I pull up to my mailbox on the street each night when I get home. I sort through the mail and pitch the “junk” on the floor in front of the passenger seat. The “junk” during the past month or so almost entirely consists of expensively produced campaign literature — full color, printed on high-end stock.
It all ends up in my recycling bin at the end of the week.
I listen to the radio on the drive to and from work. Campaign ads lead to a station switch. I do not watch much television much, but when I do and a campaign ad comes on, I hit the “jump” button.
I knew about the impending media glut — well in advance of Election Day Tuesday — because it always comes this time of year.
But this year, more of it came.
One large contributor to the increased “glut” of attack ads — and very few of them escape that category — is the U.S. Supreme Court.
It struck down parts of federal campaign finance law, calling it unconstitutional based on First Amendment grounds.
The biggest argument made in defense of campaign finance reform focused on the prospect of people buying elections — corporations, unions, nonprofits and even foreign entities. The integrity of the election system hung in the balance, they argued.
They lost.
I agree wholeheartedly with their predictions of out-of-control spending by agenda pushing, partisan political types.
But I support the Supreme Court’s decision.
And I discounted the notion that the integrity of the election process hung in the balance.
As to the court, the government has no business telling people how to legally spend their money — especially when they tether that spending to the debate about public policy and governance.
As to the integrity of the election process, the electorate gave that away when it decided the best way to measure a candidates was to listen to them lie or misrepresent the truth in attack ads.
All the Supreme Court decision did — and it’s almost hard to believe this could happen — is make an awful system worse.
It is the American electorate’s job to clean up the mess — much like I clean up the pile of campaign crud on the floor of my car.
The electorate must:
- Embrace the value of elections.
- Recognize the importance of elections at all levels.
- Ignore the stump speeches, the attack ads and the 10-second sound bytes that television calls news.
- Use the resources that sit at its fingertips and try to find the truth about candidates, their positions and where they get their money.
- Consider with an open mind alternative positions to the all-too-quickly-assumed “party line.”
- Ask questions and independently seek answers.
Too much work?
Then feast on the attack ads, the doubletalk of the TV talking heads and generic campaign news coverage that reports on polls and ignores issues.
And then suffer the political indigestion that comes with a bad civic diet.
You are what you eat.
Resources:
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/31/...
- http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/...
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/...
- http://www.salon.com/news/...
- http://www.opensecrets.org/
- http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20101029/...

I haven't seen any attack ads on TV. That's because I rarely watch TV anymore. I do watch TV programs and movies, but that's through my DVR, where I eliminate commercials, or on my computer. Am I worse off for not having seen these ads? I don't think so. I seek information about candidates by reading. I know which media sources I trust and I download information from them. I've made a consumer's choice and I feel remarkably well informed.
Let's start a wave!
You have clearly expressed my actions, also. Let's hope that more and more voters follow suit.
Let's start a wave!
Mac, I almost totally agree with your post. I have a suggestion for your consideration. Suppose an act could be devised that would require all political advertisements, not just candidacy ads but also issue advocacy, to be financed solely by individuals who qualify to vote in the venue in which the issue resides or the candidate has power. For candidacy ads it would be relatively simple. I could fund ads for any US elected official since their actions directly affect me. Likewise for any Florida state official. But I could not fund an ad for a mayoral candidate in New York or even in a neighboring Florida city. Issue ads are trickier for obvious reasons. The real power of the law would, however, be that the names of the individual or individuals who funded the ads would have to be included in the ad. And records would have to be available to show that the money actually came directly from the qualified individual.
Well, I get where you are coming from, but I still think that if the electorate were not swayed by the ads, people would not spend money on them. But I think you hit on a very key point, and that is what you say about who pays for the ads. Right now, it's almost impossible to tell where the money for the ads is coming from or who is behind them. I think if people knew that, they might in some cases choose to ignore them. Being allowed into the Marketplace of Ideas comes with the obligation that you let people know whom you are speaking for or spending on, I think. Thanks for chipping in. Mac
Post new comment