What public discourse? On corporate political speech
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning political speech restrictions on corporations and unions, a chorus of voices from the Democratic Party has attacked the decision. Notably, President Obama claimed in his State of the Union address that the ruling “will open the floodgates for special interests… to spend without limit in our elections.”
I think we are missing the point. The fact is that corporate, special, and powerful interests already have effective control of our political system. As Jon Stewart’s coverage of the State of the Union effectively shows, our public discourse is already in the shits. Fox offered only vapid criticisms, saying the President was not acting “presidential” — whatever the hell that means. MSNBC the most desperate praises; and CNN the most useless collection of raw data from Twitter. This is the discourse we desperately need to save, say the Democrats?
Perhaps it’s irresponsible for me to refrain from thinking about the merits of this decision–but it’s more important to look at our political system and public discourse before the ruling, which Democrats have treated as apocalyptic. For from being the valiant resistance, Democrats are actually part of the problem. Their monopoly on progressive, left, or liberal forces in the United States, whose leaders, no matter where they start, once filtered through the party machine, end up spouting meaningless make-believe like Obama on Palestine in Tampa, is part of the same special interest control that has incapacitated our country.
Last September, as the Court was hearing arguments on the case, Eliot Spitzer penned an op-ed calling for the regulation to be overruled. In his more persuasive points, Spitzer argued that the exclusion of “media companies” like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News from the restriction, was “a distinction that makes no logical sense” — especially since these are all channels with clear political agendas, with clear loyalty to the two-party system, if not to individual candidates, and with clearly little substance to contribute to our discourse. It’s hard to see how the systemic bias and inanity of the mainstream media (which is also corporate, by the way) is not part of the problem, especially if the proclaimed goal of such legislation is to facilitate a healthier public discourse.
I can’t help but think that there is a larger problem here. When we call for restrictions on corporate speech, we are missing a larger picture. My gut sense is that this call is informed by a patriarchal attitude towards the mythical “average American.” We place ourselves outside of this fictitious person (Joe Six-Pack, if you will) when we call for his protection, since we–unlike him–are apparently so well-informed and intelligent that we’re not susceptible to the same influence and mind-control as he.
This apparently patriarchal dilemma leads us to our real problem: sure, we can try all we want to patch the holes in this leaky dam of corporate rule, rushing from one plugged hole to the next one that bursts. None of these short-sighted regulations will address the larger issue of corporate power in this country, however. Surely we can’t believe that if corporations can’t spend money on explicit endorsements of political candidates 30 days before a federal election, that they will suddenly lose their stifling powers, thereby finally allowing our political creativity and freedom to flourish.
How can we buy such a fanciful idea when every aspect of our society, politically, economically, socially, and culturally, is pervaded by corporate influence? Our educational systems are designed and developed in coordination with corporate needs; our pop culture has become an industry; our streets are overwhelmed with corporate pollution in the forms of advertisements and billboards; even our humanitarian efforts are sponsored and guided by corporate money — and this one weak restriction, which does not even limit corporate donations to candidates (a separate issue from speech) is supposed to hold back the floodgates?
We cannot change the way media works if we rely on a vertical remedy, as the patriarchal approach attempts, hoping only to limit its excesses. We must adopt a more horizontal approach to inspire and spread the critical modes of thought that are necessary to rejuvenate our political culture. Underlying the notion that corporate money unduly “influences” people is the demeaning idea that Americans will gobble up whatever their televisions beam at them — if that is the case, we have to change the way people engage with media, as much as, if not more than, we need to change the media.
I empathize completely with the need for media (and politics!) that is more transparent, honest, and sophisticated. To that end, however, we have to fundamentally re-think and re-approach the issues. It’s myopic to understand the relationship between corporations and our political system against a First Amendment backdrop alone; that relationship is so imbricated in our society at large that focusing the discussion on some ghost ideal of free speech simply obscures the real power dynamics and issues at stake.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Speech Therapy – Post-Racial | ||||
|
||||
Great article Yaman, and well written. I agree that the left is perhaps exaggerating the impact of this ruling, but that is no reason to let it slide, either. The fight against media should occur on all levels, not just "horizontally, " as you say, in the sense of developing media alternatives or teaching critical thinking skills, but also "vertically" in challenging and dismantling the hierarchy itself, and attempting to bring it down in ways that don't minimize or challenge the right to free speech. Plugging holes in the dyke is a worthy if futile effort.
To this end I feel enouraging a boycott of the mainstream media is the best tactic. We cannot govern content without attacking free speech, but we can choose to refrain from supporting media whose content we abhor. Lots of people criticize the media but then watch the news and buy newspapers every day. This influences their thinking whether they realize it or not, and no matter how much they may fancy themselves to be objective or critical thinkers. My brother watches Fox News because he "wants to know how the enemy thinks." But he isn't aware that many of his opinions, such as a belief that most malpractice lawsuits are "frivolous" (his word, and the mainstream media's) are heavily influenced by exposure to this mind poison. He is also helping Fox stay in business.
If everyone in this country who disdains the media would boycott it, newspapers and television would go out of business. Don't just boycott Fox News, but boycott Fox network as well. Boycott their advertisers. Turn your tv off, give the money you spend on newspapers and magazines to genuinely progressive candidates like Ralph Nader or Cindy Sheehan, and give your mind a much-need mental health break.
Boycott is a revolutionary act, it's free, very liberating and doesn't involve violence, coercion or attacks against anyone. It simply requires your non-participation. Don't wait for a movement to come along to tell you what to do and set the boycott agenda. Do it yourself, now, based on your own values.
One way to do this is to reproduce articles we want to share/criticize in mainstream media by embedding them in other sites, so advertising revenues go elsewhere, and the context of the site is independent rather than business.
I love it Yaman. What do you think it means that Sean2009 is the only one to comment on this? Do few others in the Palestinian movement in the US adopt a critique of the influence of corporations in their analyses of the I-P conflict? That's a big gap that needs to be addressed.
In my experience, people at the core of organizing around Israel boycott and Palestinian advocacy in the US have big picture views and are involved in all kinds of community issues, not just Palestine. However you might be right about the mass of support, ie the Arab American & even Muslim communities in general.
That said it would be presumptuous of me to assume that those 2 facts explain why there has not been a more vibrant discussion. It could be better explained better by other things, like my boring writing
Generally, when an article is well written and covers all the bases, few people feel the need to comment on it. I see this on a lot of high quality blog posts. Few people will chime in just to say "ditto" and most comments on most blogs tend to be adversarial. I wrote in myself to express my opinion that the article was good and because I saw an opening to discuss my pet hobby horse of boycotting the media.
It's sad that we rarely respond to the stuff we agree with, if only to give the author support even if we have nothing to add to the debate. I find it very awkward to do so, but that is part of my culture. You can't judge anything about an article by the number of replies.
That was a pretty good ruling as a matter of fact. The outrage is not necessary and misguided. Your article is not too shabby but it fails to address the underlying principles behind why lobbying and special interests have come to dominate the political environment in the first place.
specifically you failed to address: 1) the proper role of government, 2) the current state of the economy, and 3) how and why individuals would see the need to form pressure group politics to exert influence on legislators and why that is the logical outcome of the first 2 points. Once these issues are identified and addressed the principles behind special interests/lobbying, irrespective of any issue, can be recognized and those "power struggles" between citizen vs corporation that you regard as a metaphysical given would cease to exist.
As for now I am going to celebrate the decision of the supreme court which drew a firm line between government power and the inviolability of freedom of speech despite the naysayers and hypocrites who think first amendment rights apply to them only and not to others.
And Sean, you have it right with boycotting that which does not agree with our values. However your suggestion that we should instead donate our money to progressives is utter rubbish.