Conflict of interest
Like Diogenes (see below), you may have noticed that most mass-media outlets are quite happy with the Supreme Court decision to uphold restrictions on campaign funding. Ordinarily you can count on the media to uphold free speech. Not this time.
Wonder why? It's simple, really.
If you're running for political office, you need to get your message out to the voters. There are 3 ways, essentially, to do that:
- You can talk to voters personally: ring doorbells and shake hands. That's not easy, particularly in a large district; for a statewide or national election it's not a viable option.
- You can buy advertisements, circulate flyers, and send out mail. That's expensive; it requires cash. And now there are tighter restrictions on cash.
- You can use the mass media. If they're sympathetic, reporters will provide you with plenty of free publicity. If they're unsympathetic, you're out of luck.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: principle not pragmatism -
Dec. 15, 2003 6:57 PM ET USA
Campaign finance laws serve the interests of the 2 major parties and thwart any attempt to advance the idea of a third or fourth party to threaten their monoply of the political process. Ask anyone who has gone through the the efforts to promote an alternative to the Democrat and Republican party. The establishment does everything it can to make the process more difficult with great sucess.
Posted by: Gil125 -
Dec. 12, 2003 7:38 PM ET USA
"[C]ampaign-finance restrictions serve the interests of the mass media.... Strange that you never see it in print..." I have written several letters to editors of metropolitan dailies pointing out that fact over the years. None of which has seen print.