Amidst the seemingly incessant din of political advertising that we are all forced to endure this campaign season an idea occurred to me. We can actually get a "twofer", slamming the door on attack ads and eliminating Big Money from the political equation simultaneously. In this election cycle both of these objectives are literally within our grasp.
The subversive effect of special interest on American democracy is vaguely familiar to even the most casual observer of the political process in this country. For over a decade now polls have consistently shown that as many as 86% of our fellow citizens recognize the corrosive influence of Special Interest and Big Money on the political process. They also show that Americans uniformly feel disenfranchised by that undo influence. Thus, only 12% of participants in a Diageo/Hotline poll felt that a member of Congress would put them first as opposed to donors, lobbyists, special interests or political party leaders.
Are these feelings really valid? Do they actually pertain to the present campaign? You bet they do! This week, Lindsay Renick Mayer revealed that during this election cycle current candidates for the House of Representatives have collected 90% of their contributions from big donations (defined as more than $200). Senate candidates did a bit better. They collected only 86% of their contributions for this election from big donors.
But do these big donors really have any influence? Try this one on for size. On average, House members who defeated the bailout bill on Monday collected nearly $587,000 in donations from the industries most affected. The bill's supporters received $883,000. Thus, the Representatives who supported the $700 billion bailout bill received 51 percent more in campaign contributions from the finance, insurance and real estate industries than those who opposed the emergency legislation. A coincidence, right?
The big money comes in but where does it go and what is its relationship to political advertising? Those questions might best be answered by looking at the Big 5's (the 527's, 501c's and other political groups known by their IRS code designations). They have a constitutionally protected right to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on thinly veiled "issue ads." As such, the Big Fives have become the funnel for the most pernicious use of Big Money and Special Interest in politics - attack ads.
Political advertising and particularly attack ads are the final common pathway for Big Money and Special Interest in American politics. To verify the connection one need only consider that in 2004 the candidates spent an average of 55.8% of their campaign expenditures on "media." But on a percentage basis, those guys were slackers. During the same election, the most notorious 527 organization, the Swift Boat Veterans and POW's for Truth, spent a whopping 109% of their receipts on "electioneering communications".
Not convinced? In the present campaign, during the week following the 2008 Republican convention, both candidates aired political ads on TV a total of nearly 70,000 times. More than 66% of the ads were directed against their opponent. It is the threat of these attack ads or the promise of money to produce such ads that allow Big Money and Special Interest access to, and influence over, our elected officials.
For the past 140 years we have produced a barrel of campaign finance legislation designed to limit the influence of Big Money on the electoral process. This prodigious effort has been consistently stymied either by an ineffectual regulatory arm >(Federal Election Commission) or by the firewall of the First Amendment.
One need only spend an hour in front of the TV set during this election season to experience that truth. I would submit that the answer is not additional campaign finance legislation and it is most certainly not repeal of the First Amendment.
Put simply, the solution is literally in our own hands. The vast majority of political ads are delivered via television or radio. We need only exercise our right not to listen! Whenever a political ad comes on, simply use your finger on that dreaded remote and change the channel. And, keep changing the channel every time they come on. Ditto radio ads.
Believe me the campaign ad managers will hear you loud and clear particularly if this becomes a movement and we coordinate it to be done on a given day or week in the campaign. Are you listening MoveOn.org, OpenSecrets.org, RockTheVote.com? Alternatively, imagine the patina of freshness and honesty that would accrue to the candidate who first proposed and supported such a movement. Could anyone deny that they were supporting real change?
Properly couched, a coordinated campaign such as this could rapidly proliferate because it taps into the animus that polls say more than 80% of Americans harbor towards Big Money, Special Interest and their worker bee, political advertising. Indeed, it could quickly snowball into a true "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore!" moment.
Only this time Americans would not have to risk the embarrassment of opening their windows and disturbing their neighbors. Even couch potatoes could make a significant contribution by simply changing the channel in the privacy of their own homes. Revelation of revelations! Television could actually empower democracy rather than undermine it.
And, not a single individual would have to change their political philosophy by one iota for this movement to be successful. Indeed, it is important to realize that this effort is not a liberal vs. conservative thing. Nor is it a Democrat vs. Republican thing. Remarkably, it may be a first step towards recognizing our common interests in the midst of all the divisive hogwash.
By coming together for one brief period we can demonstrate our collective animus towards Big Money and Special interest. In doing so, we may once again realize the individual empowerment engendered by putting aside our differences to act in concert towards a common goal. It would be truly noteworthy if we could accomplish this at election time when the only thing we usually do collectively is to emphasize our differences.
Let us take a moment now and review the bidding. A message not seen is a message not delivered. A message not delivered is one not worth paying for. If it's not worth paying for then campaigns don't need the Big Money to pay for it. More importantly, they don't need to pay obeisance to those who "donate" the money or threaten to use it against them by supporting ineffective attack ads.
So just remember, in words that President Bush the elder might have uttered, "Big Money and political advertising: Baaad! Flipping off attack ads: Goood!" This is simple stuff, folks. It is something we do every day for other purposes; i.e., to avoid those annoying commercials. Product advertisers depend on your interest in the program you were watching to dissuade you from changing the channel.
Political advertisers depend on the same things to ensure your inertia. We need only remember that far more is at stake when we encounter a political ad than what brand of toilet cleaner we plan on using. What is at stake, quite simply, is freeing our system of government from the yoke of Big Money and Special Interest. And, we do that by avoiding biased political propaganda. Ergo, the "twofer."
I would hope that thought would supply sufficient impetus and empower every one of us to take this initial step on our journey to reclaim American democracy; by letting our fingers do the walking. In the surprisingly apt words of that great American, Larry the Cable Guy, let's "Git-R-Done."