Just as in a real killing war, a political war’s brutality starts with the willful discarding of civil behavior. The first casualty is almost always the truth. If you think the lies and angry rhetoric we’re hearing now are bad, hold on to your political bumper sticker, it’s about to get worse. Much worse.
Vitriolic epitaphs far worse than “you lie!” will pale by comparison when the intensity of partisan politics gets a boost from an important Supreme Court ruling in a few weeks.
At issue is removal of a federal ban preventing corporations from funding advertising campaigns in support of political candidates or causes. The ban has been in place in various forms since the early 20th century. However, the high court’s conservative majority is likely to side with a group known as Citizens United that seeks to extend free-speech rights to large companies and unions.
Until now, individual corporate executives - not their companies - have been allowed to make campaign contributions to political action committees (PACs).
The implications of this ruling are enormous. Not only would such a ruling undermine long-time efforts by Sens. John McCain and Russ Feingold to pass meaningful campaign finance reform, extending free-speech rights to corporations and unions would increase the noise of political advertising to much higher levels than we’ve seen heretofore.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the amount of money available to corporations to fund political candidates and causes is in the galactic range. The newspaper pointed out that political parties spent about $1.5 billion on political advertising last year. A favorable ruling for corporations will allow them to kick in unlimited amounts of campaign money to elect or defeat political candidates or causes starting in 2010.
Among the biggest beneficiaries of this ruling would be broadcasters across the country who would reap literally billions in new-found political advertising dollars.
As a result, money - already the bane of American politics - would provide an even greater (and disproportionate) influence on the outcomes of elections. With massive political war chests at their disposal, corporations would be free to support political candidates while leaving opponents at a distinct funding disadvantage. It is not hard to understand that a political candidate who refuses to accept corporate donations won’t stand a chance of winning an election.
Additionally, the level of political discourse could conceivably sink to dramatic new lows especially if truth-in-advertising principles are ignored as they often are when it comes to political advertising. One can easily foresee a continuous stream of saturation ad campaigns containing outlandish claims and accusations against opponents. Given their often caustic and violence-prone historical relationship, allowing corporations and unions to battle one another via political advertising campaigns sounds like a terrible idea.
And, how intolerable would it be to work for a company that donates huge amounts of money to political candidates with whom you strongly disagree ?
Of course, the main concern will be the lengths to which corporate-funded political advertising campaigns will go in order to influence voters and win elections. Is the idea of the “permissible lie”, as described 40 years ago by advertising guru Jerry Della Femina, likely to be taken to disturbing new heights?
I can recall a time not many years ago when broadcast stations would not hesitate to decline advertising that failed to meet their high standards of truth, propriety and good taste. However, those days are probably gone forever. The poor economy today requires broadcasters to accept nearly every single advertising dollar that walks in the door regardless of questionable content.
Sadly, modern American politics seems to have adopted all of the worst characteristics and marketing strategies the corporate world has to offer. Politics today seems to be driven not necessarily by a pursuit of honorable ideals, but by a need to win at any cost. In other words, it is not enough to gain a fair share of the market; Many corporations unabashedly and unapologetically strive to completely dominate and control the entire market and make it serve their own interests. If someone dares to criticize them or take them to task for any reason, they immediately strike back stronger and with more intensity.
The most notable corporate example of this mindset, to no one’s surprise, is Wal Mart. A recent Time Magazine article vividly described the company’s stated goals as to drive every single competitor out of business including K-Mart. At the rate it’s going, Wal Mart is well on its way to ruling the world.
The strategy is already a part of the daily mantra muttered by partisan radio talk show hosts and cable TV talkers. Radio talkers have become especially adept at shutting down the opposition quickly and mercilessly utilizing every weapon at hand including lies, half-truths and innuendo.
Allowing corporations to contribute freely to political campaign advertising funds has the potential to create an unacceptable imbalance in the way political messages are sent.
As with many debatable issues, there is a higher principle that tends to be ignored. If the Supreme Court rules as expected in this case, the interests of the public will likely be cast aside in favor of the interests of corporations.
If broadcasters fail to consider basic rules of truth, propriety and good taste in political advertising, the only message the public will hear is that which large corporations deem to be truthful, proper and tasteful.
Under this scenario, serving the public good is as good as gone.
***
Roy Ortega is a journalist with more than 30 years in the television, print and online news business. He can be reached at rortega54@elp.rr.com.
---
---
---
