Jeffrey Toobin has a column in the current New Yorker in which he discusses the current Supreme Court’s “revolution in campaign-finance law,” pointing to a moment during last week’s argument over the constitutionality of an Arizona law known as the Clean Elections Act (summarized by Toobin as “a law that attempts to do a little something about campaigns in which one candidate has a great deal more money than the others”) as indicative of “how peculiar the Court’s campaign-finance jurisprudence has become.”
On Monday, Toobin did an online Q&A with readers, fielding questions about the first amendment, WikiLeaks, and Justice Kagan’s first year and a half, among others, including this one:
QUESTION FROM ANDREW: It seems that money in politics has an enormous effect in distorting the political process. Does the media have an obligation to educate the public about these distortions? If so, what do you think the most effective way to do that is?
JEFFREY TOOBIN: The news media has hardly been silent on the question of money in politics. Just because the Court and Congress have not reined in spending … I don’t think that’s reason to blame journalists. We are not in charge.
Kind of defensive, no? Is Andrew really “blaming” journalists here, as Toobin interprets it? What about answering the last part of Andrew’s question: what is the most effective way that reporters can educate the public about the distorting effects of money in politics? (A premise with which, based on Toobin’s column, Toobin wouldn’t seem too inclined to argue.)
Journalists may not be “in charge,” but some of them have produced some solid work on the intersection of money and politics, and Toobin might have better answered Andrew’s question (and come off better himself) by pointing to a few examples of that good work. Since Toobin didn’t, I will: see here, here, and
here.
I don't see even the slightest evidence here of thin skin and have not seen other indications Mr. Toobin has epidermal insufficiencies. Serious media enterprises have been writing/broadcasting/posting extensively about campaign finance abuses since Watergate, at least. And I mean extensively, in print and TV and on the Web. There are entire enterprises -- Sunlight Foundation, Center for Responsive Politics/Open Secrets and the Center for Public Integrity on the national level, and a growing number of state-level organizations -- dedicated to following the campaign money. Mr. Toobin could certainly have pointed out this enormous body of work. Or he could have cut to the chase, as he did: Our scandalous campaign finance situation really isn't the fault of the press, which reports extensively on political finance. It is the fault of the public officials who continuously and cynically weaken campaign finance regulations, knowing the issue is so complex and fraught with political finger-pointing that -- short of another Watergate-size scandal -- it will be almost impossible for the media or anyone else to create the level of public outrage needed for reform. There is a white knight who could come riding to the rescue and restore a measure of transparency and fairness to campaign finance, but I'm not sure anyone has put the words "white knight" and "Justice Department" in the same sentence for some time now.
#1 Posted by John Mecklin, CJR on Thu 7 Apr 2011 at 04:48 PM