Conflict of interest

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Dec 11, 2003

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:

1. 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.
2. You can buy advertisements, circulate flyers, and send out mail. That's expensive; it requires cash. And now there are tighter restrictions on cash.
3. 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.

In short, campaign-finance restrictions serve the interests of the mass media. The argument is obvious, really. Strange that you never see it in print...