Corporate Influence In Politics

Last January, after the Supreme Court overturned the ban on corporations’ spending money on federal campaigns, the Times Editorial Board got angry.

Here’s some of what they wrote

With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century...

The majority is deeply wrong on the law. Most wrongheaded of all is its insistence that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights.

It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate.

The Times suggested Congress & President Obama respond in a number of ways, including –

It should also enact a law requiring publicly traded corporations to get the approval of their shareholders before spending on political campaigns.

Today, the Times, which is a corporation and therefore, according to the Times, not entitled to the same First Amendment rights as people, gave away ¼ of their Op-Ed page to Harold Ford to announce he was wasn’t going to run for Senator.

This free advertisement for Ford (worth over $100,000 if he bought an ad) allowed him to explain what a great job he would have done in the Senate and did not include any announcement that he would never run for office in the future.

In case you forgot, last year the Times did the same favor for Congressman Anthony Weiner, who announced that he wasn’t running for Mayor in 2009 and in 2008 for  Mike Bloomberg, who used the Times valuable space to say he wasn’t running for President that year.

Everybody I know thinks Weiner is running for Mayor in 2013 and most think Mike is, at least, thinking about running for President in 2012.

To the best of my knowledge, the Times did not get the approval of their shareholders before making these in-kind contributions to Ford, Weiner or Bloomberg.

But since Mr. Sulzberger doesn’t think he’s like a 19th century robber baron, I guess it’s OK.



Submitted by Larry Littlefield on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 10:19am.
A few years ago, the Times stopped obsequiously reporting the small member item grants our state legislators hand out, insignificant amounts of money they obtained in exchange for mindlessly voting yes on the deals that sold out or future. And they no longer take everything the Greater New York Hospital Association's massive lobbying arm says and report it as fact.

Nonetheless, the damage is done. And they still are unlikely to report on any challengers to incumbents in legislative offices. After all they have no chance to win, and shouldn't have bothered to run, so what they have to say is not news fit to print.

Submitted by Yoda on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 12:16pm.
The Times won't even report on legislative contests (outside of the Whitest parts of Manhattan) where challengers have a chance to win. They have decided they are a national paper and New Yorkers are not their audience
Submitted by oyun oynama sitesi (not verified) on Fri, 03/05/2010 - 5:10pm.

The Times won't even report on legislative contests (outside of the Whitest parts of Manhattan) where challengers have a chance to win. They have decided they are a national paper and New Yorkers are not their audience

 

I think I agree ..


Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.