General Don Bolduc is a Republican running for the US Senate in New Hampshire. He seems like a solid guy who has some excellent ideas. I’m not entirely sure if they are his ideas, but there are people I like and trust that have endorsed him. But I can’t. One of his “ideas” is a dealbreaker.
Eugene Volokh is writing a series of articles on Free Speech and freedom of the press over at Reason. In this installment, he looks at exceptions afforded to a special class of corporate ‘speakers’ the professional press.
Under any sensible accounting scheme, an editorial supporting a candidate would cost a lot in labor costs and the editorial’s share of newsprint, ink, and distribution costs. That would often far exceed $1000; and most newspapers are of course organized as corporations. Likewise for extended coverage supporting or opposing a candidate, when engaged in by an opinion magazine.
(Originally written September 13th but never posted –Blogger House cleaning.)
Anand Giridharadas, writing for the newspaper of record, took the time and column inches to suggest that when Sarah Palin spoke last week she had some useful things to say.
I know, shut the front door.
While not flattering, coming from the New York Times, there is some measure of respect for the notion that Palin is capable of critical thinking. But the left wing progressive memes still linger between the subdued high fives.
“Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done?” she said, referring to politicians. “It’s because there’s nothing in it for them. They’ve got a lot of mouths to feed — a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along.”
Because her party has agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in politics and the unshackling of lobbyists, these will be heard in some quarters as sacrilegious words.
Emphasis mine,
The end of the McCain-Feingold era of unconstitutional speech restrictions demonstrated one very important point. It was wholly a left wing agenda item, and critical enough to the Democrats as a party that they would make total fools of themselves over its end. Almost every left winger who has spoken on the matter is off the rails and Giridharadas’ remarks are no different; that public corporate speech and backroom corporate lobbyists are a reflection the same problem when in fact restriction of the first is what necessitates more of the second, and that is exactly the point.
The left has no intention of removing corporate money from politics or political speech because no Democrat can survive without corporate money or its equivalents. So the left wing narrative for controlling corporate speech has nothing to do with limiting corporate influence in politics it is about keeping the home field advantage. It is about controlling the speech and controlling the narrative–free has nothing to do with it.