Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The FCC Can Can Help Clean Up Big Money in Campaigns
Pretend youre a journalist (if you really are one, ignore that but read on anyhow) and someone calls and says Ive got a good and timely story that I think your readers/listeners would like to know about. There is a government agency that has both the authority and the responsibility to help clean up our broken big-money election campaigns and it is refusing to do its job. Let me explain.
Billions of dollars are being funneled into anonymous, misleading, special-interest TV political advertisements that fill our living rooms with politics at its ugliest. These ads are aimed at influencing and winning your vote while distorting both the issues and the personalities of the candidates running for office. People, long-since sick of these ads, are also convinced that there is no solution, with Congress unwilling to legislate and an Administration unlikely to pursue the matter on Capitol Hill.
Yet there is already a law and even government agency rules already on the books. And the kicker: the agency charged with implementing that law the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) resolutely refuses to do so, maybe because of powerful big money interests, perhaps because of the power of consolidated media, probably both.
For those new to this issue and that would be a lot of us because of medias silence on the story and the FCCs covering it up the requirement for Accountable Ads is in the Telecommunications Act itself, specifically in Section 317, and the (ignored) rules are in the FCCs rulebook. The law and the rules boil down to this: People have a right to know by whom they are being persuaded and this requires disclosure of the true identity of an ads sponsor. Nothing unclear or arcane about that! A political ad claiming to be brought to you by Citizens for Furry Kittens and Cuddly Puppies that is really brought to you by some special interest is insulting to peoples intelligence and to our democracy. Citizen advocate Ralph Nader put it clearly in a recent blog post: The actual ad sponsors, he said, could be chemical companies polluting our water, big arms manufacturers wanting more over-priced government contracts or banks who are opposed to proper regulation of their consumer-gouging tactics and their speculation.
(snip)
Ive talked to a number of the shining stars of TV and newspaper journalism, urging them at least to explore the matter. You would be amazed at the answers I get from these mainstream media mavens. One response (and Im not making this up) was that the ad issue is too out-of-the-blue to cover. Hmm, I thought, isnt journalism supposed to dig beneath the surface to uncover issues? Isnt news something new, often out-of-the-blue?
(snip)
Anybody think there might be something other than a debate over the purity of journalism standards going on here? Well, lets start with this. Most TV stations will take in more money running political ads between now and November than they will earn from those seemingly endless Toyota, Honda and Chevy ads you see when you turn on your local news. (BTW, in many Id say most markets, political ads command magnitudes of airtime more than hard news about the elections themselves. In Philadelphia, when last checked, the ratio was on the order of 45-to-1.) Anyhow, few will express surprise that money drives this. And in this age of consolidated media, with a few giants controlling what should be a decentralized and diverse industry, money wields more media power than ever. These companies merge, spending too much on the transaction, and then, in order to pay the price they cut back the newsrooms or, often, just shut them down. They have to turn a profit so that the wizards of Wall Street stay happy. These ads are closely watched in the financial markets, and god help your company if you do anything to lessen the returns. (Making the presidential campaign into an inglorious reality show helps the bottom line, too. Thats why CBSs CEO can say Donald Trump may not be good for America, but hes great for CBS.) Corporatized, centralized, commercialized media is more destructively inimical to our democratic well-being than anything else I can imagine.
(snip)
http://billmoyers.com/story/fcc-can-can-help-clean-big-money-campaigns/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 688 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The FCC Can Can Help Clean Up Big Money in Campaigns (Original Post)
Uncle Joe
Jun 2016
OP
What was blocked in the Senate, the FCC and the current law which is cited in the OP?
Uncle Joe
Jun 2016
#4
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)1. You can thank Ronald Reagan and his fairness doctrine for most of this.
A Democrat majority in the Senate with a Democrat in the White House can start resolving this situation.
Uncle Joe
(58,482 posts)2. I believe we had that exact scenario since Reagan at least twice.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)3. Can you say "blocked in the Senate".
Uncle Joe
(58,482 posts)4. What was blocked in the Senate, the FCC and the current law which is cited in the OP?