Great efforts are underway both locally and nationally to keep secret the identities of people and organizations paying for local political advertisements. But Americans can still do something, even when broadcasters shirk their responsibilities. Here's what you can do to reveal who's paying for -- and hiding behind -- misleading political ads on your TV.
Over the years we've been reporting on how power is monopolized by the powerful. How corporate lobbyists, for example, far outnumber members of Congress. And how the politicians are so eager to do the bidding of donors that they allow those lobbyists to dictate the law of the land and make a farce of democracy. What we have is much closer to plutocracy, where the massive concentration of wealth at the top protects and perpetuates itself by controlling the ends and means of politics. This is why so many of us despair over fixing what's wrong: we elect representatives to change things, and once in office they wind up serving the deep-pocketed donors who put up the money to keep change from happening at all.
Here's the latest case in point. The airwaves belong to all of us, right? They're part of "the commons" that, in theory, no private interest should be able to buy or control. Nonetheless, government long ago allowed television and radio stations to use the airwaves for commercial purposes, and the advertising revenues have made those companies fabulously rich. But part of the deal was that in return for the privilege of reaping a fortune they would respect the public interest in a variety of ways, including covering the local news important to our communities. If they didn't, they would be denied their license to use the airwaves at all.
Alas, over the years, through one ruse or another, the public has been shafted. We heard the other day of a candidate for office in a Midwest state who complained to the general manager of a TV station that his campaign was not getting any news coverage. "You want coverage?" the broadcaster replied. "Buy some ads and then we'll talk!"
That pretty well sums up the game. But hold your nose: it gets worse. The media companies and their local stations -- including goliaths like CBS and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp -- stand to pull in as much as $3 billion this year from political ads. Three billion dollars! And most of that money will pay for airing ugly, toxic negative ads that use special effects, snide jokes and flat out deception to take us to the lowest common denominator of politics.
The FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, which is supposed to make sure the broadcasters don't completely get away with highway or, rather, airwave robbery has proposed to the broadcasting cartel that stations post on the Web the names of the billionaires and front organizations -- many of them super PACs -- paying for campaign ads. It's simplicity itself: give citizens access online to find out quickly and directly who's buying our elections. Hardly an unreasonable request, given how much cash the broadcasters make from their free use of the airwaves.
But the broadcasting industry's response has been a simple, declarative "Not on your life!" It would cost too much money, they claim. Speaking on their behalf, Robert McDowell, currently the only Republican commissioner on the FCC -- the other one left to take a job with media monolith Comcast -- said the proposal is likely "to be a jobs destroyer" by distracting station employees from doing their regular work. The party line also has been sounded by Jerald Fritz, senior vice president of Allbritton Communications, who told the FCC that making the information available on the Internet "would ultimately lead to a Soviet-style standardization of the way advertising should be sold as determined by the government." We're not making this up.
Steven Waldman, who was lead author of the report that led to the FCC's online proposal, quotes a letter from the deans of twelve of our best journalism schools: "Broadcast news organizations depend on, and consistently call for, robust open-record regimes for the institutions they cover; it seems hypocritical for broadcasters to oppose applying the same principles to themselves."
Hypocritical, but consistent with a business that values the almighty dollar over public service. The industry leaves nothing to chance. Through its control of the House of Representatives, it got a piece of legislation passed this past week euphemistically titled the FCC Process Reform Act. George Orwell must be spinning in his grave -- this isn't reform, it's evisceration.
Not only does the bill remove roadblocks to more media mergers -- further reducing competition -- it would subject every new rule and every FCC analysis of that rule to years of paper work and judicial review, enabling the industry's horde of lawyers and lobbyists, "to throw sand in the works at every opportunity," as one expert puts it. There was a noble attempt by California Congresswoman Anna Eshoo to include in this bill an amendment that, like the FCC proposal, called for stations to post online who's putting up the big bucks for political ads. Shocker -- it was rejected. Score another one for the plutocrats.
There is some good news. The White House opposes this latest bid by the broadcasting oligarchy to further eviscerate the public interest. And the fate of the House bill in the Senate is uncertain at best. In the meantime, as far as those political ads go, we're not totally helpless. Here's what you can do: Under current law, local television stations still have to keep paper files of who's paying for these political ads, and they have to make those files available to the public if requested. You can even make copies to take away with you. So just go down to your nearest station, politely ask for the records, and then send the data online to the New America Foundation's Media Policy Initiative or to the organization of investigative journalists ProPublica. Both have mounted campaigns to get the information online.
Each is pulling together all the information on political ads they get from you and others -- crowdsourcing -- and making it available to the entire country via the Internet. If you're a high school teacher or college professor of journalism, have your students do it and maybe give them classroom credit for collecting the data democracy needs to work.
In other words, here's a way citizens can take action even against the plutocrats who run Big Media and Congress.
Addendum: The media reform advocacy organization Free Press is also conducting station file inspections, and has just published an easy-to-follow guide to how it's done.
----
Moyers & Company airs weekly on public television -- check local listings. See more features -- including our all-new TAKE ACTION page -- at BillMoyers.com
Previously posted on Billmoyers.com.
Follow Bill Moyers on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BillMoyers
Nathan Newman: Solving the Google Privacy Problem Will Largely Solve the Google Antitrust Problem
Bill Moyers: WATCH: Keep Political Ads Off Public TV
Al Franken: How Privacy Has Become an Antitrust Issue
Broadcasters don't want to put campaign ad data online, so ...
Resistance to FCC broadcast disclosure rules for ... - The Daily Caller
FCC Rules | Full Disclosure | Broadcast Advertisers | The Daily Caller
Tell the FCC to Preserve Democracy On Air By Supporting Online ...
After all, information was gathered by people before the internet was around.
I bet that could pass in California, etc.
My guess is that these people and orginizations can afford to throw stones through the
windows, and fire bomb, the lives of others, but can't afford to be held accountable.
The very definition of cowards.
Moyers doesnt mention unionist interests which outspent all business concerns ( followed by the lawyers PAC) in 2008 in supporting the statist agenda of Obama. He also doesn't wade into how the MSM and Hollywood is already firmly left-leaning, but they would be presumed to be free of any regulation. Of course, Moyers being part a the MSM establishment doesn't see it, but of course the MSM bias is clearly there.
Bill Moyers also dent comprehend the force of the Internet to fuel free thinking and acting individuals to start personal campaigns and collaborations outside Govt control. So to him, movements as diverse as Kony 2012, tea party and "obamagirl" could be in the crosshairs for ever-expanding FCC bureaucrats to evaluate and censor. Bill-go away with your arguments that are 30-40 years outdated.
Bill everyone of your sour predictions like media concentration (itself become significantly mor diffuse with the advent of the internet and cable) has been off mark.
To me, that question has a double meaning.
Who pays your hospital bills if you are injured or become seriously ill and have to go there?
Most people want the best treatment they can get, regardless of the cost, because "I'm not paying for it, the insurance company is".
Of course that's not really the case, the insurance companies just pass on the cost to all of us in the way of raising premiums, but that attitude still remains the prevalent one that I see. You can get an Hover round at "No cost to you". How many times have you seen that ad? Something for nothing, always costs, it's just hidden amongst the tons of paperwork.
Who pays for political ads?
The American people are the ultimate payers.
Campaign finance in this country is nothing short of legalized, state sanctioned...........bribery.
With that as it's foundation, how can ANY government we vote into office NOT be corrupt?
IMPO...public financed elections and eliminating outside influence would go a LONG ways to cleaning up American politics and getting our government back on track.
American's now have "The worst government special interests money can buy"...........and it shows.
They are build in such a way to offer services to the ones that have money to pay for them or serve their interests. That is why many such organizations belong to large companies.
So no names will appear on any list any time soon.
Now if the founding fathers in producing the constitution condoned :
shooting unarmed strolers,
wealth ruling the political debate,
congress for sale,
and outrageously expensive for profit care for americans,
then perhaps the founding fathers were not the half gods they are so often portrayed to be.
And perhaps our constitution needs a serious overhaul.
I think the electorate can do something not be too time-consuming for individuals. A website with a form about those ads. Eg. 1. station, 2. length (could be approximate) 3. date and time, 4. Pro Who?, 5. focus. If the focus is pro fracking for instance, tthe financier might have been Haliburton. If the focus is against the new healthcare, the financiers would have been all those who fight cheaper healthcare because it would eat into their profits. The forms should be so that they'd identify several people writing in about the same ad.
I hope, the 3 billion are for all of them, not just Murdoch's News. The fallout from the hacking scandal in Britain is to cost them 1/4 of a billion so far, no wonder then, he is not phased by that expenditure. Part of that money would be better spent by the donors to pay their workers a little better instead of getting 'my man in the White House'. For every thousand Dollars that News spend as donors, they'd get 80 or 90 % back ............ so they are sitting in the golden seat, buying influence (which they certainly did under Reagan) for a fraction of the price!
So why question the fact that as citizens we should know who is behind them? We need to know who is trying so hard to buy our votes.
And by the way there are in the same fashion bloggers paid to discredit articles and writers unfriendly to special wealthy interests, since the tobacco trials, the hockey stick controversy and other instances. These interests know that its cheaper and more effective to slow reform by paying people to sow cheap controversy to alter public opinion. Always keep in mind they have the money, to me all posts protecting industry, political power and their interests are to be looked at with this in mind