Interesting take on Moore v. the Swift vets by Derek Cressman, in the Christian Science Monitor today.
The key graf:
People who go to see Moore’s movies know pretty much what they are getting. Other citizens prefer to get their news from Rush Limbaugh, or the networks. Whatever the source, when people seek information, especially when paying for a book, newspaper, or movie, the marketplace of free speech is at work. We all theoretically have a somewhat equal opportunity to say our piece in the town square through pitching a screenplay or a news release. If the producers and editors that citizens have trusted to seek out the news think that what we have to say is of interest, our voice will be heard.
But when donors pay big money to interrupt what we are otherwise viewing, that is paid speech – and that is where campaign-finance regulations should come into play. We live in an age where the federal candidate who spends the most money wins more than 9 out of 10 elections. Yet the funding for those campaigns comes from but a fraction of all Americans, who are not representative of the rest of us. Paid speech is available primarily to the wealthy few and it is overwhelming free speech and distorting the political marketplace.
I strongly disagree, but have to run and will toss the subject out for discussion until I get back.
I agree with the statement somewhat. We are all free to speak but the people who have money have a great advantage. Everyone is free to speak out but very few are heard.
Mostly what they say is idiotic. In the first paragraph is is clear that rich folks decide who gets to talk just as much as in the second.
The closest we come to free speech which gets wide exposure is the internet, but there is so much out there that you will still have to fight to get noticed.
By that logic, The Swift Vets should have been totally drowned out by the left-leaning 527s. That hasn’t happened, largely because non-traditional (and vastly cheaper) methods of getting the word out are now available.
Hello, Internet!
Logic fault.
Moore’s F9/11 has an advertising budget/prints of $12,000,000. Not to mention the free advertising given by Cannes, Ebert, and tons of ABB movie reviews. We were interrupted with it much more than the Swift Boat Ads.
See http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2004/FH911.php
I know this is redundant but if he wants to talk about big donors getting in our face, he should go to opensecrets.org and start at the top of the list.
This is at heart a question about private property. Either you accept the idea of private property or you don’t. If you don’t, then Hernando de Soto has a description of your future for you. If you do, then there is no more point in complaining about rich citizens buying air time than there is about rich citizens buying yachts or football teams. Similarly, there is no more point in complaining about groups of middle-income citizens getting together to purchase air time than there is about middle-income citizens “getting together” through the stock market to buy a corporation. Air time is a commodity just like yachts and chocolate bars.
The answer to wrong speech is more speech, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If you don’t like what someone is saying, recruit the resources you need to say against them – as the Swift Vets did. If you don’t want to do that, turn off the TV. If you don’t want to do that, get over it.
I went to opensecrets.org. I was looking to see if I could find anything regarding 501c’s. I found nothing. Are they there?
I believe there is quite a lot of money that flows from 501c’s into Republican causes – but this doesn’t have to be accounted for.
Is this correct?
bq. Mr. Moore’s movie is closer to the spirit of the First Amendment while Mr. Perry’s big-money contributions distort the concept of free speech
Anyone else’s jaw dropped at this? This is flat out wrong.
bq. But when donors pay big money to interrupt what we are otherwise viewing, that is paid speech – and that is where campaign-finance regulations should come into play.
Except for those ads to go see Moore’s movie, right?
The spirit of the 1st amendment applies to the Swift vets ads (as well as Moveon.org et al) as much as it does F911. Campaign finance reform is simply anti-first amendment.
My basic problem is that we live in a world where we’re all free to make and distribute movies – as long as the Weinstein brothers decide to help finance us. The gatekeeping function is far stronger than the one that applied to those who simply owned a printing press.
Yes, the blogs are important – but as a measure, let’s remember that the WSJ raised over $1 MM for Spirit of America, and a bunch of great bloggers, working damn hard, raised $50K. The gatekeeprs have a lot of power, and it’s silly to suggest that their exercise of it is somehow pure – while air time that’s bought and paid for is somehow dirty.
It’s equally silly to suggest that political attention – which is the fundamental currency of political power in this society is a commodity to be freely traded.
That’s a direct path to oligarchy; the founders went out of their way to try and balance powers – we need to keep doing just that.
A.L.
Man, doesn’t that sentence just drip with condescension and inflated self-importance. Tell you what, buddy – quit your job at that big newspaper, and let’s see how many citizens still trust you to seek out the news and be their information source.
“If the producers and editors that citizens have trusted to seek out the news think that what we have to say is of interest, our voice will be heard.”
The truth is, the selection process for reporters et. al. has almost no citizen imprimatur, and is mostly the result of decisions within a professional guild that has a measurable political tilt.
The reporters and editors just ride on the media brand and distribution system built with… um… lots ans lots of money. Which is exactly what those who buy airtime are doing.
All I hear here is a professional guild upset at the competition. There may be good policy reasons to treat paid speech differently, I don’t know. But this is about the lamest argument you could imagine.
Joe, you could not be MORE right.
I remember back to the ’97 Canadian election. On the last weekend of the campaign the Reform Party (now, more or less, the Conservative Party, Canada’s main centre-right opposition to the govt.) held a rally in Calgary attended by over 4,500 people. It was the best-attended rally of the election, for any party, by far. However, it was held at a hockey arena which sat 7,000, so the back of the arena was empty.
When the CBC (Canada’s “national” broadcaster and, some might argue, the media arm of the Liberal Party) covered it on the ten o’clock news that night, the reporter led off by panning the camera over the empty part of the arena and saying, “What they lacked in numbers they tried to make up for in enthusiasm…” The rest of the report wasn’t any better.
I see rough equivalents happening every day in this U.S. campaign. Personally, I’d love to see a thread devoted to journalistic integrity and how some balance of objectivity might be encouraged to creep back into the ol’ fifth estate…
Whether Moore or the Anti-Kerry Swift Vets are right is beside the point; campaign finance laws are a blight on political discourse and a violation of the First Amendment. That both Bush & Kerry support such laws is noxious and reason enough not to vote for either of those bozos.
BooPear,
I would perfer a lack of balance myself; objectivity is a chimera by which journalists (right or left) can hide their ideological leanings (right or left). Nope, give me old fashioned 19th century political journalism; letter the reader sort out what they consider true or untrue.
Just to elaborate on Gary Gunnels’ point, one has to look no further than at services like My Yahoo or Google news. When you see the same story being reported by 4 or 5 different news agencies and you see how they shift the focus of the story based on the leanings of the publication or the personal bias of the journalist (and I use that term very loosely) you begin to realize the truth is whatever the press deems it to be. As a for instance, when the story hit yesterday about the report on Abu Ghraib half the stories said the report fingered Pentagon top brass while the other half said that while the entire chain of command shared some blame that the blame was mainly at the unit level. And I’m not talking about Air America vs. Rush. This is AP vs. Reuters.
I am a bunch of zeroes away from being a wealthy man. If I can ‘peaceably assemble’ with a number of like-minded individuals, my $20, as part of a pooled effort, /is/ what gives me a voice in the political scene.
Please forgive me if I take strong exception to those who would silence my voice–as well as those with whom I pooled together–in the name of “getting the money out of politics.”
Contributing to groups for the funding of advertisements is the best opportunity available for ordinary people like me to be heard politically.
The atrocious display of raw bias and distortion by the old-line media in the case of the Swifties is all the evidence we need to justify complete repeal of McCain–Feingold. Unfortunately, too many politicos on both sides of the aisle think they can improve their chance of re-election by silencing ordinary folks.
The ballot box is still there. The soap box– they’re trying to take it away. Better think again about that people, because the next alternative is the ammo box.
I’ve found the link to the final definitive, comprehensive, and very detailed, examination of the Swift Boats issue.
Link here
Once you have read this, I’d be interested for people to come back and comment on the insights.
I see the problem as two separate issues that are being combined into a single entity.
bq. 1) Campaign Finance reform
2) Freedom of speech
Marrying one based upon two in my opinion is not a possible solution. Freedom of speech should have nothing to do with campaign finance reform. Freedom of speech means I have the right to voice my opinions and views. Of course there are some limitations and I forget who said it but basically “Freedom of speech ends where another persons nose begins.”
bq. “First Amendment – Religion and Expression”:http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt1.html
It is a fine line that is open to interpretation. It is also a fine line that imposes less restrictions on what may or may not be said by the populace at large concerning candidates running for public office. Basically candidates are open season to the public at large. The public at large can say what they please without reprisal or fear of legal retaliation from the candidate. It is the publics responsibility to do the research, determine the facts and make their own decisions. It is the _*“NEWS”*_ media’s responsibility to report as best they can the issues without bias. Yes we know reporters are bias and news media outlets depend on ratings or consumer dollars for survival and viability. Would you expect anything less? As we move forward in the forms of delivery from media outlets it is apparent the conglomerates no longer have the strangle hold on the public at large they once held. Technology is a wonderful thing in this area and we as the general public should be concerned about any and all attempts to regulate the content and forms of distribution of said content.
Campaign finance reform on the other hand should be based on the attempt to give each individual access to a level playing field. In an effort to accomplish this our legislative branch has passed numerous laws that dictate how elections are financed. Everything from how much a candidate can provide in the form of personal funding on down to how much a candidate can accept from individuals, business enterprises, non-profit organizations and equal time / access to public media outlets. I’m sure everyone remembers the Fred Thompson fiasco when the challenger requested equal air time based on Mr. Thompson’s entertainment media exposure which had nothing to do with his campaign. The bigger question is what should be done about campaigns and how they are financed. This issue is not just relevant to 527’s and grass root movements as Linda Chavez’s book “Betrayal”:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400052599/103-1038698-4127048?v=glance clearly points out.
bq. _“Both messages make strong claims, both have been questioned, and it’s up to the rest of us to sort fact from fiction. That’s the political marketplace in action, right? Not quite. There’s a key distinction between these two attacks. Viewers paid to see Moore’s movie, while Perry paid to have viewers see his ads. Therein lies the difference between free speech and purchased speech.”_
The problem with this comparison is one is comparing apples to oranges and trying to make the distinction of freedom of speech. In the case of FH/911 the movie is made for profit with a side benefit that allows Moore to pander his personal political stance and beliefs. The SBVT ads are paid for advertisements in a public media forum which is more comparable to film makers airing ads about the movie to entice people to go see it. On the whole the SBVT ads are no different than any other ad on public TV. To draw such a comparison between the two based strictly on freedom of speech concerning political belief and ignoring the other factors is folly.
To compare the SBVT ads to moveon.org and others of the same ilk would put SBVT on equal ground with the political spectrum.
bq. _”Perry provided the swift boat vets with $100,000 of their first $158,750 raised, according to records the group has filed with the IRS. Over the years, Perry reportedly gave more than $5 million to candidates and parties, mostly Republicans and mostly in Texas. It’s unclear that anyone would listen to Perry, or find him credible, if he didn’t pay to deliver his message.”_
He could have “included”:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/04/25/MNGI56ASTQ1.DTL this as well to even the playing field.
bq. _A review of the MoveOn.org fund’s first-quarter fund raising shows that nearly half of its $6.98 million came from just two people: Peter Lewis, the chairman of Progressive Corp., a Cleveland insurer, who gave $2 million, and George Soros, the New York fund manager, who gave just over $1 million.”_
IMO this would make Derek’s argument more palpable concerning paid speech.
bq. _”But when donors pay big money to interrupt what we are otherwise viewing, that is paid speech – and that is where campaign-finance regulations should come into play. We live in an age where the federal candidate who spends the most money wins more than 9 out of 10 elections.”_
The issue with paid speech is it is all paid speech concerning media outlets. One can argue the benefits of PBS and other non-profit organizations concerning the media but at best these outlets are still paid speech depending on the level of donations and funding.
To state Moore’s film is more closely related to freedom of speech is a fallacy. Moore would not be able to produce FH/911 unless he had the personal funds or the backing of the movie industry to make such a film. This quality alone puts him in the same league as SBVT and moveon.org concerning paid speech. In either case it is a paid for speech delivered by Moore in a different medium.
The argument of the theater versus the free TV can also be viewed as a fallacy since both rely on the consumer or organizations for funding and survival. Neither one of these media are non-profit organizations and both have some control over content and delivery. You could argue TV has some mandates in what they must air concerning matters of national concern such as Presidential and State of the Union speeches etc. but this distinction has nothing to do with the election process and freedom of speech which is what Derek is focusing on.
As for theaters I can remember when you were treated to a serial or a cartoon prior to the main feature. Now you are treated to consumer advertisements and upcoming trailers. If theaters could figure out a way to make money on political ads without the potential of destroying their consumer base I am almost certain they wouldn’t hesitate to air them.
USMC,
Giving money to a campaign is a form of political speech. I am an absolutist on these terms. The government should not limit speech, especially political speech. It should not try to dictate the winners and losers of campaigns; yet this is exactly what the government does when it enacts so-called campaign finance “reform” laws.
It is the ‘NEWS’ media’s responsibility to report as best they can the issues without bias.
Why? I perfer a biased news source myself.
let the swift boat vets know what you think:
Joe Ponder, (352) 473-2451, 6986, Deer Springs Rd, Keystone Heights, FL 32656
George M Elliott, (302) 645-5071, 124 Gills Neck Rd, Lewes, DE 19958
Adrian Lonsdale, (508) 758-4046, , Mattapoisett, MA 02739
Van Odell, (281) 395-1703, 1622, Crescent Point Dr, Katy, TX 77494
Grant W Hibbard, (850) 932-7001, 3830 Bangkok Cv, Gulf Breeze, FL 32563
Letson Louis E Dr Jr, (256) 259-1555, 323 Parks Ave Scottsboro, AL 35768
(256) 259-5580
Roy A Hoffman, (804) 935-0943, 3221 Coppermill Trce, Richmond, VA 23294
John O’Neil (713) 654-7600, 1000 Louisiana St, Houston, TX 77002
John Bare, 422 Mill Creek Road, Bird in Hand, PA 17505
Kenneth Buchholz, (972) 355-7623, 1516 Wildflower Lane, Flower Mound, TX 75028
Jack Chenoweth, (573) 964-6872, 108 Hidden Acres, Lake Ozark, MO 65049
Tom Costarino, (703) 748-1602, 2039 Lord Fairfax Rd, Vienna, VA 22182
Morton Golde, (904) 221-7093, 689 Sandringham Dr, Jacksonville, FL 32225
Charles R. Grutzius, (703) 620-0929, 3221 Wildmere Pl, Herndon, VA 20171
Mike Kovanen, (509) 628-9560, 279 Gage Blvd, Richland, WA 99352
Dennis Spranger, (262) 637-6736, 3000 Olive St, Racine, WI 53405
Gary
bq. _”Why? I prefer a biased news source myself.”_
*NEWS* bias concerning elections is a form of political speech. As long as the _NEWS_ media admits to the bias I have no problem with it. Admitting to the bias warns me as a consumer to look at alternate resources to get the entire picture and set of facts.
I don’t have any issues with people giving money to a political campaign. The rub here is the potential for wealthy people and corporations to buy an election. Right or wrong that is currently how the system is set up. Will there ever be an even playing field when it comes to the “monies”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform spent / accepted on behalf of candidates in the political spectrum? Probably never. It could be argued the closest we have come to it at this point are the 527’s since they are not directly under the control or in collaboration with the candidates. The bigger issue with candidates and 527’s is the candidate can not control the political message or the content they want to deliver. Is this a good thing? You decide.
Thanks for the post USMC. You know, they are only sixteen little people and their importance has become very overblown. Real freedom of speech is what was penned, corralled and smothered in Boston, what will be ignored and distorted in NYC, and what is entirely absent at each and every Bush rally. As long as free speech is confused with monetary support, the plutocrats gain advantage. Open your mouth to redress grievances and this is what you get.
Obelus
There is a difference here concerning the forum and the rights of freedom of speech.
bq. _”A man who heckled President Bush at a political rally was fired from his job at an advertising and design company for offending a client who provided tickets to the event.”_
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. If a client provides tickets to a forum the client has every right to assume and expect that they will not be humiliated or disgraced by public antics of the recipients. I don’t know of any client who isn’t looking out for their best interest. The advertising company on the other hand has every right to dismiss the offender. Hiller could have easily said I don’t want to go because I don’t believe in Bush’s policies. If the advertising company had fired him based on his belief this would be a different issue.
bq. _”Hiller was ushered out of Hedgesville High School on Tuesday after shouting his disagreement with Bush’s comments about the war in Iraq and the search for weapons of mass destruction. The crowd had easily drowned out Hiller with its chant: “Four more years.”_
Had this been a town meeting or a debate I would be totally out raged if such a dissent resulted in his removal. However; this was not a town meeting or a public debate forum. It was a rally for a specific purpose or agenda with a gathering of like minds and those open to evaluate a candidates policies. This is not unlike removing the heckler in the theater who creates a disturbance for the proposed agenda of watching the movie.
bq. _”He surrounds himself with people who support him,” Hiller said of Bush. “Your opinion … is viewed as right or wrong.”_
What would you expect at a political rally of any party? Are they to surround themselves with dissenters and try to convince them otherwise? I think not. This is not to say that you can’t attend and listen and draw your own conclusions or beliefs. What is at issue here is this is not your forum to espouse them. You can do that when you hold your own political rally.
The issue Hiller faces here is he may not have the same capability to provide for such a forum or notoriety. His freedom of speech may be limited in the sense of support for the lack of such a forum or notoriety but his freedom of speech is not being denied because he was asked or forced to leave.
bq. _”Last month, Charleston City Council apologized to two protesters arrested for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts to the president’s July 4 rally. The pair were taken from the event in restraints after revealing T-shirts with Bush’s name crossed out on the front and the words “Love America, Hate Bush” on the back. Trespassing charges were ultimately dismissed.”_
This one gets a bit stickier. If the dissenters had been allowed to remain the event may well have gone with out any disturbance. A matter of degree concerning a possible disturbance might be arguable in the sense I would expect more of crowd reaction to a KKK member in full attire at a Jesse Jackson speech gathering. What is clear though is they chose to dissent in a public forum with a specified agenda. They also chose to call attention to themselves by making a statement with their attire in the same sense as one makes a statement with personalized license plates or bumper stickers. In my opinion the safety of the dissenters and the safety of the public at large over ride the wishes of the dissenters. Here again the dissenters freedom of speech is not being denied. It maybe limited in scope due to other factors such as financial or notoriety which is what drives to the heart of campaign financial reform.
If there is one thing Americans love to hate it is their politics. Causing chaos in forums designed for specific agendas could be construed as denying that forums freedom of speech and assembly just as well as the infringements of the freedom of speech by dissenters. The chaos that ensues is not a reflection on the speaker. It is a reflection on the attendance. Given that factor would you think the media would blame the speaker or would they blame the people responsible for inciting the chaos? You decide.
bq. _”Real freedom of speech is what was penned, corralled and smothered in Boston, what will be ignored and distorted in NYC, and what is entirely absent at each and every Bush rally.”_
Again this is where we disagree Bush’s or Kerry’s rallies are not the forum for dissent on the auspices of freedom of speech. These are forums for a message candidates wish to deliver to people of like minds as well as those with open minds that want to hear what they have to say. Protesting at these events does little to further any one’s agenda. At best it provides for chaos and news media fodder at the publics expense.