News Flash: Anchor Stands Against "Unfair" Campaign Spending

There was real emotion in his voice when ABC News anchor Charles Gibson used Friday night's newscast to stand up for little-guy McCain against online-fundraising powerhouse Barack Obama. By opting out of public financing, Gibson intoned, the Democrat could obtain "two times, three times, four times, as much money as John McCain."

"Let me ask you a question about basic fairness," Gibson implored of his top D.C. correspondent George Stephanopoulos. "People in this country like to believe that people play on a level playing field and that a campaign will be about ideas and personality; if you start with that much more money, is it basically fair?"

It was more a statement than a question, like Brit Hume anchoring at Fox. (ABC has gone Fox-like in crusading over "Obama's Switch" and "Back Flip" and "Flip-Flop" on public financing.)

Gibson's egalitarian "fretting" about fairness was too much for right-wing media critic Brent Baker, who belittled the anchor and McCain: "If Obama can raise more than his opponent, it just reflects greater enthusiasm for him. And there's hardly any nobility in taking taxpayer money when you know you'll be challenged to raise a larger amount voluntarily."

To me, the good news is that a network anchor was giving prominence to the plight of underfinanced candidates.

The bad news is that it's taken years to see an anchor make such a stand. And that Gibson (like other media voices in recent days) is making his stand for "fairness" against a candidate who has attracted 3 million contributions from 1.5 million donors giving an average donation of $91. In other words, against a candidate who is arguably less beholden to big-moneyed interests than McCain. (The Gibson clip is at Crooks and Liars.)

I have mixed emotions about big media's newfound concern for under-funded candidates. Beginning in 1992, Norman Solomon and I used our nationally-syndicated column to criticize mainstream media for their failure to focus on campaign spending inequities and the elite funders of corporate-friendly politicians.

Days after the 1992 election, we wrote that "national media seemed almost clueless to explain the triumph" of endangered U.S. Senate incumbents - with the New York Times blandly noting that many incumbents "somehow managed to survive." We mentioned several narrowly victorious Senators like corporate-backed sex-harasser Bob Packwood of Oregon, who outspent his Democratic challenger by more than 3 to 1. And ethically-challenged Al D'Amato of New York, who outspent his liberal opponent 2 to 1. Our column - titled "We Need Term Limits for Political Pundits" - concluded that "big bucks special interests dominating Washington are almost a taboo subject."

In that column and others, we urged political journalists to calculate and report which candidates won more "votes per dollar spent" - arguing that the "VPDS count would make it clear that many incumbents would have been defeated if not for their advantage in dollars."

So here we are in 2008, and we're witnessing an apparent flip-flop in mainstream news - with bleeding-heart appeals to "fairness" on behalf of the less-funded McCain enough to make a right-winger cringe. From the same outlets that spent decades worshipping a politician's corporate fundraising prowess as a sign of that candidate's strength, seriousness, viability.

When longtime media lapdogs on campaign inequities transform into fierce watchdogs in the face of Obama's online fundraising clout, the public is wise to be suspicious. Are these elite voices truly upset because Obama shifted his position? Are they upset all of a sudden that one candidate has a financial advantage over another?

Or is this just the fear and loathing of the Netroots resurfacing - like when establishment pundits went hysterical as Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in 2006?

Here is an upstart candidate - like Dean in 2003 - with a powerful grassroots funding base that goes way beyond the corporate sponsors of the nightly news. To the old-line media establishment, that's scary.

If network anchors want to be taken seriously on campaign "fairness," they might propose common-sense reforms. For starters: free TV and radio airtime to candidates.

--

Jeff Cohen is the director of the Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College. In 1986, he founded the progressive media watch group FAIR.

Comments

[sherwoodforest]

I am glad that Obama is acting on his strength- it shows good judgement. We need a strong candidate so that we can win this important election. But I hope that we get this problem fixed because next time we might not have as dynamic a candidate. I think Jeff Cohen's last bit query is the most important.
Why is there not free air time for candidates? Why do we give these corporate giants our tax money and then they use it to sell us their soap? They are not fulfilling their agreement for public service for the free ride we tax payers are giving them.
If you agree, join Free Press at http://www.freepress.net/
And please tell the trolls to get a life- where was their anger when they swift boated Kerry, a veteran, as we were going to war? That was shameful.

[vallon]

It's rather irritating that the MSM is still trying to scare people out of donating to the Obama campaign by repeatedly wondering whether Barack will 'pay off' Hillary's debts...of course, he can't directly give funds, but they forget to mention that...

[barbaraw60]

YOU HARD WORKING OBAMA SUPPORTERS... KEEP SUPPORTING HIS CAMPAIGN FOR AFTER ALL:

"Obama never did any political favors for Tony Rezko."

Asked if he had intervened on behalf of Rezko or Rezmar with any
government entity, Obama replied, "Never. No."

(But, as Illinois state senator, Barack Obama wrote two letters on
Illinois state letterhead to state and city officials supporting Tony
Rezko's bid for $14 million in state and city funds to construct a
building (in spite of the fact Rezko already had a long record of
incompetence in the construction field). Rezko got the $14 million in
grant money, which included $855,000 in development FEES for Rezko and
his partner, Allison S. Davis, Obama's former boss. The two letters can
be viewed at:

http://media1.suntimes.com/multimedia/obamaletters2.pdf_20070612_17_11_03_906.imageContent

[TexasT]

You're a troll.

Go play on Hillaryis44

[candycane]

The truth always hurts Texas

[alldone]

Will do!

[PopeRatzo]

He "wrote letters"??? Well, why didn't you say so? Obviously, "writing letters" is a whole lot worse than actually SPONSORING LEGISLATION at the behest of corporate lobbyists the way Senator McCain has done.

But McCain never wrote no letters, that's for sure. Because he was too busy pulling legislative strings for military contractors and Savings and Loan bigwigs.

You right-wing folk are funny.

[MrsPeel]

ZZZzzzzz...

[TXOBAMAGIRL73]

Can it Troll

[barbaraw60]

KEEP SENDING YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY IN TO HIS COMPAIGN FOR AFTER ALL

"Obama never heard the Rev. Wright say those bad things."

(But, Obama now acknowledges he DID hear the Reverend say many bad things over the years. In fact, Obama had, early in the campaign, asked Rev. Wright NOT to appear at one of Obama's events because, as Obama said to the Rev. Wright, the Rev. was known to say "rough" things. Obama
said, "we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-t_n_92077.html

BTW, trapped by the videotape proof of Rev. Wright's ugly, anti-American remarks, Obama said he was "outraged" by what Wright said (although Obama seems to have been stone deaf for the 20 years he listened to Wright preach that same hate in Trinity United Church, Sunday after Sunday, for 20 years). Obama finally DENOUNCED Rev. Wright as "divisive and destructive" and called Wright's comments "appalling."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/29/obama.wright/index.html
)

[alldone]

*sigh* He said that he was not there when Wright said those specific words. He admitted he was there when Wright said other things that he didn't agree with. But, thanks for the reminder - I'll be sure to not pull the lever for Rev Wright in November....Oh wait..what? Wright's not running for president...? Could have fooled me...

[musselmanm]

Do you trolls and haters know that your vitrol does encourage us supporters of Senator Obama to contribute more in many instances.
We cannot send large donations but if we budget right we can answer you by sending small amounts more often1
Keep up the good spirits work for us!

[barbaraw60]

KEEP SENDING YOUR MONEY TO HIM... AFTER ALL HE

"Obama would never vote to fund the Iraq war."

That is what Obama told campaign audiences in 2003 and 2004 (when our
troops were ALREADY in harm's way in Iraq), because he wanted their votes.

(But, once in the U.S. Senate, Obama voted "for" every Iraq war
funding bill that came along, except for the last one, which both Obama
and Hillary voted against. http://tinyurl.com/2cjnxb )

[barbaraw60]

KEEP DONATING TO THE MAN WHO LIED ABOUT:

"Obama's only relationship with Tony Rezko was the five
hours of work Obama did for Rezko while in a law firm."

But Obama had a close friendship with Tony Rezko for 17 years, during
which time Rezko -- we now know, no thanks to Obama -- raised more than
$250,000 for Obama's political campaigns and financially helped Obama to
be able to afford to buy the mansion the Obamas now live in.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0704230648apr24,1,671186.story
and http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4111483

[musselmanm]

He is right, keep sending money.
Yes we can!

[JonW]

Yea verily--keep sending money, Obama fans.
The Rethugs cant stand the notion that the Obama contributions from ordinary folk
will dwarf the corporate/special interest groups contributions. Heh, heh, heh!

[TXOBAMAGIRL73]

Can it troll

[barbaraw60]

LIST OF LOBBYISTS CONTINUES:

-- *Kip Tew*, the top advisor to Obama's Indiana campaign is an ENERGY
LOBBYIST.

-- former South Carolina governor *Jim Hodges* is a national co-chair
of Obama's campaign and is advising Obama on his southern political
strategy. Hodges runs a LOBBYING firm, the Hodges Consulting Group, and
is registered himself as a FEDERAL LOBBYIST for Hillenbrand Partners,
a Chicago-based company that does business with the Federal Home Loan
Bank, according to U.S. Senate lobbying disclosure records.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/07/sc_obama_backer_is_also_a_lobb_1.html

-- *Moses Mercado*, an adviser to Obama, was registered in Washington
to LOBBY on behalf of several several CORPORATE clients, including
AT&T.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/07/sc_obama_backer_is_also_a_lobb_1.html

-- Obama's campaign co-chairman in New Hampshire is *Jim Demers*, a
state-based LOBBYIST whose clients include pharmaceutical companies.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/07/sc_obama_backer_is_also_a_lobb_1.html

[barbaraw60]

Here's a partial list of Obama's LOBBYIST advisors and "helpers" whose
agenda is NOT on behalf of the America people BUT is on behalf of the
corporate interests:

Billy Vassiliadis* a longtime Nevada power broker, MINING LOBBYIST, and member of Obama's Nevada campaign steering committee.

Obama got $60,000 from *Mayer, Brown Rowe & Maw*, the heavyweight LOBBYING firm whose partners reportedly helped write the 2005 Class Action Fairness Act that essentially forced most state consumer class actions into the backlogged and Republican dominated federal courts.
Like the bankruptcy bill before it, class action reform was a special interest extravaganza, with the insurance, credit card, banking, pharmaceutical and auto industries hiring so many LOBBYISTS that there was nearly one for every member of Congress.
http://www.thetortellini.com/2006/12/obamas_anticons.html

Obama also got $70,000 from *Sidley Austin,* home of the notorious Dan Troy, the former FDA general counsel who USED his government perch to help DRUG COMPANIES win lawsuits filed by injured consumers.
http://www.thetortellini.com/2006/12/obamas_anticons.html

*Daniel Shapiro*, one of Obama's foreign policy advisers on the
Middle East, registered to LOBBY for several CORPORATE clients in the
last year ... Shapiro counts some of America's biggest CORPORATE names
among his clients, including beermaker Anheuser-Busch, carmaker Daimler
Chrysler, the American Petroleum Institute and Freddie Mac.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/07/sc_obama_backer_is_also_a_lobb_1.html

[barbaraw60]

And, Obama still accepts money from state lobbyists:

"Obama accepts contributions and fundraising help from state
LOBBYISTS. Florida LOBBYIST Russell Klenet hosted a fundraiser for
Obama Aug. 25, according to the /St. Petersburg Times/. Two months
before, Klenet had withdrawn as a LOBBYIST in Washington for a
kidney dialysis company that RELIES heavily on FEDERAL revenue,
Senate records show. Klenet did not return phone calls."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obamainside_N.htm

"Obama would rid Washington of the influence of LOBBYISTS"
... now, that is hilarious when one considers that:*

Obama hires and uses LOBBYISTS as campaign advisors (lobbyists are
already on the inside with Obama ... presumably they would follow Obama
INTO the White House, much as the energy lobbyists followed Bush into
the White House where they wrote the president's energy legislation for
him. No need to "donate" to gain access to Obama ... these lobbyists are
already INSIDE the Obama team.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/07/sc_obama_backer_is_also_a_lobb_1.html

[barbaraw60]

**"Obama does not take money from federal lobbyists."*

(Technically true BUT, Obama takes money from the SPOUSES of FEDERAL
lobbyists, and Obama uses federal lobbyists as his campaign advisors.

"Obama accepts money from SPOUSES of FEDERAL LOBBYISTS. In
December, the campaign returned a $250 contribution from LOBBYIST
Thomas Jensen of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, but a few days
later, it cashed a $500 check from his WIFE, Sarah, records show.
Jensen said his wife had "personally chosen" to contribute to
Obama."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obamainside_N.htm

The fact is that lobbyists give money to a candidate to gain ACCESS. If
a lobbyist is ALREADY inside the campaign as an advisor, there is no
need for that lobbyist to donate to the campaign.

"Obama counts LOBBYISTS among his informal ADVISERS, including
Broderick Johnson, who heads the Washington LOBBYING practice of
Bryan Cave, which represents SHELL OIL, records show. NINE campaign
staffers have been LOBBYISTS, public records show. "
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obamainside_N.htm

[barbaraw60]

SOOOOOOOOOOOO much whining about ABC... just like their favorite candidate did after the debate when he gave Hillary the "finger".... and his supporters clapped and yelled in appreciation... denigrating women around the country with his remarks... At least Charlie Gibson had the "guts" to ask the tough questions... You guys are such Obamatrons... try thinking a bit..

Adding to Obama's flip-flops and lies category... on campaign funding... he signed a paper and vowed one year ago that he would us campaign funding... a turn around and down right lie... and he also claims to not use lobbyist money's... go ahead... I am not making this up...read the accounts with sources below... IF YOU DARE TOO... MAYBE YOU WANT TO BE AN EDUCATED VOTER!!!

[mcole]

you are boring. obama will be president. dont like it? dont let the door hit ur azz on the way out..

[PopeRatzo]

really. Why do all the trolls seem to have numbers at the end of their names? Does it help them get through the tests that blogs use to block spam?

[cgpunker]

Oh good grief. Try thinking critically will you?
Spouting the usual crap is NOT thinking.

I DARE YOU to reread what he "signed" - that no other dem nominee even answered - and understand the concept of an if/then statement.

[anamorphicart]

Please get that tin foil off your head!!

[candycane]

Thank You. I am sharing this with everyone I know.

[wheresthebeef]

Time to put on your paper hat, crawl out of your parents' basement and head off to clean out the fry-o-later at Mickey D's, isn't it?

[ohnoyoudidnot!]

Thanks for writing this. I certainly took note when I watched this on ABC. Kind of like the axe job Gibson pulled during the infamous ABC "debate".

Charlie Gibson is a joke not a journalist. He needs to report the news in an unbiased manner and keep his opinions to himself.

[jemiltd]

It is pathetic to see a seasoned newscaster digress from his paid role to be an actual journalist, expressing personal opinion on his newscast. Charles, it is abundantly clear that you are a Republican and pro-McCain. So when you complain "no fair" because Senator Obama opted to get off the funding teat -- which, by the way, is a real risk and, I think, a smart move -- I wonder why you didn't complain when some of your Republican peers chose to do the same in past elections? But I digress, this is about you as a journalist. I was somehow hoping that the untimely death of Tim Russert would be a wake-up call for journalists in all media. I was hoping that at least more of you would take a moment to reflect on how you measure up to journalistic integrity, and maybe become less biased, more straight-forward without using your power of the microphone to express your personal point of view and call it news. You have made noises about not returning when your contract is up. Is this the legacy you really want to leave behind? Showing the world how biased you are and perhaps have always been? Your credibility is being leeched into the smarmy pool of bad journalism and I am certain that's not how you want to be remembered.

[Timetheos]

I know this will sound a bit reactionary, but I have not watched ABC in any way shape or form since the rancid debates. I guess you could call it a boycott.

[americanwomaninpa]

good for charlie.

[vallon]

ROFL

[cwr 59]

What the hell is wrong with the Main Stream anchor's? Has Fox built the mold and now they are all trying to fit into it?
You can spin this six ways to Sunday but the simple truth is, the American people have in their minds someone that they feel they can trust. At least in the narrowist form possible. They have seen just how far the power of the office of the President can be used and abused at our expense. Most of us are smart enough to know when an anchor is giving us facts of a story and when they are putting their personal beliefs in hoping we will mind up with them.

Come On!!!!
CWR

[candycane]

we will see how much the American people trust Mr. Obama when they walk into their voting booth in November.