FC: More on campaign finance laws creating media loophole for groups

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

*********

From: Randy May <rmay () pff org>
To: "'declan () well com'" <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: Will campaign finance laws transform think tanks into media o
        rgs?
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 17:01:30 -0400

Declan- On the subject of campaign finance reform, here's a column I wrote
about a month ago about why the McCain-Feingold style proposals stifle free
speech. Relative to Andrew's point, I argued that the speech of independent
groups (including think tanks)is no less important than the speech of the
New York Times or Washington Post editorial writers who advocate speech bans
for others.  And calling the others "special interests" does not make their
speech (necessarily) any less valuable than that of the organized press that
prefers to think of itself as representing the "public interest".  The real
public interest, of course, is just having more, rather than less,
unfettetted speech.

Cheers,
Randy

http://www.pff.org/RandysPOVsinLegalTimes/MaysPOV080801.htm

Randolph J. May
Senior Fellow and Director of Communications Policy Studies
The Progress & Freedom Foundation
1301 K Street, NW
Suite 550 East
Washington, DC 20005

Tel.     202-289-8928
Fax     202-289-6079
e-mail  rmay () pff org

*********

Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 13:47:45 -0700
From: lizard <lizard () mrlizard com>
To: declan () well com
CC: politech () politechbot com
Subject: Re: FC: Will campaign finance laws transform think tanks into 
mediaorgs?

Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> ********
>
> From: "Andrew J. Downey" <ajdowney () altavista net>
> To: "'declan () well com'" <declan () well com>
> Subject: another thought: Who is a journalist?
> Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 10:50:33 -0400
>
> Declan,
>
> seeing you this morning reminded me of another thought I had re: the
> question of who is/what constitutes a journalist.
>
> If McCain-style campaign finance "reform" laws are passed, you'll probably
> see a lot of the money going towards funding "research foundations" be
> redirected to fund "news organizations" as these laws exempt news.
>
> I think it goes without saying that this will untimately harm the truly
> professional journalist's reputation, as news is _supposed_ to be unbiased
> whereas "policy think tanks" generally are expected to espouse a specific
> viewpoint.

Hrm.

This might be the point.

After this latest round of campaign finance 'reform' fails to reform
anything, someone will point to this loophole and decree that the
problem is erstaz 'news' organizations. Thus, the 'solution' is to
create a caste of 'licensed' reporters, editors, etc who are considered
'legitimate' -- then go after all the 'unlicensed' journalists out
there. (Like Matt Drudge, or anyone with a web page and an axe to
grind.)

A poster on f-c was recently aghast at the suggestion that Democratic
supporters of finance reform might have (horrors) ulterior motives --
that they weren't acting solely on the basis of altruism and true
patriotism. (Only REPUBLICANS are corrupt pawns of the Corporate
Overlords, doncha know) (The mental acuity of this individual can be
ascertained by noting he though Nader could have both won and ruled
effectively if only he wasn't a victim of the Evil Corportations). As
for me, I know that no one in politics does anything unless it's with an
eye to increasing their personal power, but I admit I had not figured
out the angle the pro-reform Congresscritters were shooting from. Now I
know.

*********

From: Tim Hollebeek <thollebeek () cigital com>
To: "'declan () well com'" <declan () well com>,
        "'ajdowney () altavista net'" <ajdowney () altavista net>
Subject: RE: Will campaign finance laws transform think tanks into media o
        rgs?
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 16:49:10 -0400

> I think it goes without saying that this will untimately harm
> the truly
> professional journalist's reputation, as news is _supposed_
> to be unbiased
> whereas "policy think tanks" generally are expected to
> espouse a specific
> viewpoint.

The two or three people who consider themselves "truly professional"
journalists in the world will shed a few tears, then move on.  The
"independent, unbiased journalist" is a myth; get over it.  Professional
journalists attempt to minimize illegitimate bias, they don't eliminate
bias.

Media orgs that care will reject such funding since it is in there best
interest to avoid even the appearance of illegitimate bias; perhaps people
like Rush Limbaugh may end up with more RNC money.  Do we care?  I think
not.

I mean, come on.  Politech leans well left of center.  And to me, that's
fine.

-Tim

*********

From: terry.s () juno com
To: declan () well com
Cc: ajdowney () altavista net
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 17:17:49 -0400
Subject: Re: FC: Will campaign finance laws transform think tanks into 
media orgs?

On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 16:23:10 -0400 Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
writes:
>
> ********   
>
> From: "Andrew J. Downey" <ajdowney () altavista net>

> question of who is/what constitutes a journalist.
>
> If McCain-style campaign finance "reform" laws are passed, you'll
probably
> see a lot of the money going towards funding "research foundations"
> be redirected to fund "news organizations" as these laws exempt news.

This is already an issue of sorts, highlighted by the move years ago to
Presidential debates hosted by the League of Women Voters to debates
sponsored by a TV network trade group of sorts concocted to allow
networks to call shows they produced to be "bona fide news" coverage of
third party activities.

One can review the FCC regulations on personal attack doctrine exemption
(in 47 CFR 73) to see one side of why that was done, and the Federal
Election Commission law from Congress which two Presidential elections
ago resulted in Supreme Court accelerated review, to see just how
problematic such manipulations of law and regulation already are.  When
the lawfully qualified Reform and Natural Law candidates sued, and the
Libertarian qualified for participation in televised debates didn't
bother after the networks proved their intent by having his predecessor 3
elections ago arrested for showing up at the debate site, the Supreme
Court endorsed an incumbent preservation dirty trick by Congress (SCOTUS
cited a jurisdictional issue whereby it might find the law called for
qualified candidates to appear, but couldn't rule until after statutory
remedies expired in January on matters prior to a November election, at
which point the issue would be moot).

It's really not in dispute whether campaign laws do have such impacts to
distort the entire election process; they do.  The real questions are
really over which distortions are intended to subvert and bias the
process, versus exist as innocent consequences of efforts to have less
biased elections, and secondly what options exist for a better system
(more ethically balanced or more biased in one's favor, depending on
point of view defining "better system").

Terry

*********

From: "Ben" <bmw () carolina rr com>
To: <declan () well com>
Subject: Re: Will campaign finance laws transform think tanks into media  orgs?
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 18:57:45 -0400

Campaign finance 'laws' are called reform because they reaffirm standards
that've been law since the days of our founding fathers. I know a lot of
people get off on likening it to new regulatory action from an abusive
government, but the fact of the matter is that corporations were always been
banned from donating to (bribing) politicians, and unions were restricted
from the same practice in the 40's. It was nothing less than criminal
activity that brought about the loophole of 'non-federal' accounts that led
to the avalanche of bribery and extortion that infects the government today.
And campaign finance reform does nothing more than weaken the influence of
money on politicians, that has allowed peoples' voices to be ignored over
the will of the biggest donors. Andrew's theory is probably correct, and it
goes to show how badly the parties involved crave a dominative influence
over what is supposed to be a government by the people and for the people.
Why would they go to such extents to preserve this system if their money
weren't buying something?

People need to put aside their petty differences over the nature of the
problem; hate the government and love big business, hate big business and
love the government, or hate'em both like I do. The fact remains that one
hand washes the other.

Hate it, love it; the government shells out billions of taxpayer dollars to
phony 'research' programs created as a front, by businesses who apparently
don't make enough money through the normal channels. Just one example of
corporate welfare.

Love it, hate it; big business trades lives for pharmaceutical profits,
forces the public's taxes to go towards bringing their factories in line
with environmental regulations, uses 3rd-world slave labor to make it's
products, and makes the government more powerful with every dollar-laced
palm that slips through.

Campaign finance reform is something I always thought would draw support
from all sides; we're talking about the difference between fascism and
aristocracy, compared to freedom and equality.

The private sector loves the priviledged treatment; capitol hill loves the
income. Campaign finance reform is a rare opportunity to bitch slap both for
crossing the line, and forgetting that they exist to serve the will of the
people.

*********

From: "Thomas Leavitt" <thomasleavitt () hotmail com>
To: declan () well com
Subject: Re: FC: Will campaign finance laws transform think tanks into 
media orgs?
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 16:08:50 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F31anc9apUZq3dUO0a4000036ef () hotmail com>

Tell Fox News that "news is _supposed_ to be unbiased".

Or William Randolph Hearst, for that matter... I think most people are 
capable of recognizing when an agenda is being pushed. Bad news reporting 
(and there is a ton of it out there) has never particularly harmed quality 
journalists - do you think of 60 Minutes and Mike Wallace in the same 
breath as Entertainment Tonight or your local bird cage liner? I don't.

Shit flows downhill. Everyone knows that even if campaign finance reform 
passes, it will, at best, slow down the gravy train... and I think even 
John McCain or Russ Feingold has said, "We'll be back here in another ten 
to twenty years, no doubt."

Thomas

*********




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------