By Selwyn Duke
It escaped the notice of most no doubt, but a campaign finance reform bill was passed by the House of Representatives last week and is now being considered by the Senate. Campaign finance reform has been an issue that has figured prominently in the political landscape during recent years, despite the fact that public opinion polls consistently demonstrate that it is among the least of people's concerns. The champions of this cause celebre claim to want to purge the political system of big money influence that can buy politicians' souls and votes. The problem being addressed is the following: Mr. Fat Cat Bigwig donates gazillions of dollars to Mr. Tammany Hall Politician, thereby helping the latter to finance his campaign and get elected. Mr. Tammany Hall Politician is then beholden to Mr. Fat Cat Bigwig, and votes in ways that hurt the nation but are beneficial to whatever corporation or union Bigwig grew fat in. This does sometimes happen, and seems in the minds of many to be a justification for more laws limiting the ways in which money can flow into campaign coffers. As is so often the case when you seek to perfect society via government intervention though, the cure in this instance may be worse than the disease.
It's not that I like it when the powerful use their wealth and clout to achieve nefarious ends and buy favors. In fact, I was quite incensed in 1996 when unions spent 35 million dollars peddling lies in an effort to defeat candidates I had an affinity for, simply because they knew these candidates would bring home the bacon for them. No, I very much dislike such things, but I know that freedom means we have to tolerate some actions that don't meet with our approval. I also know, that the current campaign finance reform movement is a con which has been designed for the purposes of de-funding the right.
On the surface this may seem to be a preposterous claim; after all, the finance reform proposals would limit both major parties' ability to raise money - so what am I talking about? Well, let's examine the issue. To get elected or influence the political world in any way, you have to get your message out - you have to make sure people hear it, otherwise they can't consider it. Now, think about how people get most of their information: they get it through the media; television, radio, newspapers and to a degree, the internet. And, when you communicate with them via the media, it can only happen in two different ways: by having news delivery entities decide to carry your message, or by buying airtime for advertisements. And of course, the latter requires gobs of cash. Therefore, the more you de-fund the political system, the more you'll lessen candidates' and organizations' ability to communicate with people through that vehicle. But, many will say, I still don't see how having the same reform laws apply equally to everyone could hurt anyone disproportionately. It's very simple, for, the Democrats have the greatest public relations team in the world: it's called the U.S. Media. You see, the media are primarily liberal in orientation, therefore, they will always portray the Democrats in a far more positive light than the Republicans. If you doubt the media's liberal credentials, just consider the fact that in 1992 89% of Washington journalists voted for Bill Clinton - the figure was 92% in 1996. And, don't think that the remaining few voted Republican, because the majority of them didn't either. The fact is that most in the media have the same world view, and they will always promote policies and ideas that are congruent with its concomitant liberal agenda and seek to defeat those that aren't. They will always frame the Democrats' message in just the way the Democrats would like and disseminate it far and wide, while at the same time suppressing and distorting Republican ideas in order to shape public opinion. This is hard to combat because the Republicans will never be able to match the power of the news media in terms of influence; the only way they'll be able to level the playing field a smidgeon is to buy airtime, and as I said, this requires lots of money. No wonder almost all Democrats favor this deformed reform and almost all Republicans oppose it; this isn't rocket science - less money = less conservative opposition. Of course, if you're a dyed in the wool Democrat who wants to win by any means necessary you may yearn for such a scenario, but I think that most Americans want to hear all points of view and make up their own minds - they don't want encumbering laws that would stifle the relation of ideas.
Regardless of your political stripes though, I have to ask you a question: do you really want to, in the name of eliminating the power of politically active corporations and grassroots organizations, place more power in the hands of a politically active media? And this is just what would happen; in fact, the bill that just passed in the House deals specifically with this very issue. It would ban such entities from running issue oriented advertisements within sixty days of an election and thirty days of a primary. However, it would do nothing about the news media's influence during those periods - they would still be able to manipulate information in whatever way they saw fit. And I ask you, isn't an opinion piece in the New York Times, Washington Post, or on a nightly news show tantamount to an issue oriented advertisement? What's the difference in terms of effect? Furthermore, even hard news [that which is not explicitly labeled an opinion piece] implicitly expresses opinion. After all, the media can't focus on every issue under the sun, so they have to pick and choose, and on what basis do they make that determination? They focus on the issues that THEY think are important, and that's where opinion enters the equation. If they decide to focus on gun violence and police brutality as opposed to partial-birth abortion and criminal brutality, the former will be put on the radar screen and will weigh more heavily on people's minds at the polls. In point of fact, everything the media do shapes public opinion, and that's fine - what's not fine is denying others the same opportunity. And this is the problem with this campaign finance reform scheme: it's proponents would give people who work within the media carte blanche to use it to influence politics, while at the same time hindering all others' capacity to use the media for the same purpose. This would make the "media elite" that much more elite, and an even more powerful de facto fourth branch of government. I have an idea though: let's be consistent and apply the campaign finance reform principles to the media as well - let's attempt to stifle their freedom of speech in areas where it can influence political thought, discourse and actions. Of course though, if this were applied to them they'd pound their chests and scream "censorship" and "freedom of speech." And, you know something ... they would be right. For, it would be un-American, but no more un-American than this attempt to strip everyone but this select few of the right to have his voice heard just as loudly.
