so it’s not. Political advertisement is no different in that respect. That implies also that the same truth-in-advertisement rules should apply. Obviously, fraud is not protected by the first amendment.
Is this advertising or propaganda. For instance even if it were produced by a Super Pac, the “report” on Fox the other day was propaganda. The word advertising used to mean something different a while back, but now we are used to gross exaggerations and some lies and we still call it advertising.
On Mad men they struggle to make the sponsor’s products desirable so we buy them. Propaganda is mostly designed to make us hate whatever is portrayed, a shame when it comes to politics.
But hey, the “advertising” guys will rake in a good portion of the estimated eight BILLION bucks going into this year’s circus, whoops. campaign.
America, the leader in BS production.
Well lets put it this way. We know that media control can certainly have a huge impact on voters, especially the less politically sophisticated ones, and even to those who have more time to devote to paying attention to politics. I am assuming we can all agree on that premise.
Now we have two hypothetical situations representing the ends of the spectrum regarding media distribution in a political race. On one end, we have a situation where a single group completely controls the media. Think NKorea or China. On the other end, we have a situation where the media time and channels are perfectly distributed amongst different candidates regarding TV, Internet, print media to all areas that are part of the voting process.
Now obviously, in the first situation where one group controls the media, anyone running against them is going to be impossibly overwhelmed and never going to get elected. The second version, while being totally fair from the standpoint of hearing opinions, require an extremely unlikely amount of micromanagement and will be impossible to pull off, and likely will be in violation of the 1st amendment in its execution. Where we are is somewhere in the middle, but after CU, shifting hard to the single media dominator side of things.
With enough money it is possible to set a monopoly on media. If that happens, just like in any other monopoly, consumers are left with fewer choices and the idea of a free market collapses. Except now instead of a free market, we are talking about the democratic process, and the consumers are obviously voters. CU allows the very real possibility of a media monopoly during an election cycle. Obama is a prodigious fundraiser, and I think this won’t happen this election cycle. But down the road and not too far off, more and more groups like the Koch brothers and their kind will see that it does in fact happen. And because we made the foolish and incorrect assumption that $$ = free speech because I can use money to get my message out, we are going to have just such a monopoly of the media, and whoever controls it is going to decide who are leaders are and the rest of the country is simply going to be unable to do anything about it.
” If you think advertising doesn’t convince people to do anything, then Citizens United doesn’t matter.”
Bingo.
If a monopoly on media is your worry, Slam, the numbers come down firmly on the pro-CU side.
US TV advertising is $70 billion per year. Even if it were all on the market, that alone is beyond the Koches’ budget. And that doesn’t include news and other content. Then there’s online media, not just the $30 billion or so of advertising, but blogs and twitter and youtube and so on. To buy a monopoly you’ll need to figure out how to take over all that. Then don’t forget newspapers and magazines and billboards and movies and radio. Meanwhile the FTC, the FCC and private entities will get wise to what you’re doing and try to stop you, so it will get even more expensive.
However, there was or is a monopoly on media in many countries. I don’t have a list in front of me, but I will wager these monopolies are held exactly 0% of the time by private groups and 100% of the time by governments. It’s very clear where the bigger threat lies.
I will further wager that the first step of any government media takeover is to convince people that public welfare demands regulation of content. You’re on the right track if you can get responsible citizens like Mr. Levine to express horror that political opinions are getting aired “with no constraints on what is said.”
You’re right, Zephyr, Robert made a good point there, and I agree with it. I don’t think people are impervious to advertising, but neither do I think advertising inevitably or even usually carries the day. Presidents running for a second term tend to win or lose on the strength of the economy. It takes a very unusual ad to convince someone who’s jobless that he’s actually fat and happy.
slamfu,
I think the difference between North Korea and post-CU US is not a matter of scale, but of fundamental principles. A totalitarian government that controls the media can use public funds to further their goals, but in the US we are limited to private funds. Clearly that is a limiting factor, since there is no person or private organization who has access to the resources that the government has. Secondly, such a government also controls speech by restricting dissenting speech. Even the Koch brothers can’t do that. So, I don’t think the argument that CU brings us closer to North Korea on the spectrum holds up. In fact, you can construct a different spectrum, one that measures government restriction of political expression, and argue that CU moves us farther from North Korea, as Dr. J has argued.
But to the extent that disproportionate political speech is a problem, let me propose another way to deal with it: voter unions. If you can convince enough people that political spending is a problem (and if you can’t, there you have it), you ought to be able to organize those people into a group and agree to the following conditions:
The group will publish a list of candidates who agree to meet certain campaign finance requirements (and then follow up to make sure they do). The requirements are agreed to by the group and might include limits on fundraising (Buddy Roemer style), complete disassociation and denunciation of all SuperPACs, as well as whatever other conditions you feel are necessary. It could even involve a fund-sharing system of some sort. The members of the group are then strongly encouraged to vote for someone on the list (or no one, if no one is on the list). I’d start with all of the people who donated to the Colbert SuperPAC, which clearly demonstrated that there would be support for this sort of effort. If you can get only 5% of voters to agree, that’s a large voting block candidates can’t afford to lose.
You can call it collective bargaining, democracy style. And it demonstrates that disproportionate influence cannot coexist with a dedicated and responsible electorate.