It is always risky to construct over-arching theories about political stories that do not get written. But, forgive me, because in this case I cannot resist.
The dominant reason, I suspect, why the lowest-unit-rate rules are almost universally ignored is that they do not fit neatly into anyone’s narrative of the 2012 super PAC story. Political campaigns—especially the Obama effort—deftly employ the threat of opposition super PAC spending as a goad to fund raising. Media consultants, many of whom would love to get a piece of the super PAC ad business, have little incentive to say anything skeptical about TV spending. And campaign reformers, justifiably dispirited by the post-Citizens United political environment, do not want to utter a syllable that would undermine their Henny Penny, “the-sky-is-falling” gloom over the rise of super PACs.
Veering close to heresy, I am beginning to wonder if political reporters have exaggerated the potency of super PACs. Yes, these playthings of the rich are indeed a menace to democracy. But rules like the lowest unit rate and bans on direct coordination with the candidates prevent outside groups from spending their money as effectively as the campaigns themselves. The sharp difference in ad rates could be enough to keep even big donors earthbound from now until November. So maybe it is time for reporters to rethink some of the leap-tall-buildings-with-a-single-check assumptions about the super powers of super PACs.
- 1
- 2
Does it 'corrupt' politics if a candidate meets with an editorial board to seek its endorsement? No, to the dim members of the MSM it's 'different' when it is 'us'. Walter Shapiro has no problem with free and partisan political speech by Walter Shapiro, courtesy of the media corporations which have given him a megaphone, but wants to forbid it for Sheldon Adelson.
The subtext of all these rants about SuperPACs, carefully avoided by CJR, is that 'traditional' media corporations see themselves as the gatekeepers through which only approved political speech (and other types, too, as the recent gutless support of censorship re the riots in the Middle East confirm) can pass. These SuperPACs are outsiders in the media-political echo chamber, and must be stopped by the chattering-class army of lawyers, journalists, academics, and others skilled at framing the public interest (an infantile and easily-swayed public, you see) in ways that happen to be self-aggrandizing for the chattering classes. I see and hear much less political opinion from Sheldon Adelson and his ads than I hear from a lot of nitwits employed by Big Media. So what's the fuss?
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 14 Sep 2012 at 12:29 PM
Koch corporate, by it s own postings on the net, demonstrates. that tax cuts , in its case resulted in LESS direct employment But without extensive investigation by employees of national media companies, we wouldn't know that fact relative to the two largest contributors to Tea Party candidates. Sheldon Adelson does not hide his attempt to improve his economic status by political contribution. But the leaders of TD Ameritrade and Scott's lawn products do.
I want to be able to use my small economic power of boycott to tell those cowards how I feel about their use of the profits from my association with them.
#2 Posted by mel jacobs, CJR on Fri 14 Sep 2012 at 03:38 PM