Tag Archives: PACs and Super PACs

How Can We Ever Hope To Bring Americans Together?

Posted on by

Regardless of which candidate wins this year’s presidential election, it’s all but certain that Americans will be more divided than ever. We’re divided by far more than politics. We’re divided by ideology; by media choices; by attitudes toward guns and violence; by attitudes toward the environment; by a woman’s right to decide what is right for her own body; by energy policy; by foreign policy and military intervention; by acceptance and tolerance for those who are different than ourselves; by faith.

As the US, like many other nations, lurches farther to the right, it seems that we cannot agree on anything. One side accepts science while the other relies almost exclusively on faith. One side believes in evolution while the other side believes in creationism. One side works to abate climate change while the other side calls it a hoax. One side embraces other cultures and ethnic groups while the other side chooses to discriminate against them. One side accepts authority and bullying while the other fights against it. One side supports corporatism (aka fascism) while the other supports individuals. One side celebrates wealth and power while the other side celebrates the working class. One side worships individualism while the other side worships community and collectivism. One side demands status quo while the other side demands expanded civil rights.

No matter which candidate wins in November, roughly half of the population will vehemently oppose the winner’s policies.

It would seem that the only thing that can possibly pull our nation together is a disaster – a military or terrorist strike against our nation or a financial calamity on the order of the Great Depression. Ironically, the burst of the housing bubble and the ensuing Great Recession were not enough to create unanimity. Ignoring the facts, each side simply blamed the other for their hardships.

In order to seek more palatable solutions, we must first look at how we arrived at this point. It began with the Nixon-Agnew strategy of divide and conquer. It continued with the GOP’s embrace of southern bigots and evangelicals along with Paul Wyerich’s strategy of voter suppression. It accelerated with the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine which allowed electronic media to choose up sides and lie at will. And it was cemented by Newt Gingrich’s embrace of parliamentary-style politics which disdained any form of compromise.

So what can we do?

1. To begin, we should all demand more of our media by reinstating a Fairness Doctrine that would require all media, both electronic and print, to operate in the public interest. That means to tell the truth and hold politicians accountable.
2. We should overturn voter suppression laws and make voting easy, maybe even mandatory, for all American citizens.
3. We should bring transparency to campaign finance and overturn Citizens United.
4. We should, once again, make it illegal for corporations to contribute to political campaigns.
5. We should break the lobbyists’ hold on Congress by passing laws to end the revolving door from Congress to lobbying groups, and to limit lobbyist access to Congress.
6. We should end all forms of gerrymandering by passing laws to put control of congressional redistricting into the hands of independent commissions.
7. We should demand that the IRS reinstate restrictions that prevent non-profits from disguising their political focus, thus doing away with PACs and Super PACs.
8. We should institute term limits on all Senators and Congressional Representatives. If it makes sense to limit the president to two terms, it should make sense to do the same for Congress.
9. We should hold the individuals who manage political campaigns liable for lies and disinformation. That would prevent them from avoiding election fraud by simply dissolving the campaign entities following an election,
10. We should demand more of ourselves. We should each seek to inform ourselves about the candidates and the issues in order to meet the expectations of our Founding Fathers by becoming an enlightened and informed voting public.

Even if you don’t agree with these proposals, we must do something. And we must do it now. It may be our only hope for unifying our nation and moving it forward. Indeed, at the risk of being seen as hyperbolic, it may be the only way to avoid another Civil War.

A Simple Way To Reform Political Advertising.

Posted on by

Since the Supreme Court decisions in Buckley v. Valeo, Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC, there have been numerous initiatives to reform election campaigns. Most involve asking Congress to pass Constitutional Amendments that would control election finance or require publicly-funded elections. Though these attempts are admirable and necessary, I think they have little chance to succeed. Instead, I propose a much simpler way to reform political advertising that would not, in any way, infringe on the right to free speech.

All we need to do is hold political advertising to the same standard as advertising for products and services.

When a large corporation produces an ad for a product or service, it subjects the ad to legal compliance before placing the ad on television. That compliance process makes sure that any claims can be substantiated and defended in court. If the claims cannot be substantiated, the company may still run the ad at its own risk. (Indeed, even those ads that have passed legal compliance may be the center of a lawsuit.) But the company, the advertising agency, the writer and often the production company can all be held accountable for damages in ensuing lawsuits by numerous organizations such as the corporation’s competition, the Federal Trade Commission, the BBB, state Attorneys General and industry regulatory groups. This process ensures that ads tell the truth.

For example, when I began my career in advertising, I was recruited to write advertising for a product that promised to give your car better gas mileage and performance. Although I had been given a copy of an independent research report, I was still skeptical of the promises. So I asked the clients to sign an affidavit that the information I had been given was true. After the ads ran, the state Attorney General filed a multi-million-dollar lawsuit naming the company, the art director and me. Thankfully, when I presented the affidavit to the AG, the art director and I were dropped from the lawsuit. The lawsuit was settled out of court with the company agreeing to pay a large fine, to return money to customers who requested refunds and to cease sales of the product.

The system worked. But there is no such system for political advertising.

Political campaign committees have long been free to say and do whatever they want. If an opponent sues over false and misleading advertising, the issue seldom comes to court until after the election. By that time the damage has been done; the entity that is the campaign committee no longer exists and usually no longer has funds to pay any fines. Only rarely are individuals held accountable and, if they are, the settlements take place much later away from the public eye.

The Federal Elections Committee could easily solve the problem by demanding that candidates and campaign managers sign affidavits that the claims made in their advertising are true and not misleading. Ads could be submitted to the FEC and bi-partisan state election committees for compliance. More important, all of the individuals would be held liable even beyond the election. (Yes, the system might require more federal and state funding. But isn’t the process of choosing an elected representative more important than choosing a laundry detergent?)

This would make the standards for political advertising almost identical to the standards for product advertising. As a result, this system should impose no undue hardship for politicians.

As for dark money groups (PACS, Super PACS, 501c4s) funded by billionaires and corporations which now sponsor the majority of our political ads, they can be held accountable by a one word change in the IRS code governing non-profits. Instead of the code requiring that non-profit groups be “operated primarily for the promotion of social welfare,” the code should be returned to its pre-1959 wording which required that non-profits be “operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.”

The only real problem with this proposal is that Teapublicans simply don’t want to make changes. The FEC commissioners are split with 3 Teapublicans and 3 Democrats, and the Teapublicans have blocked every proposal to reform elections. They are content with dark money, with attack ads and with lies. In fact, they are quite good at it. Recent studies have shown that the preponderance of political lies come from Teapublicans. But aren’t these the same people who demand accountability from others? Adding an independent FEC commissioner would end the stalemates and make the FEC relevant again. These relatively minor changes would make all politicians accountable and likely make most political campaigns civil again. More important, it would make them more fair by requiring candidates to tell the truth and it would eliminate dark money from the process.

Who could be against that…other than liars and cheats, of course?